![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I deleted it twice, because it is basically reporting that a men's mag rated her as sexy, and that a comedian joked about whether men want to have sex with her. See Public image. I suppose it's possible a model or actress celebrity type BLP subject might reasonably be assumed to have no objection to this kind of stuff on a page about them. But AK is none of those things. It's been put back by User:BabbaQ. I think the section is intrusive for this subject and I think the section should be removed. Overagainst ( talk) 23:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a very good argument for there not being an article on Amanda Knox, since it serve mainly to duplicate the "Murder" article. But we have one, and the only conceivable justification for it is that it can include information about Knox that is too trivial/tangential to include in the main article. It doesn't, therefore, make sense to sense to talk about structuring the article so that trivial/tangential information is excluded. There's certainly no BLP violation here. Formerip ( talk) 23:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Malcolm B. Frost ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This BLP was created by Afrosty ( talk · contribs), and they seem to admit they have a COI [1].
I told Afrosty that, per WP:COS, You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends. [2]
An administrator Buckshot06 ( talk · contribs) told Afrosty to continue editing it. I questioned that, but the admin is adamant - saying, "I am happy to let him edit the article directly". [3]
I am not sure how to resolve this issue, because it seems clear to me that the behavioural guideline says Afrosty should not edit the article, but Buckshot06 is disregarding it. I've already tried to resolve it on Buckshot06 talk page, but seem to have reached an impasse. Hence, asking for help here.
Thanks in anticipation, 88.104.19.233 ( talk) 21:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Bullshit!
WP:COS is absolutely clear.
I assume you can read the link, so I will not repeat it here.
Why are we not enforcing that behavioral guideline?
Even if you do not agree with that, surely you can't argue with consensus on COI - COI editing is strongly discouraged.
So why is this admin encouraging it? 88.104.19.233 ( talk) 06:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Instructing a new user to break policy/guidelines on BLPs is not a good idea. 88.104.19.233 ( talk) 07:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This person h as been proven to be a false identity created by wiki user solarhyper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.92.130 ( talk) 17:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Fatemeh Shams is a contemporary prize-winning Iranian poet and literary scholar based in Oxford University. She was born in Khorasan, Mashhad in 1983 and completed her studies in the field of sociology and literature after winning the silver medal in national Olympiad of literature in 2000. As a censored voice in Iran, Fatemeh, published her first book of poetry in Berlin, Germany in 2013 under the title of " 88". The book contains socially and politically avant-garde poems that are mostly written in exile and echo the sense of displacement and diaspora. Fatemeh won Jaleh Esfahani poetry prize for the best young Persian poet in 2012. Her work has received scholarly attention by some of the leading literary critics and translators such as Dr. Ahmad Karimi Hakkak and her poems have been translated and published in other languages including English and Italian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masoodnaderi ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Manuel Valls is Minister of the Interior for France. He has recently undertaken an effort to ban anti-Semitic performances by comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala. User:Blaue_Max has thus changed the sentence "Valls is often considered in France as a representative of the social-liberal wing of the French Socialist Party, sharing common orientations with Scandinavian-style Social Democracy and Blairism" to "Valls is often considered in France as a representative of the social-liberal wing of the French Socialist Party, sharing common orientations with the state of Israel" twice, and this is still in the article. [4] [5] He has also introduced his own negative opinions of Valls into the article, referencing YouTube videos that are primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.169.109.224 ( talk) 09:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
In recent edits, someone has added uncited text claiming a connection of Arseniy Yatsenyuk to Scientology. As the claimed reference amounts to "some guy in Russia said this" in a BLP article, the text should go pending any better cites. Since a blogger quoted this text the day it was added, I'm inclined to think it was the blogger himself who made the edit. As I am broadly blocked from editing any Scientology-related articles (even bogus connections), I'm bringing it here rather than removing myself. AndroidCat ( talk) 16:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Edoardo Costa, both in English and Italian has a potentially libelous section referring to an ongoing legal issue that is poorly cited from questionable sources (tabloid and gossip sites). The English version of the section appears to have been translated with poor results by an online translator, rather than a native speaker. The sections are replaced once removed, even while citing BLP guidelines on both versions of the page. The claims made on the page are rather serious and defamatory. The issue can be seen here.
Controversy section is unverifiable, the sources do not link to any existing article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.220 ( talk) 01:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
An editor seems to be on a vendetta against this person, using extremely insulting language on the talk page. I request fresh eyes on the article, and comments by someone willing to explain BLP policies. I had a previous disagreement with this editor, so perhaps I am not best for the job. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Joeschultz22000 ( talk · contribs) has been adding unreferenced and poorly-referenced BLP-violating material to William E. Lori. I am now at 3 reverts. Per WP:3RR, I am taking the report here for more eyeballs. Thanks in advance. Elizium23 ( talk) 04:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit war between Indiggo77 ( talk · contribs) and 63.247.160.139 ( talk · contribs). Indiggo77 is apparently the subject of Indiggo stated here. Indiggo77 is removing content, but providing sources. The anon is removing any additions by Indiggo77. Jim1138 ( talk) 04:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The "sources" Indiggo77 adds aren't legitimate. For example, they are saying they are American, and providing a youtube video that they made of photos of themselves. Also, User Indiggo77 is actually Mihaela and Gabriela Modorcea (collectively, Indiggo) which is not allowed on Wikipedia, right?
I'm not sure if I am supposed to reply here or on Jim1138's page. Thanks. 63.247.160.139 ( talk) 04:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The section on the recent political crisis does not appear to be objective, since the question of whether there was a coup d'etat is contested by the two parties in the dispute. The article blames "one faction" in the crisis for "causing" the crisis by trying to overthrown Kiir. This is also contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.0.176 ( talk) 09:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The article Ira Trivedi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is tagged as advertorial, rightly. Most of it was written by a WP:SPA whose image uploads indicate a connection with the subject. It contains many primary sources, a lot of which are basically press releases. However, the subject does seem to meet the notability guidelines, taking the content at face value.
I am uneasy about having a biography tagged as an advertisement and the article certainly falls well short of normal quality standards. If anyone has a special interest in Indian contemporary literature, maybe they could have a look? Guy ( Help!) 09:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
This article has been vandalised repeatedly by specific users. It has been created recently with no verifiable sources clearly to use for numerous personal attacks on the person in question, Reham Khan. Extremely personal information such as the names, ages and location of relatives is regularly posted, of questionable accuracy but represents a huge invasion of privacy and threatens her personal safety. Other times, completely inaccurate and slanderous or libellous statements are made which have no sources. These are regularly made specific users, the most frequent of which is Somiya321. It should either be deleted since it is a stub or stopped from repeated vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRoach12345 ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
[6] removed a detailed statement about a medical condition which appeared unrelated to any biographical value. Another editor has demurred on the talk page saying it "looked fine" to him. Does medical stuff generally belong in BLPs? I had rather thought "minor medical stuff" was "right out." BTW, the claim was unsourced to boot. To me it looks more like "put anything remotely damaging into a BLP of a politician." Collect ( talk) 14:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The office of Kevin Ranker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has emailed OTRS and we've given them the standard advice; they are playing straight and have made some requests on the talk page, but the article's not on a lot of watchlists so they have not been reviewed yet.
I know several folks here are keenly interested in US politics, so could I ask one of you to review the talk page and merge in anything that looks to be appropriate. Thanks Guy ( Help!) 17:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
This article needs some neutral eyes. My past efforts to clean it up have been futile as two editors who started editing the article within a few days of each other have been dominating the article since 2011. [7] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
An article about Leslie Cornfeld existed from 2006 through 2013. A little over a month ago the user who moved the page to a draft created a discussion here on the noticeboard to which I replied with a list of third party references for potential use on the draft or eventual article. I also reached out several times to the editor who moved the page to a draft with the references, but received no response.
I work for Rubenstein Communications and on behalf of Leslie Cornfeld ask that some volunteers consider incorporating the following third party sources to the draft and moving it back to an article page. To mitigate conflict of interest issues, I would like to refrain from editing the draft directly unless specifically invited to do so.
Samantha Mathis' own Facebook page says her birthday is Feb. 20, 1960. Your article on her says her birthday is May 20, 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.183.157 ( talk) 12:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The current Wikipedia page on Gary Null does not reflect a neutral point of view (NPOV). The content is overwhelmingly negative and much of the more disparaging commentary is derived/referenced from a highly prejudicial source: "A Critical Look at Gary Null's Activities and Credentials" [25]. Essentially, the link is an attack page from Quackwatch, authored by an individual, Stephen Barrett, who states that he "has been tracking Gary Null's activities since the mid-1970s". Moreover, Mr. Barrett's article clearly indicates that Mr. Null's attorney has repeatedly advised him to "remove the offensive and libelous material from your website or face legal action."
Earlier today, I made edits to Gary Null's Wikipedia page and introduced biographical content from his Faculty Biography page [26] at Fairleigh Dickinson University with the intent of providing a more rounded perspective on the subject. I also included content that expanded on and clarified Mr. Barrett's involvement in the matter. All of those particular edits were quickly undone. I am relatively new to editing at Wikipedia and would appreciate further guidance in this regard.
Jpsanders ( talk) 06:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Reply to comment by Second Quantization: one cannot tell what,"independent secondary sources" and "primary source" you are referring to? Nor what "article" you are referring to. If it is the TIME magazine article on Null [27], on the subject of AIDS, it describes Null's position thusly in one sentence: "Null takes a similarly radical approach to AIDS, raising a long-discredited argument that one of the reasons traditional therapies are ineffective is that it has never been proved that HIV plays as great a role in the disease as scientists believe". If you saying that TIME magazine is espousing "aids denialism", please take it up with the Wikipedia editor who originally added the reference from TIME. If you are referring to Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch article about Gary Null [28], please be advised that Barrett's intense criticism of Null does not include an allegation of AIDS denialism. Barrett makes a single mention of AIDS in regard to Null's writing: "Other articles in the series promoted chiropractic and homeopathy and claimed that effective nutritional methods for treating AIDS were being suppressed...". Again, if you believe Barrett is downplaying aids denialism, please take it up with the Wikipedia editor who originally added the reference. Jpsanders ( talk) 11:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Should this article contain a sentence highlighting this person's underage arrest record? The issue here is one of WP:UNDUE. The "personal life" section is only seven sentences long, including the sentence at issue. I'm also concerned that editor adding this material is an WP:SPA, as he has edited no other articles, refuses to discuss on talk or adhere to WP:BRD, and originally inserted the material with the edit summary "added info about his criminal past". Gamaliel ( talk) 20:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi! While this isn't exactly a report, I've noticed that this article appears to be somewhat controversial, and I'm interested in bringing it up to par. As it stands, the article is in a bad place: primary sources, blogs, and self-published sources abound. However, it is a vast improvement over the old version of the article. I bring this to the noticeboard for two reasons: first and foremost, the article is in need of desperate help, and I figured this was a good place to go. Second, the article has a long history of controversy dating back to over a decade ago. Many IP editors, single-purpose accounts, accounts with narrow editing patterns, and even Yudkowsky himself have edited the article, often advocating for the inclusion of contentious or poorly-sourced material. I bring this last fact not to the attention of the noticeboard because I'm worried that this will happen again (though it very well may, as there's been recent accusations of "anti-Yudkowsky forces" in the edit summaries! and yesterday there was a revert war), but rather because I think this is the perfect time to make both parties happy and improve the article. I encourage anyone and everyone who is interested to come help out, or even just leave a suggestion or two on the talk page.
Thanks for your time, Inanygivenhole ( talk) 00:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I removed a lot of unsourced material from this article [29], which was undone by User:Yorkshiresky [30] "Deleting a lot of relevant material - tag where appropriate". The page has been tagged with a BLP unsourced section since January 2011.
I think all of the material removed falls under "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.", as per WP:BLP and would like some feedback on clarifying the position instead of embarking on an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DElliott ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I recently read through this article, Gary Null because of a source dispute. The source dispute is one issue which could be fairly debated from both sides, but more importantly the article is almost entirely pejorative, an attack piece. If there are editors interested in BLPs who might like to look in, that would be a good thing probably. I won't be posting on the article myself and have no opinion on the subject of the article, just looking for BLP interested editors to add uninvolved scrutiny on what seems to be a heavily-weighted article. Thanks. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 18:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC))
In the entry on Larry Bird The sentence "Due to chronic back problems and having a vagina, he retired as a player in 1992." The highlighted phrase appears to be false and a derogatory/mischievous remark. Thought best to bring it to Wikipedia's attention.
There is an RFC that may be of interest to this forum, of how to describe/qualify Nugent's comments about Obama calling him a "Subhuman mongrel" and Chimpanzee" Talk:Ted_Nugent#Obama_Comments_RFC Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, in this article, 2 users insist on adding material that states that fans have taken to calling him by an offensive nickname. They cite fan forums as a source, which I understand are not reliable, therefore not allowed, especially for something like this. I keep undoing these adds, but the IPs keep re-insterting this material. What can be done about this? Or am I off-base here? Advice and assistance appreciated! Electric Wombat ( talk) 00:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be sourced and accurate material that was posted to this page which was then deleted by the original creator more than once. As the page suggests, this falls into the Conflict of Interest violation criteria, as the creator is a person close to or is the subject. The information should be re-posted permanently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.245.242 ( talk) 12:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Meryl Davis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Under personal life, the last sentence states "she can play the skin flute," which is slang for a penis and obviously offensive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.160.239.225 ( talk • contribs)
So on January 25, 2014, Cdestefano ( talk · contribs) blanked Chris DeStefano. A month later, Sethjohnson1987 ( talk · contribs) put the article up for Prod because "Chris Destefano requested that this page be completely removed", and I quickly deprodded it. On Sethjohnson1987's talk page, he wrote that "I work for his music publisher (SonyATV/EMI) and he emailed me asking for it to be taken down. Though he might change his mind and have us update it for him." What should be done here? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Please help in editing this article. Jim Murray passed away on March 1, 2013. THX https://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/570610/James-Rigney-Murray--70.html?nav=13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DixieDear ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The article Yuri Maltsev ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is caught up in the Austrian Economics farrago; as a result, a biographical article is tagged as unreliable and of questionable notability. I don't see much evidence of reliable third party sourcing in the history, but I am completely unsympathetic to the subject (a libertarian and apparently an advisor to the Heartland Institute, who I consider to be a plague on society) so I am not the right person to review this. Could someone please review the article, and either source it and remove the tags, or start the ball rolling on getting it nuked. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 14:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Recently information was edited [31] into Tor (anonymity network), and then substantially changed [32]. It is reportedly statements by two named individuals responding to questions about their alleged actions (with no factual basis, I might add) that, if true, would be an immense scandal and ruin their reputations. I'm in the process of discussing this with experienced editors. It appears likely that once reliability is sorted out, I will discuss the topic here. Poorly sourced information that could damage people's reputations should be removed until a consensus is reached. The information is poorly sourced because it has been cited and wikilinked to The Washington Post newspaper when in fact it was on their WP:NEWSBLOG entitled The Switch and published by that organization. The page has since been placed under Semi-protection and Pending changes protection to prevent my repeated attempts to remove the material pending consensus. Could someone please remove the material for the time being? 92.78.115.171 ( talk) 13:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The citation now reads as: Fung, Brian. "The feds pay for 60 percent of Tor’s development. Can users trust it?" Washington Post's The Switch. So end of BLP issue? --— Rhododendrites talk | 15:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit History:
So four editors have opposed you (yes, the correct number is four -- your count was incorrect), nobody has supported you, and you were blocked from editing the page because you attempted to get your way through edit warring. Despite repeated requests, you have made zero attempts to explain why you imagine that a BLP violation exists when nobody else sees one. It is still a mystery why you think that. BTW, nobody is bothering to respond to you because blocking you from editing he page solved the problem. I think we are done here. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to get some input on the notability of this figure before taking any action and I'm a bit rusty on my BLP standards. If anybody else would be so kind as to take a look and let me know their thoughts on his notability I'd be most obliged. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
With regard to the External Links section of Churchill's article, does the section currently conform to the norms of what usually appears in the External Links section for a BLP? AzureCitizen ( talk) 02:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Candace Hutson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello! This is Candace Hutson. My last name has since changed but Hutson is my maiden name, and was my professional acting name. My birthdate is incorrect on your site, My actual birthdate is May 3rd, 1980. I have submitted to IMDb a request for a correction for my birthdate. If you could please correct my birthdate on Wikipedia, it would really stop irritating my family, friends, and even my kids! I would appreciate it so much! Thank you for your time on this simple matter! Thanks again. Sincerely, Candace Hutson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.139.234 ( talk) 03:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
This notice is regarding this page: Stephen Cooper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stephen Cooper /info/en/?search=Stephen_Cooper_(businessman)
The following article is repeatedly referenced in the "Personal Life" section, but it has no affiliation to Stephen Cooper, so I removed it again: http://www.bloomfield-cooper.com/dm20/en_US/group/business/bloomfieldcooper/index.page.
Please kindly let me know why this article is repeatedly re-posted and let me know if it can stay removed.
(Relates to the current, that is the of February 2014 edition of the article)
The article about member of Ukrainian parliament, Regional Party member Olena A. Bondarenko, does not meet Wikipedia standards. The article looks to have been amended/written by someone with very strong personal views about the conflict in the Ukraine. If anything, the article demonstrates how far away from each others the parties in the conflict are.
I opened a discussion of this, under the folowing subjects:
1 Very low standard article 1.1 Questionable and unverified information 1.2 Serioius, undocumented claims about Bondarenko and the police 1.3 Politicised, emotional language
I will hereby restate the problems with the article.
Documentation:
William Thourlby ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IMDB says this person passed away in April of last year. I have located an obit, but it is small and does not make mention of his acting career, so I'm wondering if that really is him. Thoughts? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Sergio Fabbrini (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Please remove the article for the following reasons:
1) It is a CV and it is not relevant: there is no encyclopedic suitability of the subject; 2) The biography often refers to unverifiable (as well as uninteresting) contents ("married with...two sons..."), that may also violate the privacy of third parties. 2.235.43.146 ( talk) February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, WP:BLPKIND says
Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable.
I'm wondering how this applies to the work of the subject; that is, an article about their book, company or product. If the subject is upset about misrepresentation of their work, how does BLP/OTRS apply? Thanks Span ( talk) 15:08, 25 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.
I'm not sure of what to do about this. An Irish sports journalists is currently under trial for alleged sexual exploitation of a minor. The allegations include coercing a child to engage in the production of child pornography and inducing or coercing her to engage in a sexual, indecent or obscene act. A BBC report on the trial is here.
The article on the person accused of the crime makes mention of the allegation and that the trial has begun. As is common in many jurisdictions, a person accused of such crimes in Ireland are not ordinarily identified while the court case is underway. In part, at least, this is to protect the identity of alleged victims.
We are, of course, not censored and the Wikimedia Foundation is not subject to the laws of Ireland, I presume (not a lawyer!). However, I'm minded to remove mention of the criminal allegations until the trial has concluded as suggested by WP:BLP (see WP:BLPCRIME).
Any thoughts before I do so? -- Tóraí ( talk) 21:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I have been adding material about to the controversies related to David Samson (New Jersey) a living person, and want to make sure that the material is appropriate. All the material added is supported by reputable sources. As there are no other editors participating in editing that article I'd appreciate some fresh eyes and feedback. Cwobeel ( talk) 04:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
A lot of work needed to get this biography of the Ukrainian politician up to scratch. Many (most?) of the sources don't seem to be adequate for a BLP. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Matt Mulhern (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Michael Mulheren (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Hi Wikipedia,
Just trying to point out a mistake on your Biography of the Actor Matt Mulhern. It said he had a recurring role in the TV Series 'Rescue Me'. As I was a big fan of both Rescue Me and the film Biloxi Blues, in which Mulhern played one of the lead roles, I knew there was something not right as I had no recollection of him in Rescue Me. It turns out the mistake is most likely down to another actor called Michael Mulheren being confused with Matt Mulhern-both incidentally from New Jersey, but different people and it was the former appeared in Rescue Me and not Matt. Hope this has been a help and will get to the correct person to fix the mistake.
Eamonn Walsh Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.178.95.4 ( talk) 15:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Several editors are adding death information for this subject but no references are being offered. I can not find any mention of his death searching the web and have reach 3RR to support its removal until referenced. I would like other opinions.— John Cline ( talk) 09:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Peter Ruckman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some eyes are needed on the Peter Ruckman article. This diff is typical. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I may be missing something here so I'd like some uninvolved editors to look at the following content, is it a BLP violation? It has been in the well attended article since December 2013 but maybe it is a violation and I'm not seeing it. And RfC was started on the talk page over its inclusion:
Robertson also drew criticism for viewpoints he expressed that critics characterized as "minimizing the era" of racial segregation in the southern United States, calling his comments "insensitive". [1] [2] [3] Robertson said: "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field [...] They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people'—not a word! [...] Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues." In response, the Human Rights Campaign and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) wrote a joint letter to A&E calling Robertson's remarks dangerous and inaccurate. [4] [5] [6] [7] Jesse Jackson's human rights group, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, has "demanded meetings with A&E and with Cracker Barrel" over the issue, and, together with GLAAD and the National Organization for Women, urged A&E to keep Robertson on hiatus. [8] Dan Savage opined that he felt that Robertson's comments about African-Americans under Jim Crow laws were "much more offensive", but because in American culture issues of sex are generally discussed more than issues of race, his comments about race would be discussed far less, in favor of issues about gay sexuality. [9] [10] [11]
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Please do not remove the following comment again -- it has been improperly removed twice now and I am damn sick and tired of cleaning up after those who violate talk page rules about removing comments
Note: The material was discussed at an RfC which closed all of a week ago -- and this is blatant forum shopping now. The consensus was clear:
The OP here had already commented at that RfC, and trying to get extra bites of the apple is improper IMO. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC) replaced yet again Collect ( talk) 21:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
In short -- the material failed at an RfC and this is blatant forumshopping. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 21:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Comments please. Page with longtime disputes and editor seeks to overrule others in using gossip column as acceptable source for negative articles, yet not use for positive articles. Please help. Is an active living person. 165.254.85.130 ( talk) 09:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
There is an OTRS ticket Ticket:2014022410000719 re Ronn Torossian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is one of those cases where a thankless task needs doing: the complaint is in respect of the rather sneering tone of the article, but the guy is a gifted self-publicist and this has been going on for years ( Ticket:2011032810012659, Ticket:2008110410017083, and Ticket:2006121510017939 which suggests the article has its roots in a PR exercise on his behalf by his firm) so treading the fine line of tone and balance is going to take some skill. If there's someone who is genuinely interested in the field of PR then please do have a go, because I think an editor with subject matter knowledge is likely to be the best bet here. Guy ( Help!) 13:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I usually walk through pathehtic crap like this, but this takes the cake.
I recently heard about Epiegenetics and naturally I wanted to see what I missed the last decade.
Eva Jablonka Intentionally missrepresent links.
Marcus Pembrey Same.
Edward J. Steele Same....AAAND the Anti Deffemation Leage link leads to An American Politician.
None of them fo what I could see refeered them selves as Lamarckians.
FYI, these manchildren are still around, disengeniusly spamming Lamarckian page and "Nature versus nurture" and half the Biology pages. 84.202.109.61 ( talk) 16:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Mata Amritanandamayi (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
I'm concerned with content on the page for
Mata Amritanandamayi. There is an unpublished book that is getting play in the India media and it seems that there is a group of editors who feel very strongly about including negative material against
Mata Amritanandamayi. I believe they are violating WP:BLPCRIME Could somebody please take a look?
User:Amrit914, 18:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The section about the controversial allegations in the book is currently under mediation ( Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mata Amritanandamayi). I dont think it serves any purpose to have a parallel discussion here if there is a mediation going on about exactly the same issue. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 04:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
A lot of uncited negative stuff. 65.130.253.244 ( talk) 05:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I also tried to start this discussion on the no original research noticeboard but thought maybe this was a more appropriate place?
Much of the article for journalist Chuck Philips is basically a description of the news articles he's written. But the references used are the articles themselves, which I believe would be a non-independent primary source and using that to write an article constitutes original research. Journalists are in a funny position with respect to Wikipedia where the thing they create is the currency we use to establish notability and verifiability. But for a Wikipedia article about a journalist I think you have to rely on articles written about that journalist by other journalists. Otherwise virtually any journalist would have enough citations floating around to warrant a Wikipedia article. Fnordware ( talk) 23:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I had flagged the
John Philips
Chuck Philips article for multiple problems: Original research, autobiography, and POV. A user removed the flag without discussion. Does anyone care to (dis)agree with my assessment?
Fnordware (
talk) 05:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
This cite is used on hundreds of articles but I'm concerned in this case it might be overreaching.
MK Nobilette, is a finalist on American Idol. I just did this revert as it is giving out her name and date of birth citing this website. Was that a good call? Does it also need to be erased permanently? Sportfan5000 ( talk) 02:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The third paragraph of Eliot Spitzer#Legal career (merged from Early life of Eliot Spitzer, now a redirect, in this 2009 edit) reads
Spitzer devised a plan to set up his own sweatshop in the city's garment district, turning out shirts, pants and sweaters, and hiring 30 laborers. The shop manager eventually got close to the Gambinos, and officials were able to plant a bug in their office. The Gambinos, rather than being charged with extortion – which was hard to prove – were charged with antitrust violations. Joseph and Thomas Gambino, the latter being an extremely high-ranking member, and two other defendants took the deal and avoided jail by pleading guilty, paying $12 million in fines and agreeing to stay out of the business.
citing a Time magazine paywalled article. If anyone has ready access to Time could you please check the veracity of the "sweatshop" claim and nature, if any, of our subject's link to these organized criminals? It's all very vague. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The following passage is highly contentious:
Although highly esteemed, after contradicting allegations of sexual abuse of a boy, many years ago, and of which there was no proof, it is claimed that the Vatican induced the bishop when in his late sixties into retirement. Schilder currently does not celebrate masses in public and exercises no pastoral tasks. He lives with the Mill Hill Missionaries in Oosterbeek, Netherlands.[3][4] --END OF PASSAGE
Please note: According to Fons Eppink, a senior member of Cornelius Schilder's own congregation (Mill Hill), bishop Schilder was removed from the Ngong bishopric by the Vatican for committing sexual abuse. Furthermore, Mr Eppink stated on the record that Schilder's right to say mass was revoked by the Mill Hill congregation, also as a punishment for committing sexual abuse. The entry on Schilder now visible on Wikipedia has been whitewashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.202.114.190 ( talk) 09:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Deals with living persons. The issue at hand is an infobox [50] listing one person seven separate times in the infobox as "name of scandal", "participant", "convicted", "charges" (twice), and "verdict" and a second person given six separate mentions in the same infobox, and the listing of unnamed "family and associates" as conspirators in the infobox. I suggested that a single mention of each person is quite sufficient, but this is using a sledgehammer to make a point of their corruption (and the corrupt family and associates). Cheers. Collect ( talk) 21:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Not sure where to take this, but I'll try here. On the face of it, the article - and the process of its development - would seem to contravene a whole raft of policies on notability, conflict of interest, and potential sockpuppetry as well. Could be a meaty one to get into. Can someone with more experience in such matters take a look at it, and see what you think? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 00:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe a major contributor to this page has a conflict of interest i.e that they work for the subject and thus are biased. verifiable but undesirable content has been removed by this user. Purplejumper ( talk) 01:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Jahi McMath ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Background: Jahi McMath underwent a surgical procedure in late 2013, suffered complications which included a bleed and a period of cardiac arrest, during which her brain was not oxygenated. Subsequently, she was declared brain-dead by the hospital's doctors. Her family disagreed and fought the determination in court, which may have failed (the article seems to indicate that the trial court found against the family). McMath has been declared legally dead, but her body is still on life support.
Issue: There's an ongoing dispute over whether to describe McMath as living or deceased, and perhaps more seriously, whether McMath should be described in the past or present tense. That is, "Jahi McMath is ..." versus "Jahi McMath was ..." WP:BLP applies: if McMath is dead, she's recently deceased and still within the scope of WP:BLP. While my normal recommendation would be to discuss the dispute, there are two problems. First, how do we handle the tense issue? I don't think "creative wording" will work satisfactorily. Second, I'm not sure there are sources yet on this specific case that adequately discuss the dispute over whether McMath should be described as living or dead. There might be more general sources, but I'm not sure those could be invoked without running afoul of WP:SYN.
One solution suggested is "is/was", which I don't particularly like. An explanatory footnote probably wouldn't resolve the dispute either. My personal opinion is that we're well within WP:NOTNEWS territory, indicating that deletion might be appropriate, but that still doesn't really resolve the dispute. Opinions are welcome. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 15:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
How do we handle someone whose death is contested? Well, there's always the
BLPN Hit Squad. As a last resort, of course. Other methods of disambiguation are always preferable. We here at Wikipedia are already quite accustomed to character assassination, so this will be but a small step. I mean this
literally.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 17:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
If there is even a scintilla of dispute, WP:BLP absolutely applies -- and is considered to apply to "recently dead" people by practice in any event. The goal is "do no harm" and if harm would be seen by anyone involved, we ought not do it. Collect ( talk) 18:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Mendaliv - Your assistance thus far in resolving this dispute have been appreciated. Unfortunately, despite the "is/was" and infobox issues being addressed, IP editor 24.0.133.234 remains unsatisfied with the content of the (now renamed) Jahi McMath case article, and is continuing to engage in editing and talk page behavior that Ca2james and myself consider to be disruptive. We could use more guidance as to how to proceed and/or escalate. Funcrunch ( talk) 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I could use some help with this please. Even the more reliable sources such as The Huffington Post and The Telegraph are quoting another party (other than the subject) in the Daily Mirror tabloid which is not a reliable source. Helen Online 08:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Also here in Michelle Rodriguez. Helen Online 08:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The edit summary of this revert of my WP:BLPREMOVE by Tbhotch states "It's not that difficult to use Google News. The Mirror may not be reliable, but Rodriguez and Delevingne are". The Mirror article which supposedly quotes Rodriguez and another unnamed source is not an official press release or statement and it was definitely not quoting Delevingne. Helen Online 08:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Is it the right the right time to add Michelle's supposed relationship with the British model Cara Delevingne? Editors have rightly been reverting edits confirming their relationship because the sources were a bit dodgy etc... but now the relationship is being "confirmed" by numerous British national newspapers. Should we start updating Michelle's relationship status? Tomh903 ( talk) 18:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and hope that those with better knowledge than I about the intricate workings of editing play fair with me. Looking at the history of this entry I am concerned that all references to Stuart Murphy's homosexuality are removed very rapidly without reason. Murphy has gone on the record regarding his sexuality. For example http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/24/stuart-murphy-sky-battle-box and elsewhere. What precisely merits the censorship of this well known aspect of his life anymore than removing all references to Stephen Fry's homosexuality in his Wikipedia entry? Its removal is offensive to the gay community. Or have I misunderstood? I am happy to stand corrected if so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.60.135.151 ( talk) 19:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
WOW! I hear the sounds of grinding axes. This is generating a lot of heat but little light and blocking people for making a joke, which is how the Fry comment read to me, is a bit severe isn't it? It probably is the same guy but he makes good points. I see no light coming from Demiurge1000 just the rapid knee jerk revert revert. The ref to Murphy's homosexuality is going back on the page. Can we have a cool, calm, level-headed senior editor with no connection to this Murphy page to oversee it? What IS the big deal here? All it says is that the guy is gay which he has said many times? 181.41.209.19 ( talk) 14:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The Stuart Murphy article has been placed in several gay and LGBT categories so it's not likely his sexual orientation is completely erased. You raise a good question though since, when it is an entertainer or sports figure declaring they are LGBT, mention of it is usually included in their article but it is considered irrelevant for individuals who aren't so obviously on a public stage. Liz Read! Talk! 12:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Liz. Stuart Murphy is hardly unknown. Yet, seldom a day passes without there being a press release from him (in his role as one of the major commissioners for British and U.S TV). He is very well known not only by many who work in TV (and who doubtless consider him to be a role model as the youngest ever controller in BBC TV etc.), but by regular readers of newspapers' media pages etc. Tiptoety's edit entry (though not on this page I note) says “his children are not notable, and noting that he has them adds nothing to the article. Do not re-add this material. Continually re-adding will result in a block”. This unpleasantness is unsupported by the accusation of a violation per WP:BLP. How does directly quoting Murphy regarding his familial circumstances and his sexuality (from reliable sources)constitute such a violation? The identities of the children are not revealed in the entry. And his sexual circumstances are noteworthy not least because of his senior position in TV and editorial powers. He could certainly be an inspiration to many men and women facing a similar predicament. So I say its inclusion does add to the article and I am going to revert. If I am blocked by Tiptoety as that editor threatens, I would welcome the wider involvement of the Wikipedia community to look into this. I see a pincer movement and blocking threats going on too frequently between Tiptoety and Demiurge1000 (see above). Look at the history of the Murphy entry (as suggested above). If I am blocked, I will bring this to the attention of the founder of the esteemed organization. 181.41.209.86 ( talk) 15:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
If anyone with considerable power in the media (such as Murphy) decides to single out details of their sexual preferences in a high profile newspaper interview (straight or otherwise), then such comments must be regarded as significant. Most heterosexual men don't go out of their way to divulge whether they are straight or not, but those who do (usually by mentioning their conquests) clearly do so for a reason and it seems perverse that some Wikiepedia editors want to expunge such freely given and significant personal information. Murphy's sexuality has clearly had an impact on his editorial thinking. Before he came out, he commissioned the first very out newsreader for BBC3 tv (and made a PR feature of it). I guess that many of his Sky comedies like "Trollied" (almost a present day "Are you Being Served") attract a gay audience. That is why I find the expunging mention of this man's homosexuality sinister because I don't trust the motives. Is Murphy himself regretting he mentioned it now he climbs higher up the ladder? Just as sinister is the bullying tone of the editors wanting to applying the censorship in this entry. Aggression is becoming epidemic in Wikipedia. Read the terse and cavalier remarks above this entry from editors presumably with a high number of wiki barn stars but with obviously very low self esteem. Such a barbed tonality will eventually damage Wikipedia's reputation. Bullying (phrases like "you are going to get blocked" without giving reason) isn't permitted in the school playground, so why is it tolerated in the grown up world of Wikipedia? More severe action should be taken against such people. I am going to send this little interchange to Jimmy Wales. 181.41.209.134 ( talk) 12:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 181.41.209.134 ( talk) 12:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 181.41.209.134 ( talk) 12:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Debbie Schlussel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The subject of this article wrote me a very angry note about the article about her and I've decided to try to help improve it. I have made some edits already but could use some help.
The article is unrelentingly negative in tone, but that is in no small part because virtually all third party writing about her is hostile due to her controversial (to say the least) positions and her own angry style of writing. But on top of that, in looking into our summaries of several of her positions or past controversies, I'm find the article to be sometimes weak in terms of good quality summary of what was actually said or what actually happened.
There also appears to be far too much reliance on blogs for sourcing.
Anyway, help would be appreciated and there's some stuff I have written on the talk page.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I feel as though the article is fine the way it is now, the majority of it was listing the controversial things she said, which is important to include. I don't see a problem with it! Adamh4 ( talk) 19:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Willie Jerome Manning (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
I've removed contentious material about a living person several times, with detailed explanations in Talk as to why this was necessary. The material has been replaced each time. The last time this was done, it was accompanied by threatening and disparaging comments.
Smallnslow (
talk) 02:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm a newbie - that accounts for my technical problems, including triggering automatic reversion of text. That does not make my comments about this article less valid. Manning briefly attracted national attention in 2013, when the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled not to allow him DNA testing http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 The Wikipedia article places undue weight on tabloid journalism, especially in using an article http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=24056&TRID=1&TID= that, astonishingly, chose to ignore the national controversy in favour of publishing a one-sided article whose purpose appears to have been to persuade its readers of Manning's guilt. I also deleted court records, as Wikipedia suggests these are unreliable texts. I agree with what Bundlesofsticks says above <He was convicted of four murders>. I find this wording more neutral than "He murdered four people". Smallnslow ( talk) 08:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Responding to the comments from Bundlesofsticks <Manning's guilt had been long established when that article was published.> "New York Times, 3 May, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 “Lawyers for Mr. Manning have argued that the case has serious holes. Some of the trial witnesses gave accounts inconsistent with known facts, they said, and one key witness, the former girlfriend, was given a favorable plea deal on fraud charges as well as nearly $18,000 in reward money after testifying for the prosecution, details not fully disclosed to the trial jury. Mr. Manning’s lawyers also pointed to fingerprints found in Ms. Miller’s car, which had been driven elsewhere and abandoned after the killings. None of the prints matched Mr. Manning’s, and multiple prints were found that did not match those of the victims.” <The Commercial Dispatch is not a tabloid. It has its own article on Wikipedia and from that article we learn that the newspaper has been existence since before 1910.> WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." There appears to be no editorial oversight involved in the Dispatch article that I removed. http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=24056&TRID=1&TID= To publish a ‘news story’ that presents Manning in so bad a light, without reference to the wider context and without presenting an alternative or mitigating viewpoint (at a time when well-established news outlets were reporting indications of a possible wrongful conviction), is at the very least sensationalist, in keeping with the tabloid press. The wider context at that time was: New York Times, 3 May, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 The State of Mississippi has denied requests for DNA testing of evidence made by a prisoner set to be executed on Tuesday, potentially setting up what experts said would be a rare case in recent years in which a person is put to death with such requests unmet. <Court records are not unreliable, but they are primary sources. Primary sources are not forbidden in WP articles, but they are discouraged in favor of secondary and tertiary sources.> WP:BLP Avoid misuse of primary sources . Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. <Pay especial interest to the WP:NPOV policy.> It's an indisputable fact that Manning was 'convicted of murder'. If that statement doesn't contain the information editors wish to convey using the encyclopedia's voice, what is it exactly that is not being conveyed by that statement ? Sean.hoyland - talk • WP:GRAPEVINE "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced." WP:BLPREMOVE Smallnslow ( talk) 20:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:Perp, a Wikipedia article about a criminal is okay for us to have as long as it meets certain requirements. I assume that, here in this case, "the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime was unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." You should be able to summarize Manning's historic significance in a sentence or two, and put that into the lead. Just saying that he committed two double-murders does not seem to be enough, because (unfortunately) people are murdered all the time. Was it the FBI's rescinding of a report that makes this historic? Such rescinding doesn't sound to me like something that was obviously historic, unless someone at the FBI committed a crime, or unless Manning's conviction is overturned due to the rescinding. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I personally think Manning does not merit a Wikipedia article at all. The FBI’s rescinding of its hair report in this case, insofar as it was notable at all, was significant only in its timing (there have been many other cases since). It heightened the focus on the main topic in news outlets at the time, which was that the Mississippi Supreme Court was prepared to execute Manning without allowing him testing of DNA and fingerprint evidence. However, the Court did eventually reverse its judgment and allow this testing. I think with this reversal, Manning’s historic significance disappears. Smallnslow ( talk) 12:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. First link I added doesn't appear to work, so here it is in full: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-justice-scandal-fbi-could-be-at-fault-in-27-death-row-cases-8718135.html Smallnslow ( talk) 12:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
My opinion relates to the question put by Anythingyouwant, ‘Was it the FBI’s rescinding of a report that makes this historic?’ The FBI’s decision to correct errors in hair testimony cases was made the previous year. It was not made in response to Manning’s case. “Federal officials found Manning’s case as part of a broad review of the FBI’s handling of scientific evidence in thousands of violent crimes in the 1980s and 1990s. The Justice Department announced last summer an effort to correct past errors in forensic hair examinations before 2000 — at least 21,000 cases — to determine whether agents exaggerated the significance of purported hair “matches” in lab reports or trial testimony.” Washington Post, May 4 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/justice-dept-admits-flaws-in-forensic-testimony-in-mississippi-death-row-case/2013/05/03/aca18176-b41c-11e2-baf7-5bc2a9dc6f44_story.html So the evaluation of Manning's historic significance hinges not on an FBI change of policy, but on his case being the first to be announced, in dramatic circumstances, very close to the time of his scheduled execution. Smallnslow ( talk) 13:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I reverted this edit as it was in the lead and misrepresented the source. The source summarises the story of a student suing a university for allegedly failing to act on sexual harassment allegations. The edit changed the onus of the lawsuit from the university to the subject, and exaggerated the allegations. The talk page discussion also violates BLP and I believe the edit summaries beginning with this one, may need redacting - and some of the comments regarding allegations of assault are not supported by reliable sources. This source seems to confirm that the subject breached a university sexual harassment code and was disciplined, however it doesn't support the current allegations. Could an admin please have a look a and consider redacting edit summaries (I have changed the section heading for posts going forward). Is it OK for me to refactor or strike through those sections of posts which are in violation? Flat Out let's discuss it 05:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Propose Close - given that none of the editors pushing to have the allegations included in the article have bothered to enter discussion, I propose the discussion be closed and the article protection amended to all edits by unconfirmed edits requiring review. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily a violation as such, just felt that people with experience in BLP might want to cast an eye over this one to ensure everything is appropriately neutral and fairly weighted. Draft:Devyani Khobragade -- nonsense ferret 21:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The article on Herman Branover Herman Branover is a blantant misrepresentation.
The claims of status as an educator in the Jewish world, and the phrases "known in the scientific community", "pioneer" and "led to many spin-off...", are weasel words. There are no cites to support any of this, and it seems doubtful that any will be found.
The authors of the Wikipedia article want to create a myth around his scientific credentials to support his writings on religious subjects.
Indeed his writings on science and religion often grossly misrepresent scientific positions (for example see his book "Science in the Light of Torah"), and as a scientist, his h-index is modest at best (see Google Scholar).
I submit that after correcting the page to more accurately describe his work and writings, it should be locked against further edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.226.6 ( talk) 05:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Wiki,
Please help me to resolve this issue:
On the page for Gordon Curran Stewart, the following warnings/disclaimers appear, all made in December 2013:
This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording and instead of making proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance. (December 2013
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2013)
This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (December 2013)
Regarding subjectivity: I have read through the article and have removed a sentence that was subjective. Aside from that sentence I do not see anything else that could be deemed to "promote[] the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information." Please, can you check the article and see if the corrections are sufficient and if they are then remove the warning from the top of the page? If the corrections are insufficient, then please let me know exactly what needs to be changed so that the appropriate edits can be made.
Regarding neutrality: It is not specified on the talk page what exactly is disputed. It says: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous." The article was accepted onto Wiki as a result of an editing process that involved a requirement of neutrality. Certainly there is nothing on the page that can be considered to be "[u]nsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons". And there is nothing on the page that is potentially libelous. Is it possible to either learn more about the "dispute" so that it can be remedied, and if not then to remove the notice referring to a dispute?
Regarding copy editing: A small number of minor edits have been made, and the article now appears to no longer require copy editing. Please, can you remove the notice?
Many thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmdelamare ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Don Mellett ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are absolutely no references at all on this bio, which contains considerable information implicating others in criminal activity. Seems to be eligible for deletion under WP:BLP1E. Unsure what to do about the article. I don't have the time or desire to research the event, but all the unreferenced negative info about living people seems to be a problem. John from Idegon ( talk) 17:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Someone as been making some questionable additions to Howard Stern's Talk Page. It does seem that these edits are simply intended to take shots a Stern and his wife. Similar edits were made to the Howard Stern itself, but the page was protected ( diff). Apparently this IP editor figured out that such protection does not extend to the article's talk page. Still fairly new at Wikipedia, so not sure what to do. If I'm asking in the wrong place about this, then apologies in advance. Maybe a more experienced editor or an admin can check it out? Thanks - Marchjuly ( talk) 22:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Murry Salby has just been added to this excuse for an article, the citation used for the contentious statement of fact is an opinion piece in the Guardian. I was under the impression that opinion pieces are not to be used for statements of fact on a BLP? Darkness Shines ( talk) 14:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The religion marked in the article as Pervertism is defamatory and politically motivated. Thanks for your time and attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.173.195 ( talk) 16:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I am acquainted with Mike Scott (musician) and he has sent me a concerned email about his own article and that of Camille O'Sullivan. His remarks are essentially that he feels his privacy is being violated as a result of recent edits by what seems to be the single-purpose account BurlesqueCoversGalére ( talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi). I have amended both articles [55] [56] but I am requesting more eyes/views on this as although I have been around the block I almost never edit BLPs and am not familiar with the relevant protocols. In essence Mr Scott is saying:
I have alerted the above user to this thread [57]. I will also inform Mr. Scott about the revision deletion option above. Ben Mac Dui 16:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
António Lopes Jonet competed at the 1952 Helsinki Olympic Games in Men's Modern Pentathlon. I tried to correct his name which is written with an "o" not "a", as it is in the wrongful source, but I wasn't successful. He is also not a living person, as he died in September 21, 2007. My sources are: http://www.geneall.net/P/per_page.php?id=578684 and I'm his grand-nephew. SakasFixe ( talk) 20:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Sirs, I would like to respectfully ask that the Wikipedia web page about Alejandra Bravo would be completely eliminated. During part of 2012 and all 2013 year this page has posted biased information, without hard evidence about myself. This page has had multiple changes by people who clearly seek to discredit me and which have severely harmed my public image. This page contain poorly sourced material, with libelous potentially intentions. Most of the comments have been based on materials that were published in Mexican newspapers with information out of context, resulting defamatory. Wikipedia pages should not mislead the reader into believing that something false is real. In addition Wikipedia is not a forum for discussions, it is an encyclopedia and therefore the information described on the Alejandra Bravo’s page does not correspond to encyclopedic information.
If you want specific information on the incorporated slurs, I can mention some examples: 1. In the Wikipedia page Alejandra Bravo in Spanish said: “En septiembre de 2012 un grupo de investigadores publicó una revisión crítica sobre los modelos de acción de los insecticidas de Bacillus thuringiensis en el cual se concluía que los modelos mexicanos no eran replicables, basándose en el análisis de once publicaciones de Alejandra Bravo y su esposo Mario Soberón.4” (In September 2012 a group of researchers published a critical review of the models of action of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticides in which they concluded that Mexicans model was not replicable, based on the analysis of eleven publications of Alejandra Bravo and her husband Mario Soberón.4 "). Reference 4 (Vachont , Vincent ; Laprade , Reynald , Schwartz, Jean -Louis (2012 ) ' Current models of the mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal proteins : A critical review "( in English ) Science Direct Accessed . . February 15, 2014), does not mention anywhere that the data on Bravo and Soberon were not reproducible. Similarly, it did not mention at all that eleven publications under authorship of these Mexican researchers were questionable. So this whole paragraph is a defamation that used a scientific article, that is solid, to support their false arguments. This paragraph is misleading real information it is a tort of false light.
2. In the Wikipedia page in Spanish said that " ... Debido a esto ambos científicos fueron separados de sus cargos, …” (Because of this both scientists were removed from their positions). Bravo and Soberon were never separated from their university positions; they are professors, senior researchers at the Institute of Biotechnology, UNAM. This statement was a lie published in the newspaper La Jornada. You mentioned that you will be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. A newspaper publication should not be taken as a reliable source of facts, especially if they were not true. This is also a clear defamation to Bravo and Soberon status.
3. The conclusion of the evaluation committee mentioned in Wikipedia are not correct. Again misleading information, presenting written statements out of context, completely biased, are damaging the researchers. The main conclusion of the commission was that the modifications of the figures did not change at all the scientific content of these publications and for this reason they did not recommended to remove any publication.
4. In the Wikipedia page in Spanish it states that "… También trascendió que los científicos habían aceptado su error, comunicándose con los editores de las revistas de aquellas publicaciones afectadas, quienes no pidieron correcciones o fe de erratas.4…” (... It was also learned that scientists had accepted his mistake by contacting the publishers of the journals of the affected publications, who did asked corrections.4). Bravo and Soberon sent corrections to their publications for " Motus propio" without anyone 's asked which were accepted by the journals. No retraction was done. This was reported by the La Jornada newspaper but did not take into account for the Wikipedia editors even thought that this newspaper has been the main source of information from this Wikipedia page. Ref: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/04/16/ciencias/a03n1cie
5. The Wikipedia page in Spanish states "…por el hecho de haber «manipulado» las imágenes en 2 de las publicaciones. El caso llamó la atención de la Oficina de Integridad Científica (ORI) de los Institutos Nacionales de Salud de Estados Unidos (NIH), la cual revisó los hechos…”( ... the fact of having" manipulated " images in 2 publications. The case caught the attention of the Office of Scientific Integrity (ORI ) of the [ [National Institutes of Health (USA) | National Institutes of Health in the United States ] ] (NIH ) , which reviewed the facts ... " This is another slanderous lie that has caused a lot of damage. ORI 's office did not review the case because the manipulation of images of two articles caught their attention. ORI review the case because the accused researchers had an active grant from the NIH. The ORI is responsible for monitoring complaints of misconduct in biomedical research projects that receive support from agencies related to public health services in USA. The final ORI 's report concludes that Bravo and Soberon researchers at the Institute of Biotechnology, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) did not commit misconduct. They did not suspend the financial support that NHI gives to Bravo and Soberon. This was reported by La Jornada and by the Mexican Academy of Sciences: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/04/16/ciencias/a03n1cie http://www.comunicacion.amc.edu.mx/comunicados/concluye-la-ori-que-mario-soberon-y-alejandra-bravo-no-incurrieron-en-falta/
6. The description of the actions of the University Rights Ombudsman was incorrect. The UNAM-University Rights Ombudsman (DDU), determined to initiate an investigation for possible effects on rights of Dr. Alejandra Bravo and Dr. Mario Soberon. Advocacy recommended terminating the sanctions given the large number of violations of rights of these university researchers. The authorities involved accepted the recommendation of DDU and researchers can receive students and recovered their academic leadership of research groups at Biotechnology Institute of UNAM. This case was closed, researchers since both researchers showed that they did not commit any scientific fraud to the university authorities, to authorities ORI NHI, and to the scientific journals. Even more, it was published recently a scientific paper in the journal Biochemical Journal in which Bravo and Soberon showed experimental scientific evidence demonstrating that the model of the mechanism of action of Cry toxins that they propose remains valid.
Finally it is important to mention that the same Mexicans newspapers that actively participated in this case publishing erroneous information also reported that communications in the newspapers contribute to generate an important public image damage of Bravo and Soberon, as well as harm their reputation and prestige as scientists.
The newspaper La Jornada reported that “A partir de la intervención de la Defensoría se trata de un caso cerrado, pero que produjo un gran daño a dos científicos mexicanos” (From the intervention of the Ombudsman is a close case, but that resulted in severe damage to two scientists" Ref: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/10/15/index.php?section=ciencias&article=a03a1cie&partner=rss
Finally the ex-rector of UNAM Dr. Juan Ramon de la Fuente wrote about the participation DDU-UNAM and said “Sobresale la UNAM, por supuesto, que supo poner en juego las fortalezas de la ciencia, para eviitar que dos de los mejores investigadores de los que Mexico dispone, Alejandra Bravo y Mario Soberón, vieran truncadas sus carreras, victimas de una suspicacia excesiva y de esa terrible distorcion vital que experimentan algunos ante el exito de otros: la envidia.” (The UNAM excels, of course, who knew how to bring into play the strengths of science, for stop that two of the best researchers of Mexico, Alejandra Bravo and Mario Soberon, saw their careers cut short, victims of excessive suspicion and a terrible vital distortion that some people experienced in front of the success of others: the envy. Ref: http://www.eluniversalmas.com.mx/editoriales/2013/10/66876.php
For all the above reasons, I suggest and request that the Wikipedia Alejandra Bravo’s page will be removed completely. A severe damage has been done and since the case is closed, all arguments must stop immediately. You mentioned that Contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Then I just ask that to keep your word and make it true. Attentively, Alejandra Bravo
-- Yocize2 ( talk) 21:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
:You appear to be concerned about an article on Spanish Wikipedia, but this is English Wikipedia, and we have no jurisdiction over Spanish Wikipedia. You will have to take the matter up on Spanish Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I have no experience of using or editing Spanish Wikipedia, so I can't tell you how to go about raising the issue there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk) 22:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd like a quick sanity check on Erik Prince#Family. While the sources seem to check out, the tone is venomous. It's more a matter of neutral point of view and whether it's meaningful for the article. The subject of the article is a magnet for attacks due to his role in creating Blackwater, and I presume that's the reason the defamatory material was added. I've previously reverted uncited claims of sexual rumors, including a claim of a homosexual affair. With these recent additions, I'm not sure where to draw the line. Thanks, Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 06:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm bothered by the extent to which the desire to keep this article about an otherwise non-notable porn performer has led to increasingly detailed COATRACKing of articles related to a notable, but not widely known to the public, movie industry figure. Even though the key elements of the associated scandal have never been reliably confirmed as factual (although a very plausible case has been established). In the nine months or so since the scandal broke, the (sex-related) details of the scandal were excluded from the article on the notable studio executive, with BLP issues raised -- but over the last few weeks editors pushing to keep this porn performer article have been adding reported (but never quite confirmed) details of the scandal to various BLPs (usually with the never-quite-confirmed details presented as established facts.) I believe the longstanding treatment of the matter was more sensitive to BLP policy principles and more appropriate, and that those concerns should not be outweighed by the desire to keep articles about the porn performers involved. Further scrutiny would be appreciated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 14:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised that we got nothing on Sudhir Choudhrie. Was a previous article deleted or is he simply not notable?
Etc. Hcobb ( talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I have tried more than once to change wording in the lede of this article to read non-POV and to not give analysis of Moore's acting career. I've been reverted each time. Edits are here: [58], [59]; [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. Requesting new eyes on this and comments that address the edits I've tried to make as well as the reversions happening each time I attempt to make the edits. Of course, I believe the version I changed it to is better than the article status quo, otherwise I wouldn't be changing it. Thanks in advance. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I deleted it twice, because it is basically reporting that a men's mag rated her as sexy, and that a comedian joked about whether men want to have sex with her. See Public image. I suppose it's possible a model or actress celebrity type BLP subject might reasonably be assumed to have no objection to this kind of stuff on a page about them. But AK is none of those things. It's been put back by User:BabbaQ. I think the section is intrusive for this subject and I think the section should be removed. Overagainst ( talk) 23:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a very good argument for there not being an article on Amanda Knox, since it serve mainly to duplicate the "Murder" article. But we have one, and the only conceivable justification for it is that it can include information about Knox that is too trivial/tangential to include in the main article. It doesn't, therefore, make sense to sense to talk about structuring the article so that trivial/tangential information is excluded. There's certainly no BLP violation here. Formerip ( talk) 23:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Malcolm B. Frost ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This BLP was created by Afrosty ( talk · contribs), and they seem to admit they have a COI [1].
I told Afrosty that, per WP:COS, You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends. [2]
An administrator Buckshot06 ( talk · contribs) told Afrosty to continue editing it. I questioned that, but the admin is adamant - saying, "I am happy to let him edit the article directly". [3]
I am not sure how to resolve this issue, because it seems clear to me that the behavioural guideline says Afrosty should not edit the article, but Buckshot06 is disregarding it. I've already tried to resolve it on Buckshot06 talk page, but seem to have reached an impasse. Hence, asking for help here.
Thanks in anticipation, 88.104.19.233 ( talk) 21:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Bullshit!
WP:COS is absolutely clear.
I assume you can read the link, so I will not repeat it here.
Why are we not enforcing that behavioral guideline?
Even if you do not agree with that, surely you can't argue with consensus on COI - COI editing is strongly discouraged.
So why is this admin encouraging it? 88.104.19.233 ( talk) 06:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Instructing a new user to break policy/guidelines on BLPs is not a good idea. 88.104.19.233 ( talk) 07:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This person h as been proven to be a false identity created by wiki user solarhyper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.92.130 ( talk) 17:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Fatemeh Shams is a contemporary prize-winning Iranian poet and literary scholar based in Oxford University. She was born in Khorasan, Mashhad in 1983 and completed her studies in the field of sociology and literature after winning the silver medal in national Olympiad of literature in 2000. As a censored voice in Iran, Fatemeh, published her first book of poetry in Berlin, Germany in 2013 under the title of " 88". The book contains socially and politically avant-garde poems that are mostly written in exile and echo the sense of displacement and diaspora. Fatemeh won Jaleh Esfahani poetry prize for the best young Persian poet in 2012. Her work has received scholarly attention by some of the leading literary critics and translators such as Dr. Ahmad Karimi Hakkak and her poems have been translated and published in other languages including English and Italian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masoodnaderi ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Manuel Valls is Minister of the Interior for France. He has recently undertaken an effort to ban anti-Semitic performances by comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala. User:Blaue_Max has thus changed the sentence "Valls is often considered in France as a representative of the social-liberal wing of the French Socialist Party, sharing common orientations with Scandinavian-style Social Democracy and Blairism" to "Valls is often considered in France as a representative of the social-liberal wing of the French Socialist Party, sharing common orientations with the state of Israel" twice, and this is still in the article. [4] [5] He has also introduced his own negative opinions of Valls into the article, referencing YouTube videos that are primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.169.109.224 ( talk) 09:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
In recent edits, someone has added uncited text claiming a connection of Arseniy Yatsenyuk to Scientology. As the claimed reference amounts to "some guy in Russia said this" in a BLP article, the text should go pending any better cites. Since a blogger quoted this text the day it was added, I'm inclined to think it was the blogger himself who made the edit. As I am broadly blocked from editing any Scientology-related articles (even bogus connections), I'm bringing it here rather than removing myself. AndroidCat ( talk) 16:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Edoardo Costa, both in English and Italian has a potentially libelous section referring to an ongoing legal issue that is poorly cited from questionable sources (tabloid and gossip sites). The English version of the section appears to have been translated with poor results by an online translator, rather than a native speaker. The sections are replaced once removed, even while citing BLP guidelines on both versions of the page. The claims made on the page are rather serious and defamatory. The issue can be seen here.
Controversy section is unverifiable, the sources do not link to any existing article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.220 ( talk) 01:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
An editor seems to be on a vendetta against this person, using extremely insulting language on the talk page. I request fresh eyes on the article, and comments by someone willing to explain BLP policies. I had a previous disagreement with this editor, so perhaps I am not best for the job. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Joeschultz22000 ( talk · contribs) has been adding unreferenced and poorly-referenced BLP-violating material to William E. Lori. I am now at 3 reverts. Per WP:3RR, I am taking the report here for more eyeballs. Thanks in advance. Elizium23 ( talk) 04:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit war between Indiggo77 ( talk · contribs) and 63.247.160.139 ( talk · contribs). Indiggo77 is apparently the subject of Indiggo stated here. Indiggo77 is removing content, but providing sources. The anon is removing any additions by Indiggo77. Jim1138 ( talk) 04:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The "sources" Indiggo77 adds aren't legitimate. For example, they are saying they are American, and providing a youtube video that they made of photos of themselves. Also, User Indiggo77 is actually Mihaela and Gabriela Modorcea (collectively, Indiggo) which is not allowed on Wikipedia, right?
I'm not sure if I am supposed to reply here or on Jim1138's page. Thanks. 63.247.160.139 ( talk) 04:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The section on the recent political crisis does not appear to be objective, since the question of whether there was a coup d'etat is contested by the two parties in the dispute. The article blames "one faction" in the crisis for "causing" the crisis by trying to overthrown Kiir. This is also contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.0.176 ( talk) 09:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The article Ira Trivedi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is tagged as advertorial, rightly. Most of it was written by a WP:SPA whose image uploads indicate a connection with the subject. It contains many primary sources, a lot of which are basically press releases. However, the subject does seem to meet the notability guidelines, taking the content at face value.
I am uneasy about having a biography tagged as an advertisement and the article certainly falls well short of normal quality standards. If anyone has a special interest in Indian contemporary literature, maybe they could have a look? Guy ( Help!) 09:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
This article has been vandalised repeatedly by specific users. It has been created recently with no verifiable sources clearly to use for numerous personal attacks on the person in question, Reham Khan. Extremely personal information such as the names, ages and location of relatives is regularly posted, of questionable accuracy but represents a huge invasion of privacy and threatens her personal safety. Other times, completely inaccurate and slanderous or libellous statements are made which have no sources. These are regularly made specific users, the most frequent of which is Somiya321. It should either be deleted since it is a stub or stopped from repeated vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRoach12345 ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
[6] removed a detailed statement about a medical condition which appeared unrelated to any biographical value. Another editor has demurred on the talk page saying it "looked fine" to him. Does medical stuff generally belong in BLPs? I had rather thought "minor medical stuff" was "right out." BTW, the claim was unsourced to boot. To me it looks more like "put anything remotely damaging into a BLP of a politician." Collect ( talk) 14:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The office of Kevin Ranker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has emailed OTRS and we've given them the standard advice; they are playing straight and have made some requests on the talk page, but the article's not on a lot of watchlists so they have not been reviewed yet.
I know several folks here are keenly interested in US politics, so could I ask one of you to review the talk page and merge in anything that looks to be appropriate. Thanks Guy ( Help!) 17:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
This article needs some neutral eyes. My past efforts to clean it up have been futile as two editors who started editing the article within a few days of each other have been dominating the article since 2011. [7] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
An article about Leslie Cornfeld existed from 2006 through 2013. A little over a month ago the user who moved the page to a draft created a discussion here on the noticeboard to which I replied with a list of third party references for potential use on the draft or eventual article. I also reached out several times to the editor who moved the page to a draft with the references, but received no response.
I work for Rubenstein Communications and on behalf of Leslie Cornfeld ask that some volunteers consider incorporating the following third party sources to the draft and moving it back to an article page. To mitigate conflict of interest issues, I would like to refrain from editing the draft directly unless specifically invited to do so.
Samantha Mathis' own Facebook page says her birthday is Feb. 20, 1960. Your article on her says her birthday is May 20, 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.183.157 ( talk) 12:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The current Wikipedia page on Gary Null does not reflect a neutral point of view (NPOV). The content is overwhelmingly negative and much of the more disparaging commentary is derived/referenced from a highly prejudicial source: "A Critical Look at Gary Null's Activities and Credentials" [25]. Essentially, the link is an attack page from Quackwatch, authored by an individual, Stephen Barrett, who states that he "has been tracking Gary Null's activities since the mid-1970s". Moreover, Mr. Barrett's article clearly indicates that Mr. Null's attorney has repeatedly advised him to "remove the offensive and libelous material from your website or face legal action."
Earlier today, I made edits to Gary Null's Wikipedia page and introduced biographical content from his Faculty Biography page [26] at Fairleigh Dickinson University with the intent of providing a more rounded perspective on the subject. I also included content that expanded on and clarified Mr. Barrett's involvement in the matter. All of those particular edits were quickly undone. I am relatively new to editing at Wikipedia and would appreciate further guidance in this regard.
Jpsanders ( talk) 06:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Reply to comment by Second Quantization: one cannot tell what,"independent secondary sources" and "primary source" you are referring to? Nor what "article" you are referring to. If it is the TIME magazine article on Null [27], on the subject of AIDS, it describes Null's position thusly in one sentence: "Null takes a similarly radical approach to AIDS, raising a long-discredited argument that one of the reasons traditional therapies are ineffective is that it has never been proved that HIV plays as great a role in the disease as scientists believe". If you saying that TIME magazine is espousing "aids denialism", please take it up with the Wikipedia editor who originally added the reference from TIME. If you are referring to Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch article about Gary Null [28], please be advised that Barrett's intense criticism of Null does not include an allegation of AIDS denialism. Barrett makes a single mention of AIDS in regard to Null's writing: "Other articles in the series promoted chiropractic and homeopathy and claimed that effective nutritional methods for treating AIDS were being suppressed...". Again, if you believe Barrett is downplaying aids denialism, please take it up with the Wikipedia editor who originally added the reference. Jpsanders ( talk) 11:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Should this article contain a sentence highlighting this person's underage arrest record? The issue here is one of WP:UNDUE. The "personal life" section is only seven sentences long, including the sentence at issue. I'm also concerned that editor adding this material is an WP:SPA, as he has edited no other articles, refuses to discuss on talk or adhere to WP:BRD, and originally inserted the material with the edit summary "added info about his criminal past". Gamaliel ( talk) 20:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi! While this isn't exactly a report, I've noticed that this article appears to be somewhat controversial, and I'm interested in bringing it up to par. As it stands, the article is in a bad place: primary sources, blogs, and self-published sources abound. However, it is a vast improvement over the old version of the article. I bring this to the noticeboard for two reasons: first and foremost, the article is in need of desperate help, and I figured this was a good place to go. Second, the article has a long history of controversy dating back to over a decade ago. Many IP editors, single-purpose accounts, accounts with narrow editing patterns, and even Yudkowsky himself have edited the article, often advocating for the inclusion of contentious or poorly-sourced material. I bring this last fact not to the attention of the noticeboard because I'm worried that this will happen again (though it very well may, as there's been recent accusations of "anti-Yudkowsky forces" in the edit summaries! and yesterday there was a revert war), but rather because I think this is the perfect time to make both parties happy and improve the article. I encourage anyone and everyone who is interested to come help out, or even just leave a suggestion or two on the talk page.
Thanks for your time, Inanygivenhole ( talk) 00:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I removed a lot of unsourced material from this article [29], which was undone by User:Yorkshiresky [30] "Deleting a lot of relevant material - tag where appropriate". The page has been tagged with a BLP unsourced section since January 2011.
I think all of the material removed falls under "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.", as per WP:BLP and would like some feedback on clarifying the position instead of embarking on an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DElliott ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I recently read through this article, Gary Null because of a source dispute. The source dispute is one issue which could be fairly debated from both sides, but more importantly the article is almost entirely pejorative, an attack piece. If there are editors interested in BLPs who might like to look in, that would be a good thing probably. I won't be posting on the article myself and have no opinion on the subject of the article, just looking for BLP interested editors to add uninvolved scrutiny on what seems to be a heavily-weighted article. Thanks. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 18:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC))
In the entry on Larry Bird The sentence "Due to chronic back problems and having a vagina, he retired as a player in 1992." The highlighted phrase appears to be false and a derogatory/mischievous remark. Thought best to bring it to Wikipedia's attention.
There is an RFC that may be of interest to this forum, of how to describe/qualify Nugent's comments about Obama calling him a "Subhuman mongrel" and Chimpanzee" Talk:Ted_Nugent#Obama_Comments_RFC Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, in this article, 2 users insist on adding material that states that fans have taken to calling him by an offensive nickname. They cite fan forums as a source, which I understand are not reliable, therefore not allowed, especially for something like this. I keep undoing these adds, but the IPs keep re-insterting this material. What can be done about this? Or am I off-base here? Advice and assistance appreciated! Electric Wombat ( talk) 00:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be sourced and accurate material that was posted to this page which was then deleted by the original creator more than once. As the page suggests, this falls into the Conflict of Interest violation criteria, as the creator is a person close to or is the subject. The information should be re-posted permanently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.245.242 ( talk) 12:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Meryl Davis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Under personal life, the last sentence states "she can play the skin flute," which is slang for a penis and obviously offensive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.160.239.225 ( talk • contribs)
So on January 25, 2014, Cdestefano ( talk · contribs) blanked Chris DeStefano. A month later, Sethjohnson1987 ( talk · contribs) put the article up for Prod because "Chris Destefano requested that this page be completely removed", and I quickly deprodded it. On Sethjohnson1987's talk page, he wrote that "I work for his music publisher (SonyATV/EMI) and he emailed me asking for it to be taken down. Though he might change his mind and have us update it for him." What should be done here? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Please help in editing this article. Jim Murray passed away on March 1, 2013. THX https://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/570610/James-Rigney-Murray--70.html?nav=13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DixieDear ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The article Yuri Maltsev ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is caught up in the Austrian Economics farrago; as a result, a biographical article is tagged as unreliable and of questionable notability. I don't see much evidence of reliable third party sourcing in the history, but I am completely unsympathetic to the subject (a libertarian and apparently an advisor to the Heartland Institute, who I consider to be a plague on society) so I am not the right person to review this. Could someone please review the article, and either source it and remove the tags, or start the ball rolling on getting it nuked. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 14:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Recently information was edited [31] into Tor (anonymity network), and then substantially changed [32]. It is reportedly statements by two named individuals responding to questions about their alleged actions (with no factual basis, I might add) that, if true, would be an immense scandal and ruin their reputations. I'm in the process of discussing this with experienced editors. It appears likely that once reliability is sorted out, I will discuss the topic here. Poorly sourced information that could damage people's reputations should be removed until a consensus is reached. The information is poorly sourced because it has been cited and wikilinked to The Washington Post newspaper when in fact it was on their WP:NEWSBLOG entitled The Switch and published by that organization. The page has since been placed under Semi-protection and Pending changes protection to prevent my repeated attempts to remove the material pending consensus. Could someone please remove the material for the time being? 92.78.115.171 ( talk) 13:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The citation now reads as: Fung, Brian. "The feds pay for 60 percent of Tor’s development. Can users trust it?" Washington Post's The Switch. So end of BLP issue? --— Rhododendrites talk | 15:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit History:
So four editors have opposed you (yes, the correct number is four -- your count was incorrect), nobody has supported you, and you were blocked from editing the page because you attempted to get your way through edit warring. Despite repeated requests, you have made zero attempts to explain why you imagine that a BLP violation exists when nobody else sees one. It is still a mystery why you think that. BTW, nobody is bothering to respond to you because blocking you from editing he page solved the problem. I think we are done here. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to get some input on the notability of this figure before taking any action and I'm a bit rusty on my BLP standards. If anybody else would be so kind as to take a look and let me know their thoughts on his notability I'd be most obliged. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
With regard to the External Links section of Churchill's article, does the section currently conform to the norms of what usually appears in the External Links section for a BLP? AzureCitizen ( talk) 02:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Candace Hutson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello! This is Candace Hutson. My last name has since changed but Hutson is my maiden name, and was my professional acting name. My birthdate is incorrect on your site, My actual birthdate is May 3rd, 1980. I have submitted to IMDb a request for a correction for my birthdate. If you could please correct my birthdate on Wikipedia, it would really stop irritating my family, friends, and even my kids! I would appreciate it so much! Thank you for your time on this simple matter! Thanks again. Sincerely, Candace Hutson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.139.234 ( talk) 03:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
This notice is regarding this page: Stephen Cooper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stephen Cooper /info/en/?search=Stephen_Cooper_(businessman)
The following article is repeatedly referenced in the "Personal Life" section, but it has no affiliation to Stephen Cooper, so I removed it again: http://www.bloomfield-cooper.com/dm20/en_US/group/business/bloomfieldcooper/index.page.
Please kindly let me know why this article is repeatedly re-posted and let me know if it can stay removed.
(Relates to the current, that is the of February 2014 edition of the article)
The article about member of Ukrainian parliament, Regional Party member Olena A. Bondarenko, does not meet Wikipedia standards. The article looks to have been amended/written by someone with very strong personal views about the conflict in the Ukraine. If anything, the article demonstrates how far away from each others the parties in the conflict are.
I opened a discussion of this, under the folowing subjects:
1 Very low standard article 1.1 Questionable and unverified information 1.2 Serioius, undocumented claims about Bondarenko and the police 1.3 Politicised, emotional language
I will hereby restate the problems with the article.
Documentation:
William Thourlby ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IMDB says this person passed away in April of last year. I have located an obit, but it is small and does not make mention of his acting career, so I'm wondering if that really is him. Thoughts? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Sergio Fabbrini (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Please remove the article for the following reasons:
1) It is a CV and it is not relevant: there is no encyclopedic suitability of the subject; 2) The biography often refers to unverifiable (as well as uninteresting) contents ("married with...two sons..."), that may also violate the privacy of third parties. 2.235.43.146 ( talk) February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, WP:BLPKIND says
Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable.
I'm wondering how this applies to the work of the subject; that is, an article about their book, company or product. If the subject is upset about misrepresentation of their work, how does BLP/OTRS apply? Thanks Span ( talk) 15:08, 25 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.
I'm not sure of what to do about this. An Irish sports journalists is currently under trial for alleged sexual exploitation of a minor. The allegations include coercing a child to engage in the production of child pornography and inducing or coercing her to engage in a sexual, indecent or obscene act. A BBC report on the trial is here.
The article on the person accused of the crime makes mention of the allegation and that the trial has begun. As is common in many jurisdictions, a person accused of such crimes in Ireland are not ordinarily identified while the court case is underway. In part, at least, this is to protect the identity of alleged victims.
We are, of course, not censored and the Wikimedia Foundation is not subject to the laws of Ireland, I presume (not a lawyer!). However, I'm minded to remove mention of the criminal allegations until the trial has concluded as suggested by WP:BLP (see WP:BLPCRIME).
Any thoughts before I do so? -- Tóraí ( talk) 21:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I have been adding material about to the controversies related to David Samson (New Jersey) a living person, and want to make sure that the material is appropriate. All the material added is supported by reputable sources. As there are no other editors participating in editing that article I'd appreciate some fresh eyes and feedback. Cwobeel ( talk) 04:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
A lot of work needed to get this biography of the Ukrainian politician up to scratch. Many (most?) of the sources don't seem to be adequate for a BLP. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Matt Mulhern (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Michael Mulheren (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Hi Wikipedia,
Just trying to point out a mistake on your Biography of the Actor Matt Mulhern. It said he had a recurring role in the TV Series 'Rescue Me'. As I was a big fan of both Rescue Me and the film Biloxi Blues, in which Mulhern played one of the lead roles, I knew there was something not right as I had no recollection of him in Rescue Me. It turns out the mistake is most likely down to another actor called Michael Mulheren being confused with Matt Mulhern-both incidentally from New Jersey, but different people and it was the former appeared in Rescue Me and not Matt. Hope this has been a help and will get to the correct person to fix the mistake.
Eamonn Walsh Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.178.95.4 ( talk) 15:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Several editors are adding death information for this subject but no references are being offered. I can not find any mention of his death searching the web and have reach 3RR to support its removal until referenced. I would like other opinions.— John Cline ( talk) 09:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Peter Ruckman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some eyes are needed on the Peter Ruckman article. This diff is typical. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I may be missing something here so I'd like some uninvolved editors to look at the following content, is it a BLP violation? It has been in the well attended article since December 2013 but maybe it is a violation and I'm not seeing it. And RfC was started on the talk page over its inclusion:
Robertson also drew criticism for viewpoints he expressed that critics characterized as "minimizing the era" of racial segregation in the southern United States, calling his comments "insensitive". [1] [2] [3] Robertson said: "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field [...] They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people'—not a word! [...] Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues." In response, the Human Rights Campaign and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) wrote a joint letter to A&E calling Robertson's remarks dangerous and inaccurate. [4] [5] [6] [7] Jesse Jackson's human rights group, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, has "demanded meetings with A&E and with Cracker Barrel" over the issue, and, together with GLAAD and the National Organization for Women, urged A&E to keep Robertson on hiatus. [8] Dan Savage opined that he felt that Robertson's comments about African-Americans under Jim Crow laws were "much more offensive", but because in American culture issues of sex are generally discussed more than issues of race, his comments about race would be discussed far less, in favor of issues about gay sexuality. [9] [10] [11]
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Please do not remove the following comment again -- it has been improperly removed twice now and I am damn sick and tired of cleaning up after those who violate talk page rules about removing comments
Note: The material was discussed at an RfC which closed all of a week ago -- and this is blatant forum shopping now. The consensus was clear:
The OP here had already commented at that RfC, and trying to get extra bites of the apple is improper IMO. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC) replaced yet again Collect ( talk) 21:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
In short -- the material failed at an RfC and this is blatant forumshopping. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 21:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Comments please. Page with longtime disputes and editor seeks to overrule others in using gossip column as acceptable source for negative articles, yet not use for positive articles. Please help. Is an active living person. 165.254.85.130 ( talk) 09:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
There is an OTRS ticket Ticket:2014022410000719 re Ronn Torossian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is one of those cases where a thankless task needs doing: the complaint is in respect of the rather sneering tone of the article, but the guy is a gifted self-publicist and this has been going on for years ( Ticket:2011032810012659, Ticket:2008110410017083, and Ticket:2006121510017939 which suggests the article has its roots in a PR exercise on his behalf by his firm) so treading the fine line of tone and balance is going to take some skill. If there's someone who is genuinely interested in the field of PR then please do have a go, because I think an editor with subject matter knowledge is likely to be the best bet here. Guy ( Help!) 13:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I usually walk through pathehtic crap like this, but this takes the cake.
I recently heard about Epiegenetics and naturally I wanted to see what I missed the last decade.
Eva Jablonka Intentionally missrepresent links.
Marcus Pembrey Same.
Edward J. Steele Same....AAAND the Anti Deffemation Leage link leads to An American Politician.
None of them fo what I could see refeered them selves as Lamarckians.
FYI, these manchildren are still around, disengeniusly spamming Lamarckian page and "Nature versus nurture" and half the Biology pages. 84.202.109.61 ( talk) 16:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Mata Amritanandamayi (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
I'm concerned with content on the page for
Mata Amritanandamayi. There is an unpublished book that is getting play in the India media and it seems that there is a group of editors who feel very strongly about including negative material against
Mata Amritanandamayi. I believe they are violating WP:BLPCRIME Could somebody please take a look?
User:Amrit914, 18:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The section about the controversial allegations in the book is currently under mediation ( Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mata Amritanandamayi). I dont think it serves any purpose to have a parallel discussion here if there is a mediation going on about exactly the same issue. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 04:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
A lot of uncited negative stuff. 65.130.253.244 ( talk) 05:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I also tried to start this discussion on the no original research noticeboard but thought maybe this was a more appropriate place?
Much of the article for journalist Chuck Philips is basically a description of the news articles he's written. But the references used are the articles themselves, which I believe would be a non-independent primary source and using that to write an article constitutes original research. Journalists are in a funny position with respect to Wikipedia where the thing they create is the currency we use to establish notability and verifiability. But for a Wikipedia article about a journalist I think you have to rely on articles written about that journalist by other journalists. Otherwise virtually any journalist would have enough citations floating around to warrant a Wikipedia article. Fnordware ( talk) 23:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I had flagged the
John Philips
Chuck Philips article for multiple problems: Original research, autobiography, and POV. A user removed the flag without discussion. Does anyone care to (dis)agree with my assessment?
Fnordware (
talk) 05:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
This cite is used on hundreds of articles but I'm concerned in this case it might be overreaching.
MK Nobilette, is a finalist on American Idol. I just did this revert as it is giving out her name and date of birth citing this website. Was that a good call? Does it also need to be erased permanently? Sportfan5000 ( talk) 02:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The third paragraph of Eliot Spitzer#Legal career (merged from Early life of Eliot Spitzer, now a redirect, in this 2009 edit) reads
Spitzer devised a plan to set up his own sweatshop in the city's garment district, turning out shirts, pants and sweaters, and hiring 30 laborers. The shop manager eventually got close to the Gambinos, and officials were able to plant a bug in their office. The Gambinos, rather than being charged with extortion – which was hard to prove – were charged with antitrust violations. Joseph and Thomas Gambino, the latter being an extremely high-ranking member, and two other defendants took the deal and avoided jail by pleading guilty, paying $12 million in fines and agreeing to stay out of the business.
citing a Time magazine paywalled article. If anyone has ready access to Time could you please check the veracity of the "sweatshop" claim and nature, if any, of our subject's link to these organized criminals? It's all very vague. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The following passage is highly contentious:
Although highly esteemed, after contradicting allegations of sexual abuse of a boy, many years ago, and of which there was no proof, it is claimed that the Vatican induced the bishop when in his late sixties into retirement. Schilder currently does not celebrate masses in public and exercises no pastoral tasks. He lives with the Mill Hill Missionaries in Oosterbeek, Netherlands.[3][4] --END OF PASSAGE
Please note: According to Fons Eppink, a senior member of Cornelius Schilder's own congregation (Mill Hill), bishop Schilder was removed from the Ngong bishopric by the Vatican for committing sexual abuse. Furthermore, Mr Eppink stated on the record that Schilder's right to say mass was revoked by the Mill Hill congregation, also as a punishment for committing sexual abuse. The entry on Schilder now visible on Wikipedia has been whitewashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.202.114.190 ( talk) 09:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Deals with living persons. The issue at hand is an infobox [50] listing one person seven separate times in the infobox as "name of scandal", "participant", "convicted", "charges" (twice), and "verdict" and a second person given six separate mentions in the same infobox, and the listing of unnamed "family and associates" as conspirators in the infobox. I suggested that a single mention of each person is quite sufficient, but this is using a sledgehammer to make a point of their corruption (and the corrupt family and associates). Cheers. Collect ( talk) 21:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Not sure where to take this, but I'll try here. On the face of it, the article - and the process of its development - would seem to contravene a whole raft of policies on notability, conflict of interest, and potential sockpuppetry as well. Could be a meaty one to get into. Can someone with more experience in such matters take a look at it, and see what you think? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 00:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe a major contributor to this page has a conflict of interest i.e that they work for the subject and thus are biased. verifiable but undesirable content has been removed by this user. Purplejumper ( talk) 01:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Jahi McMath ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Background: Jahi McMath underwent a surgical procedure in late 2013, suffered complications which included a bleed and a period of cardiac arrest, during which her brain was not oxygenated. Subsequently, she was declared brain-dead by the hospital's doctors. Her family disagreed and fought the determination in court, which may have failed (the article seems to indicate that the trial court found against the family). McMath has been declared legally dead, but her body is still on life support.
Issue: There's an ongoing dispute over whether to describe McMath as living or deceased, and perhaps more seriously, whether McMath should be described in the past or present tense. That is, "Jahi McMath is ..." versus "Jahi McMath was ..." WP:BLP applies: if McMath is dead, she's recently deceased and still within the scope of WP:BLP. While my normal recommendation would be to discuss the dispute, there are two problems. First, how do we handle the tense issue? I don't think "creative wording" will work satisfactorily. Second, I'm not sure there are sources yet on this specific case that adequately discuss the dispute over whether McMath should be described as living or dead. There might be more general sources, but I'm not sure those could be invoked without running afoul of WP:SYN.
One solution suggested is "is/was", which I don't particularly like. An explanatory footnote probably wouldn't resolve the dispute either. My personal opinion is that we're well within WP:NOTNEWS territory, indicating that deletion might be appropriate, but that still doesn't really resolve the dispute. Opinions are welcome. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 15:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
How do we handle someone whose death is contested? Well, there's always the
BLPN Hit Squad. As a last resort, of course. Other methods of disambiguation are always preferable. We here at Wikipedia are already quite accustomed to character assassination, so this will be but a small step. I mean this
literally.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 17:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
If there is even a scintilla of dispute, WP:BLP absolutely applies -- and is considered to apply to "recently dead" people by practice in any event. The goal is "do no harm" and if harm would be seen by anyone involved, we ought not do it. Collect ( talk) 18:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Mendaliv - Your assistance thus far in resolving this dispute have been appreciated. Unfortunately, despite the "is/was" and infobox issues being addressed, IP editor 24.0.133.234 remains unsatisfied with the content of the (now renamed) Jahi McMath case article, and is continuing to engage in editing and talk page behavior that Ca2james and myself consider to be disruptive. We could use more guidance as to how to proceed and/or escalate. Funcrunch ( talk) 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I could use some help with this please. Even the more reliable sources such as The Huffington Post and The Telegraph are quoting another party (other than the subject) in the Daily Mirror tabloid which is not a reliable source. Helen Online 08:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Also here in Michelle Rodriguez. Helen Online 08:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The edit summary of this revert of my WP:BLPREMOVE by Tbhotch states "It's not that difficult to use Google News. The Mirror may not be reliable, but Rodriguez and Delevingne are". The Mirror article which supposedly quotes Rodriguez and another unnamed source is not an official press release or statement and it was definitely not quoting Delevingne. Helen Online 08:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Is it the right the right time to add Michelle's supposed relationship with the British model Cara Delevingne? Editors have rightly been reverting edits confirming their relationship because the sources were a bit dodgy etc... but now the relationship is being "confirmed" by numerous British national newspapers. Should we start updating Michelle's relationship status? Tomh903 ( talk) 18:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and hope that those with better knowledge than I about the intricate workings of editing play fair with me. Looking at the history of this entry I am concerned that all references to Stuart Murphy's homosexuality are removed very rapidly without reason. Murphy has gone on the record regarding his sexuality. For example http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/24/stuart-murphy-sky-battle-box and elsewhere. What precisely merits the censorship of this well known aspect of his life anymore than removing all references to Stephen Fry's homosexuality in his Wikipedia entry? Its removal is offensive to the gay community. Or have I misunderstood? I am happy to stand corrected if so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.60.135.151 ( talk) 19:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
WOW! I hear the sounds of grinding axes. This is generating a lot of heat but little light and blocking people for making a joke, which is how the Fry comment read to me, is a bit severe isn't it? It probably is the same guy but he makes good points. I see no light coming from Demiurge1000 just the rapid knee jerk revert revert. The ref to Murphy's homosexuality is going back on the page. Can we have a cool, calm, level-headed senior editor with no connection to this Murphy page to oversee it? What IS the big deal here? All it says is that the guy is gay which he has said many times? 181.41.209.19 ( talk) 14:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The Stuart Murphy article has been placed in several gay and LGBT categories so it's not likely his sexual orientation is completely erased. You raise a good question though since, when it is an entertainer or sports figure declaring they are LGBT, mention of it is usually included in their article but it is considered irrelevant for individuals who aren't so obviously on a public stage. Liz Read! Talk! 12:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Liz. Stuart Murphy is hardly unknown. Yet, seldom a day passes without there being a press release from him (in his role as one of the major commissioners for British and U.S TV). He is very well known not only by many who work in TV (and who doubtless consider him to be a role model as the youngest ever controller in BBC TV etc.), but by regular readers of newspapers' media pages etc. Tiptoety's edit entry (though not on this page I note) says “his children are not notable, and noting that he has them adds nothing to the article. Do not re-add this material. Continually re-adding will result in a block”. This unpleasantness is unsupported by the accusation of a violation per WP:BLP. How does directly quoting Murphy regarding his familial circumstances and his sexuality (from reliable sources)constitute such a violation? The identities of the children are not revealed in the entry. And his sexual circumstances are noteworthy not least because of his senior position in TV and editorial powers. He could certainly be an inspiration to many men and women facing a similar predicament. So I say its inclusion does add to the article and I am going to revert. If I am blocked by Tiptoety as that editor threatens, I would welcome the wider involvement of the Wikipedia community to look into this. I see a pincer movement and blocking threats going on too frequently between Tiptoety and Demiurge1000 (see above). Look at the history of the Murphy entry (as suggested above). If I am blocked, I will bring this to the attention of the founder of the esteemed organization. 181.41.209.86 ( talk) 15:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
If anyone with considerable power in the media (such as Murphy) decides to single out details of their sexual preferences in a high profile newspaper interview (straight or otherwise), then such comments must be regarded as significant. Most heterosexual men don't go out of their way to divulge whether they are straight or not, but those who do (usually by mentioning their conquests) clearly do so for a reason and it seems perverse that some Wikiepedia editors want to expunge such freely given and significant personal information. Murphy's sexuality has clearly had an impact on his editorial thinking. Before he came out, he commissioned the first very out newsreader for BBC3 tv (and made a PR feature of it). I guess that many of his Sky comedies like "Trollied" (almost a present day "Are you Being Served") attract a gay audience. That is why I find the expunging mention of this man's homosexuality sinister because I don't trust the motives. Is Murphy himself regretting he mentioned it now he climbs higher up the ladder? Just as sinister is the bullying tone of the editors wanting to applying the censorship in this entry. Aggression is becoming epidemic in Wikipedia. Read the terse and cavalier remarks above this entry from editors presumably with a high number of wiki barn stars but with obviously very low self esteem. Such a barbed tonality will eventually damage Wikipedia's reputation. Bullying (phrases like "you are going to get blocked" without giving reason) isn't permitted in the school playground, so why is it tolerated in the grown up world of Wikipedia? More severe action should be taken against such people. I am going to send this little interchange to Jimmy Wales. 181.41.209.134 ( talk) 12:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 181.41.209.134 ( talk) 12:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 181.41.209.134 ( talk) 12:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Debbie Schlussel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The subject of this article wrote me a very angry note about the article about her and I've decided to try to help improve it. I have made some edits already but could use some help.
The article is unrelentingly negative in tone, but that is in no small part because virtually all third party writing about her is hostile due to her controversial (to say the least) positions and her own angry style of writing. But on top of that, in looking into our summaries of several of her positions or past controversies, I'm find the article to be sometimes weak in terms of good quality summary of what was actually said or what actually happened.
There also appears to be far too much reliance on blogs for sourcing.
Anyway, help would be appreciated and there's some stuff I have written on the talk page.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I feel as though the article is fine the way it is now, the majority of it was listing the controversial things she said, which is important to include. I don't see a problem with it! Adamh4 ( talk) 19:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Willie Jerome Manning (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
I've removed contentious material about a living person several times, with detailed explanations in Talk as to why this was necessary. The material has been replaced each time. The last time this was done, it was accompanied by threatening and disparaging comments.
Smallnslow (
talk) 02:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm a newbie - that accounts for my technical problems, including triggering automatic reversion of text. That does not make my comments about this article less valid. Manning briefly attracted national attention in 2013, when the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled not to allow him DNA testing http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 The Wikipedia article places undue weight on tabloid journalism, especially in using an article http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=24056&TRID=1&TID= that, astonishingly, chose to ignore the national controversy in favour of publishing a one-sided article whose purpose appears to have been to persuade its readers of Manning's guilt. I also deleted court records, as Wikipedia suggests these are unreliable texts. I agree with what Bundlesofsticks says above <He was convicted of four murders>. I find this wording more neutral than "He murdered four people". Smallnslow ( talk) 08:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Responding to the comments from Bundlesofsticks <Manning's guilt had been long established when that article was published.> "New York Times, 3 May, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 “Lawyers for Mr. Manning have argued that the case has serious holes. Some of the trial witnesses gave accounts inconsistent with known facts, they said, and one key witness, the former girlfriend, was given a favorable plea deal on fraud charges as well as nearly $18,000 in reward money after testifying for the prosecution, details not fully disclosed to the trial jury. Mr. Manning’s lawyers also pointed to fingerprints found in Ms. Miller’s car, which had been driven elsewhere and abandoned after the killings. None of the prints matched Mr. Manning’s, and multiple prints were found that did not match those of the victims.” <The Commercial Dispatch is not a tabloid. It has its own article on Wikipedia and from that article we learn that the newspaper has been existence since before 1910.> WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." There appears to be no editorial oversight involved in the Dispatch article that I removed. http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=24056&TRID=1&TID= To publish a ‘news story’ that presents Manning in so bad a light, without reference to the wider context and without presenting an alternative or mitigating viewpoint (at a time when well-established news outlets were reporting indications of a possible wrongful conviction), is at the very least sensationalist, in keeping with the tabloid press. The wider context at that time was: New York Times, 3 May, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/us/dna-tests-rejected-for-inmate-facing-tuesday-execution.html?_r=0 The State of Mississippi has denied requests for DNA testing of evidence made by a prisoner set to be executed on Tuesday, potentially setting up what experts said would be a rare case in recent years in which a person is put to death with such requests unmet. <Court records are not unreliable, but they are primary sources. Primary sources are not forbidden in WP articles, but they are discouraged in favor of secondary and tertiary sources.> WP:BLP Avoid misuse of primary sources . Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. <Pay especial interest to the WP:NPOV policy.> It's an indisputable fact that Manning was 'convicted of murder'. If that statement doesn't contain the information editors wish to convey using the encyclopedia's voice, what is it exactly that is not being conveyed by that statement ? Sean.hoyland - talk • WP:GRAPEVINE "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced." WP:BLPREMOVE Smallnslow ( talk) 20:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:Perp, a Wikipedia article about a criminal is okay for us to have as long as it meets certain requirements. I assume that, here in this case, "the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime was unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." You should be able to summarize Manning's historic significance in a sentence or two, and put that into the lead. Just saying that he committed two double-murders does not seem to be enough, because (unfortunately) people are murdered all the time. Was it the FBI's rescinding of a report that makes this historic? Such rescinding doesn't sound to me like something that was obviously historic, unless someone at the FBI committed a crime, or unless Manning's conviction is overturned due to the rescinding. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I personally think Manning does not merit a Wikipedia article at all. The FBI’s rescinding of its hair report in this case, insofar as it was notable at all, was significant only in its timing (there have been many other cases since). It heightened the focus on the main topic in news outlets at the time, which was that the Mississippi Supreme Court was prepared to execute Manning without allowing him testing of DNA and fingerprint evidence. However, the Court did eventually reverse its judgment and allow this testing. I think with this reversal, Manning’s historic significance disappears. Smallnslow ( talk) 12:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. First link I added doesn't appear to work, so here it is in full: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-justice-scandal-fbi-could-be-at-fault-in-27-death-row-cases-8718135.html Smallnslow ( talk) 12:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
My opinion relates to the question put by Anythingyouwant, ‘Was it the FBI’s rescinding of a report that makes this historic?’ The FBI’s decision to correct errors in hair testimony cases was made the previous year. It was not made in response to Manning’s case. “Federal officials found Manning’s case as part of a broad review of the FBI’s handling of scientific evidence in thousands of violent crimes in the 1980s and 1990s. The Justice Department announced last summer an effort to correct past errors in forensic hair examinations before 2000 — at least 21,000 cases — to determine whether agents exaggerated the significance of purported hair “matches” in lab reports or trial testimony.” Washington Post, May 4 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/justice-dept-admits-flaws-in-forensic-testimony-in-mississippi-death-row-case/2013/05/03/aca18176-b41c-11e2-baf7-5bc2a9dc6f44_story.html So the evaluation of Manning's historic significance hinges not on an FBI change of policy, but on his case being the first to be announced, in dramatic circumstances, very close to the time of his scheduled execution. Smallnslow ( talk) 13:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I reverted this edit as it was in the lead and misrepresented the source. The source summarises the story of a student suing a university for allegedly failing to act on sexual harassment allegations. The edit changed the onus of the lawsuit from the university to the subject, and exaggerated the allegations. The talk page discussion also violates BLP and I believe the edit summaries beginning with this one, may need redacting - and some of the comments regarding allegations of assault are not supported by reliable sources. This source seems to confirm that the subject breached a university sexual harassment code and was disciplined, however it doesn't support the current allegations. Could an admin please have a look a and consider redacting edit summaries (I have changed the section heading for posts going forward). Is it OK for me to refactor or strike through those sections of posts which are in violation? Flat Out let's discuss it 05:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Propose Close - given that none of the editors pushing to have the allegations included in the article have bothered to enter discussion, I propose the discussion be closed and the article protection amended to all edits by unconfirmed edits requiring review. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily a violation as such, just felt that people with experience in BLP might want to cast an eye over this one to ensure everything is appropriately neutral and fairly weighted. Draft:Devyani Khobragade -- nonsense ferret 21:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The article on Herman Branover Herman Branover is a blantant misrepresentation.
The claims of status as an educator in the Jewish world, and the phrases "known in the scientific community", "pioneer" and "led to many spin-off...", are weasel words. There are no cites to support any of this, and it seems doubtful that any will be found.
The authors of the Wikipedia article want to create a myth around his scientific credentials to support his writings on religious subjects.
Indeed his writings on science and religion often grossly misrepresent scientific positions (for example see his book "Science in the Light of Torah"), and as a scientist, his h-index is modest at best (see Google Scholar).
I submit that after correcting the page to more accurately describe his work and writings, it should be locked against further edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.226.6 ( talk) 05:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Wiki,
Please help me to resolve this issue:
On the page for Gordon Curran Stewart, the following warnings/disclaimers appear, all made in December 2013:
This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording and instead of making proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance. (December 2013
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2013)
This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (December 2013)
Regarding subjectivity: I have read through the article and have removed a sentence that was subjective. Aside from that sentence I do not see anything else that could be deemed to "promote[] the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information." Please, can you check the article and see if the corrections are sufficient and if they are then remove the warning from the top of the page? If the corrections are insufficient, then please let me know exactly what needs to be changed so that the appropriate edits can be made.
Regarding neutrality: It is not specified on the talk page what exactly is disputed. It says: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous." The article was accepted onto Wiki as a result of an editing process that involved a requirement of neutrality. Certainly there is nothing on the page that can be considered to be "[u]nsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons". And there is nothing on the page that is potentially libelous. Is it possible to either learn more about the "dispute" so that it can be remedied, and if not then to remove the notice referring to a dispute?
Regarding copy editing: A small number of minor edits have been made, and the article now appears to no longer require copy editing. Please, can you remove the notice?
Many thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmdelamare ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Don Mellett ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are absolutely no references at all on this bio, which contains considerable information implicating others in criminal activity. Seems to be eligible for deletion under WP:BLP1E. Unsure what to do about the article. I don't have the time or desire to research the event, but all the unreferenced negative info about living people seems to be a problem. John from Idegon ( talk) 17:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Someone as been making some questionable additions to Howard Stern's Talk Page. It does seem that these edits are simply intended to take shots a Stern and his wife. Similar edits were made to the Howard Stern itself, but the page was protected ( diff). Apparently this IP editor figured out that such protection does not extend to the article's talk page. Still fairly new at Wikipedia, so not sure what to do. If I'm asking in the wrong place about this, then apologies in advance. Maybe a more experienced editor or an admin can check it out? Thanks - Marchjuly ( talk) 22:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Murry Salby has just been added to this excuse for an article, the citation used for the contentious statement of fact is an opinion piece in the Guardian. I was under the impression that opinion pieces are not to be used for statements of fact on a BLP? Darkness Shines ( talk) 14:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The religion marked in the article as Pervertism is defamatory and politically motivated. Thanks for your time and attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.173.195 ( talk) 16:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I am acquainted with Mike Scott (musician) and he has sent me a concerned email about his own article and that of Camille O'Sullivan. His remarks are essentially that he feels his privacy is being violated as a result of recent edits by what seems to be the single-purpose account BurlesqueCoversGalére ( talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi). I have amended both articles [55] [56] but I am requesting more eyes/views on this as although I have been around the block I almost never edit BLPs and am not familiar with the relevant protocols. In essence Mr Scott is saying:
I have alerted the above user to this thread [57]. I will also inform Mr. Scott about the revision deletion option above. Ben Mac Dui 16:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
António Lopes Jonet competed at the 1952 Helsinki Olympic Games in Men's Modern Pentathlon. I tried to correct his name which is written with an "o" not "a", as it is in the wrongful source, but I wasn't successful. He is also not a living person, as he died in September 21, 2007. My sources are: http://www.geneall.net/P/per_page.php?id=578684 and I'm his grand-nephew. SakasFixe ( talk) 20:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Sirs, I would like to respectfully ask that the Wikipedia web page about Alejandra Bravo would be completely eliminated. During part of 2012 and all 2013 year this page has posted biased information, without hard evidence about myself. This page has had multiple changes by people who clearly seek to discredit me and which have severely harmed my public image. This page contain poorly sourced material, with libelous potentially intentions. Most of the comments have been based on materials that were published in Mexican newspapers with information out of context, resulting defamatory. Wikipedia pages should not mislead the reader into believing that something false is real. In addition Wikipedia is not a forum for discussions, it is an encyclopedia and therefore the information described on the Alejandra Bravo’s page does not correspond to encyclopedic information.
If you want specific information on the incorporated slurs, I can mention some examples: 1. In the Wikipedia page Alejandra Bravo in Spanish said: “En septiembre de 2012 un grupo de investigadores publicó una revisión crítica sobre los modelos de acción de los insecticidas de Bacillus thuringiensis en el cual se concluía que los modelos mexicanos no eran replicables, basándose en el análisis de once publicaciones de Alejandra Bravo y su esposo Mario Soberón.4” (In September 2012 a group of researchers published a critical review of the models of action of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticides in which they concluded that Mexicans model was not replicable, based on the analysis of eleven publications of Alejandra Bravo and her husband Mario Soberón.4 "). Reference 4 (Vachont , Vincent ; Laprade , Reynald , Schwartz, Jean -Louis (2012 ) ' Current models of the mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal proteins : A critical review "( in English ) Science Direct Accessed . . February 15, 2014), does not mention anywhere that the data on Bravo and Soberon were not reproducible. Similarly, it did not mention at all that eleven publications under authorship of these Mexican researchers were questionable. So this whole paragraph is a defamation that used a scientific article, that is solid, to support their false arguments. This paragraph is misleading real information it is a tort of false light.
2. In the Wikipedia page in Spanish said that " ... Debido a esto ambos científicos fueron separados de sus cargos, …” (Because of this both scientists were removed from their positions). Bravo and Soberon were never separated from their university positions; they are professors, senior researchers at the Institute of Biotechnology, UNAM. This statement was a lie published in the newspaper La Jornada. You mentioned that you will be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. A newspaper publication should not be taken as a reliable source of facts, especially if they were not true. This is also a clear defamation to Bravo and Soberon status.
3. The conclusion of the evaluation committee mentioned in Wikipedia are not correct. Again misleading information, presenting written statements out of context, completely biased, are damaging the researchers. The main conclusion of the commission was that the modifications of the figures did not change at all the scientific content of these publications and for this reason they did not recommended to remove any publication.
4. In the Wikipedia page in Spanish it states that "… También trascendió que los científicos habían aceptado su error, comunicándose con los editores de las revistas de aquellas publicaciones afectadas, quienes no pidieron correcciones o fe de erratas.4…” (... It was also learned that scientists had accepted his mistake by contacting the publishers of the journals of the affected publications, who did asked corrections.4). Bravo and Soberon sent corrections to their publications for " Motus propio" without anyone 's asked which were accepted by the journals. No retraction was done. This was reported by the La Jornada newspaper but did not take into account for the Wikipedia editors even thought that this newspaper has been the main source of information from this Wikipedia page. Ref: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/04/16/ciencias/a03n1cie
5. The Wikipedia page in Spanish states "…por el hecho de haber «manipulado» las imágenes en 2 de las publicaciones. El caso llamó la atención de la Oficina de Integridad Científica (ORI) de los Institutos Nacionales de Salud de Estados Unidos (NIH), la cual revisó los hechos…”( ... the fact of having" manipulated " images in 2 publications. The case caught the attention of the Office of Scientific Integrity (ORI ) of the [ [National Institutes of Health (USA) | National Institutes of Health in the United States ] ] (NIH ) , which reviewed the facts ... " This is another slanderous lie that has caused a lot of damage. ORI 's office did not review the case because the manipulation of images of two articles caught their attention. ORI review the case because the accused researchers had an active grant from the NIH. The ORI is responsible for monitoring complaints of misconduct in biomedical research projects that receive support from agencies related to public health services in USA. The final ORI 's report concludes that Bravo and Soberon researchers at the Institute of Biotechnology, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) did not commit misconduct. They did not suspend the financial support that NHI gives to Bravo and Soberon. This was reported by La Jornada and by the Mexican Academy of Sciences: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/04/16/ciencias/a03n1cie http://www.comunicacion.amc.edu.mx/comunicados/concluye-la-ori-que-mario-soberon-y-alejandra-bravo-no-incurrieron-en-falta/
6. The description of the actions of the University Rights Ombudsman was incorrect. The UNAM-University Rights Ombudsman (DDU), determined to initiate an investigation for possible effects on rights of Dr. Alejandra Bravo and Dr. Mario Soberon. Advocacy recommended terminating the sanctions given the large number of violations of rights of these university researchers. The authorities involved accepted the recommendation of DDU and researchers can receive students and recovered their academic leadership of research groups at Biotechnology Institute of UNAM. This case was closed, researchers since both researchers showed that they did not commit any scientific fraud to the university authorities, to authorities ORI NHI, and to the scientific journals. Even more, it was published recently a scientific paper in the journal Biochemical Journal in which Bravo and Soberon showed experimental scientific evidence demonstrating that the model of the mechanism of action of Cry toxins that they propose remains valid.
Finally it is important to mention that the same Mexicans newspapers that actively participated in this case publishing erroneous information also reported that communications in the newspapers contribute to generate an important public image damage of Bravo and Soberon, as well as harm their reputation and prestige as scientists.
The newspaper La Jornada reported that “A partir de la intervención de la Defensoría se trata de un caso cerrado, pero que produjo un gran daño a dos científicos mexicanos” (From the intervention of the Ombudsman is a close case, but that resulted in severe damage to two scientists" Ref: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/10/15/index.php?section=ciencias&article=a03a1cie&partner=rss
Finally the ex-rector of UNAM Dr. Juan Ramon de la Fuente wrote about the participation DDU-UNAM and said “Sobresale la UNAM, por supuesto, que supo poner en juego las fortalezas de la ciencia, para eviitar que dos de los mejores investigadores de los que Mexico dispone, Alejandra Bravo y Mario Soberón, vieran truncadas sus carreras, victimas de una suspicacia excesiva y de esa terrible distorcion vital que experimentan algunos ante el exito de otros: la envidia.” (The UNAM excels, of course, who knew how to bring into play the strengths of science, for stop that two of the best researchers of Mexico, Alejandra Bravo and Mario Soberon, saw their careers cut short, victims of excessive suspicion and a terrible vital distortion that some people experienced in front of the success of others: the envy. Ref: http://www.eluniversalmas.com.mx/editoriales/2013/10/66876.php
For all the above reasons, I suggest and request that the Wikipedia Alejandra Bravo’s page will be removed completely. A severe damage has been done and since the case is closed, all arguments must stop immediately. You mentioned that Contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Then I just ask that to keep your word and make it true. Attentively, Alejandra Bravo
-- Yocize2 ( talk) 21:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
:You appear to be concerned about an article on Spanish Wikipedia, but this is English Wikipedia, and we have no jurisdiction over Spanish Wikipedia. You will have to take the matter up on Spanish Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I have no experience of using or editing Spanish Wikipedia, so I can't tell you how to go about raising the issue there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk) 22:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd like a quick sanity check on Erik Prince#Family. While the sources seem to check out, the tone is venomous. It's more a matter of neutral point of view and whether it's meaningful for the article. The subject of the article is a magnet for attacks due to his role in creating Blackwater, and I presume that's the reason the defamatory material was added. I've previously reverted uncited claims of sexual rumors, including a claim of a homosexual affair. With these recent additions, I'm not sure where to draw the line. Thanks, Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 06:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm bothered by the extent to which the desire to keep this article about an otherwise non-notable porn performer has led to increasingly detailed COATRACKing of articles related to a notable, but not widely known to the public, movie industry figure. Even though the key elements of the associated scandal have never been reliably confirmed as factual (although a very plausible case has been established). In the nine months or so since the scandal broke, the (sex-related) details of the scandal were excluded from the article on the notable studio executive, with BLP issues raised -- but over the last few weeks editors pushing to keep this porn performer article have been adding reported (but never quite confirmed) details of the scandal to various BLPs (usually with the never-quite-confirmed details presented as established facts.) I believe the longstanding treatment of the matter was more sensitive to BLP policy principles and more appropriate, and that those concerns should not be outweighed by the desire to keep articles about the porn performers involved. Further scrutiny would be appreciated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 14:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised that we got nothing on Sudhir Choudhrie. Was a previous article deleted or is he simply not notable?
Etc. Hcobb ( talk) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I have tried more than once to change wording in the lede of this article to read non-POV and to not give analysis of Moore's acting career. I've been reverted each time. Edits are here: [58], [59]; [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. Requesting new eyes on this and comments that address the edits I've tried to make as well as the reversions happening each time I attempt to make the edits. Of course, I believe the version I changed it to is better than the article status quo, otherwise I wouldn't be changing it. Thanks in advance. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)