![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I've included a link to what I believe to be the most recent BLPN disussions (there has been more than one). There is also considerable discussion on the article talk page, although, unfortunately, not in chronological order. The same editor, NickBryant, who is the author of an article about the topic, has come back and is trying to reinsert material into the Wikipedia article sourced to his own article. I reverted twice before ceasing the battle, although my reverts were probably exempt under WP:3RRNO. The author, who is pugnacious and, I believe, often edits without logging in (not in this instance), insisted until a final reversion by another editor and a one-week lock on the article by another administrator.
The material Bryant wants to add involves civil lawsuits filed by one of King's alleged victims. One lawsuit was against King (there were supposedly 15 other suits). There was a default judgment against King (so goes the material) because King was in prison, not on the sexual abuse charges, for which he was never indicted let alone convicted, but for embezzlement.
There is a single source in support of all the material, Bryant's article. Bryant, who is a crusader in this, has his own website, and he cites to an online version of the article located on his website.
The issues are complex. They primarily involve WP:BLP and whether, first, the material is worthy of inclusion even if reliably sourced and, second, whether a single source like Bryant's article meets the high quality necessary for negative material about a BLP. Another issue is the obvious WP:COI in Bryant citing his own material located on his own website. A third issue is WP:LINKVIO, whether the article on Bryant's website is a copyright violation (the copyright probably belongs to the publisher, not to Bryant), although that issue, of the three, could be eliminated by citing to the article offline.
To get a flavor of what Bryant wants to accomplish, read his comments here. Tom harrison was one of the editors involved in previous discussions.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 12:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Nick, in the article False Memory Syndrome Foundation that you keep mentioning they discuss an accusation made by a child against their own parent that was found to be without merit...mentioning the impetus of who was involved that led to this foundation being formed is necessary for context...I bet if I looked at that article more closely it would get trimmed significantly.-- MONGO 19:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Ignazio Ciufolini ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now, another source covering his pseudonyms appeared: COPE Digest: Publication Ethics in Practice. June 2014 (Vol. 2, Issue 6) http://publicationethics.org/cope-newsletter/2014/jun/cope-digest-publication-ethics-practice-june-2014-vol-2-issue-6#story-206 Not even COPE is a "reliable" source..? 56OKLO34 ( talk) 06:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The biography page for D. Brooke Harlow reads like a LinkedIn page. Most of the edits are from two users. It's patently clear she's created the page herself. This entry should be marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.59.231 ( talk) 11:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Helo, I am an occasional editor of various articles from or about Pakistan and am a serious editor, a retired college professor of good standing. I saw that the article on Ali Arman is a BLP without any references at all and seems to be of a dubious nature, reading like a self-promotion. Not everyone who writes or publishes/self publishes a book or two is a 'notable' writer. The Notability issue has been already raised about this article 3-4 years ago but no action taken it seems, and no talk/discussion made previously? I would please request deletion of this article which neither meets Wikipedia standards nor is of any real notability/repute. Thanks 39.54.207.44 ( talk) 01:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Prof(r) Hilda Khan, Pakistan
Currently has:
It had previously contained:
The addition of "climate change denier" appears to place this BLP squarely in the middle of using a pejorative term in a political context, and should require strong evidence to be placed here IMO. In addition the actual quote of Rubio about AGW in the LA Times article are: “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” Rubio said on ABC's "This Week." and Our climate is always changing,” Rubio said. “And what they have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer-term trend that's directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activities.”
Which quotes appear to me not to say that human activity has zero effect, but that it is not the primary agent of climate change. Thus the nuanced wording in the prior edit appears to me to be more neutral in content and tenor. Right now, the wording shouts "he is a total anti-science denier freak fringe person" which a careful reading of the quotes in the LA Times article does not support. This article clearly falls under the Climate Change arbitration case as far as I can tell if it maintains this stance. Collect ( talk) 20:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
[3] is the ArbCom decision and note that it specifically states that BLPs in this area
In the case of one person the committee found:
Which rather leads me to the suggestion that we err on the side of conservative wording here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 21:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, one editor on the talk page averred
Which avers in the editor's voice that Rubio is a "denier" and that a headline is a valid part of an article, even though it is clearly no more a part of an article than a caption is - it is not written by a reporter but by a "headline writer" and this interpretation would, indeed, make most such newspapers "unreliable". Cheers. Collect ( talk) 05:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
People: neither WP nor some of its editors are making any type of "call" or "assigning" labels. If you stop by the article you'll see that numerous WP:RS are in place to source Rubio being labeled a climate change denier, which is what's being reported. This discussion is relevant if you want to get into that issue BTW. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with additions from a BLP perspective, provided Rubio's opinions on climate change are a more than trivial part of his public persona, which appears to be the case (although I am not American and don't really know much about him - I'm just going off the sourcing). "Why not just include what Rubio said?" might be fair enough, but at the same time why do that? It's not really a BLP issue. Using BLP policy to keep criticism of politicians out of their articles would be a misuse of the policy, provided the criticism is not obscure and the coverage is proportionate.
The additions are a bit long winded, though. Maybe we could have According to
PolitiFact, "Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it."
and Rubio repudiates the label "climate change denier", accusing liberal critics of hypocrisy since, he says, they reject the "settled science" that "human life begins at conception".
Formerip (
talk)
18:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Some appear to wish to "right great wrongs" by clearly labelling those evil climate change deniers who wish to destroy the Earth. Alas -- ArbCom already ruled that BLPs are not the place to wage that sacred battle, and that NPOV is actually not negotiable on Wikipedia. Thus we must abide by that case result, even if we personally know that such fringe idiots are damned to hell for their refusal to accept the truth. Collect ( talk) 23:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It is essential, in a biography of a major US politician, to convey that politician's stance on substantive public-policy issues such as climate change. It is not essential to use the word "denier" or "denial", except insofar as it appears in direct quotes from reputable reliable sources. I proposed such an edit here, many reverts ago. A section on the labeling of Rubio as a "denier" has since been added, which I think is appropriately sourced (for the most part) but non-essential and more likely to cause disputes than to enlighten. MastCell Talk 17:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
There is an ongoing WP:RFC going on here. It is normal behavior to allow material to remain while a WP:RFC is ongoing. However, it has been removed a few times ( [7], [8], [9]). This has caused some confustion in the RFC. For example, [10]. Rather the material should be in the article or not is not the issue I am asking for help here in. The question I have is, is there a WP:BLP issue that would justify delecting the material while there is an ongoing WP:RFC. Casprings ( talk) 05:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
An editor of the Napoleon Chagnon article has been persistently inserting material to the effect that Chagnon is discredited, every other scholar in the world disagrees with him and this forced him to retire. The sources for this are unreliable at best (opinion pieces, press releases by activist organisations). In at least one case the editor has referenced the defamatory claims to a book which contains only three uses of Chagnon's name and no criticism of any kind. The editor does not respond to requests to explain this bahaviour on the article talk page. The editor is also persistently trying to add the statements from exactly the same source, apparently trolling the internet and referencing every blog or personal webpage that reposts the original opinion piece from activist group Survival International in an attempt to get it into the article. They have reposted the same material from the same press release at least three times in this manner.
This has been going on for several months now. I have no particular dog in this fight and only became involved in response to a Third Opinion request. However I've since put the article on my watch list and the insertions continue. I'd rather not have to keep removing the same defamatory statements based upon the same Survival International press release until either I, Chagnon or the editor dies.~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Marathon ( talk • contribs)
Adrien Beard was recently deleted from a PROD. I asked for it to be undeleted and added two sources. DangerousPanda re-added the BLP PROD notice saying the sources were not sufficient. I reverted his template, because I can't see a problem with the article as it is, but I feel that a closer look would be nice. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Your statements that the views or teachings are considered placebo by the scientific community may need some revision. Please see current research on meditation. Also please note that as I as an individual, in no way associated with his organization, find your statement that his teachings may sway people not to get traditional health care when needed is slanderous and inappropriate. I have been reading his books since my 20's, I am 56 now. I am a certified health coach married to an M.D. We have both attended a retreat at the Chopra Center for wellbeing. I also attended course in 2005 led by Dr. David Simon the cofounder of the Copra Center and a neurologist. Neither time was traditional was I led to avoid using a doctor. Please revise your post. Thank you. Susan Tobey Levy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.61.81 ( talk) 23:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
More eyes please at Jennifer Rubin (journalist) wherein attempts are being made to utilize blogs and opeds to trash a BLP. Thanks.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that some feedback to
Collect (
talk ·
contribs) about how to edit BLPs is needed; I've tried to offer it, but my suggestions have been rejected. Collect recently edited
Rick Santorum such that the article said Santorum opposes euthanasia
[12], but he did not supply a source (and indeed removed sources that were there earlier); he then removed a "cn" request
[13], appearing to believe it was sufficient that Santorum's being a (documented) Catholic was sufficient. He then supplied a source for the fact that S is Catholic and for the fact that Catholics (generally) oppose euthanasia
[14] -- a clear instance of SYNTH, insofar as there was still no source for Santorum's own opposition to euthanasia. Several editors have pointed out the obvious SYNTH
[15], but these attempts have not convinced Collect, and he continues to take the view that his edit did not involve SYNTH (e.g.
[16] -- here he says that each statement was sourced, but in fact in his edit (
[17], already linked above) there was no source for "Santorum opposes euthanasia").
I'm not requesting a sanction here (and anyway he hasn't repeated the article edit). I get the sense that Collect doesn't like it when I respond to his posts, so I'm suggesting that he might benefit if another editor explains to him that his edit was indeed SYNTH and therefore inappropriate particularly on a BLP. (I also expect he'll try to shift the focus onto me -- and I hope others here will be able to see beyond that, simply because it's important that we edit BLPs properly.) Thank you.
Nomoskedasticity (
talk)
14:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The charge of SYNTH was nicely absurd (The editor supported "Santorum is strongly against euthanasia" without it having any ref when he wanted that wording, but managed to assert "Santorum opposes euthanasia" as SYNTH when I used the simpler wording of the exact same claim) , as is one editor's continuing assault on me personally over an extended period. I need not comment further on a total misrepresentation of my discussion wording as it is on its face clearly a problem with the OP here.
Collect (
talk)
15:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Rather than all the puffing about above, how about actually finding a source that supports the assertion that Santorum opposes euthanasia? If he's a conservative Catholic, then I agree that is probably the case, but we don't do hunches like that in BLPs. It shouldn't be too hard to find something that confirms that this is a part of his policy platform (indeed, a quick Google search shows that he's made some controversial comments on the issue, although I don't know enough about US politics to sift out an impeccable source). If we can't back it up, then the assertion should not be in the article. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC).
Dany Bahar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is continual addition of particular false material to this page relating to a lawsuit involving the subject of this BLP. I have been reverting it for some time but a single user persists in adding false material to a direct quote from a primary source. See the History.
I suggest that this short article be cleaned of this material and then locked from editing. Or, the entire article be removed from Wikipedia until the lawsuit Dany Bahar is involved in is resolved. Cheers, Tobermory conferre 09:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I found Murray Chong doing new page patrol. This appears to be a series of minor incidents involving a local body politician, and the overall result is somewhat negative. It's well referenced though. In general, pages on New Zealand local body politicians other than Mayors have been deleted at AFD in the past. Do others share my sense of unease with this article?- gadfium 03:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Jeremy Peace ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The last paragraph of this article (beginning "On 14th of June 2014...") is completely unfounded, insulting, un-referenced and with appalling grammar. It needs to be removed immediately as it is libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.2.15 ( talk) 07:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Jesse Flynn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Could somebody look at this article and the proposed deletion? Bearian ( talk) 16:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Chamanlal Kamani (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
This is very poorly sourced given the allegations it makes about the subject of the article. The first external link is inaccessible, and the second only mentions another member of the family. --
John of Reading (
talk)
17:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
David Keyes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is one of the worst puff pieces I've seen in a long time; unfortunately I can't prune it right now. I counted seven or eight SPAs in the history, only one of which concerned with neutral writing, and two of them appear to be directly connected to one of the organizations the subject is involved with. I'd appreciate more sets of eyes. Drmies ( talk) 17:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Rajniesh Duggall ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi i am Rajniesh Duggall. . Someone has been editing my profile- Rajneesh Duggal, without my knowledge or my approval. . The keep changing my date of birth here ..from 19.11.1981 to 19.11.1976 ..my daughters name is teeyaa. kindly help and block such users..Thanks. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.104.1.244 ( talk) 02:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Rick Santorum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Euthanasia Santorum is strongly against euthanasia. In 2012 Santorum claimed that half of all euthanizations in The Netherlands are involuntary, because hospitals are euthanizing elderly patients for financial reasons. Santorum also claimed that 10% of all deaths in The Netherlands are the result of these involuntary euthanizations. According to both Washington Post journalist Glenn Kessler and to FactCheck.org, these claims are bogus. [1] [2] Santorum's comments caused a significant backlash in The Netherlands. [3]}}
Has been proposed as an edit. My personal response is that:
[4], [5], [6], etc. appear to offer a somewhat more nuanced view of what was a single speech. Collect ( talk) 14:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
References
There appears to be not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum's claims about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It is telling that his campaign did not even bother to defend his comments.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
But the facts are clear: Santorum grossly misrepresented the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands when making his case against it.
IMHO, sections in BLPs should primarily refer to the general opinions of the person on the topic, and be broader in scope than a single speech and many rebuttals to that single speech. Collect ( talk) 14:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Jason Hawke ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jason Hawke is NOT affiliated with Dark Alley Media. That is Owen Hawk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.193.175 ( talk) 23:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Aaron Gilmore ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My name is Aaron Gilmore I and others have tried more than once to remove inaccurate and imbalances in your article on me both current and historic.
Your article contains lies and media speculation that are very inaccurate about my life and has had removed large parts of it.
These changes were most recently last evening by someone. I was not aware of the material until recently. All the changes last evening have been removed despite references to highly reputable articles and changes to reflect my life. I am not a politician nor have I been for quite a while. If these changes made last night is not reversed I will consider what options are available.
Regards,
Aaron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.224.66.108 ( talk) 11:13, 14 June 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.
Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I welcome broader input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Hillary 2016 campaign article already created regarding the new Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article. John Carter ( talk) 20:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Senfronia Thompson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am listed with a middle name but I do not have a middle name. How can this be corredted?
Senfronia Thompson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.79.11 ( talk) 18:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article in total clearly lacks neutral point of view and my case is already at the NPOV board:
The main editor of this article is User:LardoBalsamico. I have been trying to deal with both the article and the user since February. You can see the summary of my situation with the user and the article here:
The reason I am contacting you from this noticeboard is; his last clearly violets the WP:LIVE policy.
As you can see, he shared a phone conversation from the investigation but all the involved parties were cleared of all charges. This is really incriminating for all the involved parties. Also, if you read it there is no clear sign of match-fixing and like all the article, it is just there to make Fenerbahce look bad.
If you read the whole article you will see the violation of this rule everywhere.
So,please help me resolve this issue. Thanks for taking the time to read my request. Rivaner ( talk) 15:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
My removal of that part is reverted by calling it vandalism and as usual the above mentioned user posted a warning on my talk page as well.
Rivaner ( talk) 15:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Paula Franzese ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just basically an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.52.53 ( talk) 19:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Pruned and stubified. -
Cwobeel
(talk)
22:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Allegations of sexual abuse were added to Ram Bahadur Bomjon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Obviously this is a serious accusation and I request editors help me with keeping unsourced allegations off the article. Shii (tock) 17:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)\
Hello - I would like to provide notice regarding a correction that is needed for the Wikipedia articles for actress Kate Mulgrew and politician Tim Hagan. Their entries both currently list them as still married to each other, which is outdated. The couple divorced in 2012. Unfortunately, the source information available online only provides indirect confirmation that does not typically meet Wikipedia standards for citing a source. However, I don't believe Wikipedia should continue to condone incorrect information in the articles for both Ms. Mulgrew and Mr. Hagan simply because we lack a "perfect" source that meets Wikipedia standards. The information in the below sources corroborate the fact that they are divorced:
Confirmation From Official Facebook Account - Ms. Mulgrew's official Facebook page noted in a comment that Tim Hagan and Kate Mulgrew are divorced, when Ms. Mulgrew made anecdotal comments about her "boyfriend" in an interview that was linked on her Facebook page.
London Star Trek Convention Comments - At the 2012 Destination: London Star Trek convention, Ms. Mulgrew made a statement that she "was" married to a politician, referring to Tim Hagan. While she doesn't refer to him by name, she was referring to their marriage in the past tense.
Orange Is The New Black Interview in 2013 - Ms. Mulgrew refers to her "boyfriend" in this 2013 interview about her role in Orange Is The New Black. This was the article listed on her Facebook page that resulted in the comment confirming her divorce.
The fact that they are divorced is not in question. The only question is whether or not the sources available are of a quality that meets Wikipedia standards. However, there is sufficient material available to confirm their marital status as divorced and failure to update their entries means that Wikipedia will potentially propogate incorrect information about Ms. Mulgrew and Mr. Hagan, since many people will use Wikipedia as a source of information. We should not let Wikipedia guidelines become a barrier that prevents the correction of information on articles we know for a fact to be incorrect.
If there are no objections from Wikipedia editors, I would like to make the updates. -- Fumetsu ( talk) 17:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The article State Bar of Texas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being used to attack DA for Travis County Rosemary Lehmberg using synthesis and original research. Rosemary Lehmberg does not have a Wikipedia article but the text inserted mentions her using WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and without providing any reliable source:
Furthermore, even though the State Bar takes a very strict view towards Bar applicants entering alcohol rehabilitation even voluntarily within the past 10 years of his or her application,<ref>[http://www.ble.state.tx.us/Applications/GenApp.htm]</ref> the bar refuses to reprimand attorneys actually convicted of driving under the influence, like Rosemary Lehmberg, successor to Ronnie Earle.
The bolded text is pure original research without any reliable source making such a connection while the sentence starting with "Furthermore" is a personal conclusion from a WP:PRIMARY source. I have removed the BLP-violation but more eyes are needed because the edit-warring editor keeps adding it using also personal attacks in his/her edit-summaries, including meatpuppetry and calling his/her opponents "liberals". Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 07:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
G. K. Vasan has been repeatedly subject to addition of a long block of unsourced text by the same editor, who has been warned and blocked in the past. I don't know if blocking this editor or semi-protecting the page is the right answer, or if there is another appropriate response. I leave this situation in your capable hands. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 03:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Author Jeanette Winterson killed a rabbit from her garden and ate it, then tweeted about it and received some blowback. The incident got a bit of coverage in the British press. A version of the story, sourced to the Daily Mail, has now been added and removed twice and then restored a third time. Does it belong in our article (per WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT) and if so, does the current version conform with WP:NPOV? Comments are invited at Talk:Jeanette Winterson#Rabbit stew. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
John Anthony Brooks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor on John Anthony Brooks is refusing to allow Mr. Brooks' nationality to be mentioned in the lede of his BLP. Mr. Brooks is a German-American (born and raised in Germany with an American military father). The editor will only allow mention that Mr. Brooks is an American. The editor claims that the WikiProject Football MOS prevails here and that it states that the country the player is playing for is to be used. However, in reviewing that Projects various and sundry MOS, the one on players didn't seem to preclude mention of the nationality, in fact, it seems to use it here. For reference here are the other footy project MOS.
The editor who is refusing to allow this stated in a reply to another editor questioning this, that: Nationality is warranted. But in the case of a footballer, the football project is clear: the team that they are representing internationally is what should be mentioned. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC
Perhaps I'm reading that wrong, but he seems to be saying that if Mr. Brooks next plays for Brazil, his BLP will call him a Brazilian? That doesn’t seem like something that should be allowed in a BLP. But you are the experts.
The BLP MOS states this. There is currently an RfC on this question on the talk page here. I only got there by the RfC bot notice, but it seems to me that since this is a BLP it might well be a violation not to correctly identify Mr. Brooks' nationality. If this is not the best venue for this, please let me know and I will withdraw the request. SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Stingray phone tracker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Stingray phone tracker article listed the names of the president of the company that makes the controversial devices and the person in charge of the division. I removed the names per WP:BLPNAME and WP:SYN, since there are no secondary sources that tie these individuals to the controversy about the devices, only sources that list their position in the company. Another editor has restored the names. I realize this is not as clear cut a BLPNAME issue as some, as the individual do have important positions in the company, but there seems to be no purpose in naming them in the article that I can see other than some form of outing. I'd welcome other opinions.-- agr ( talk) 21:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
There are many articles citing that Harris Corp is the primary designer, manufacturer and seller of the devices. The devices are made by the Government Communications Group (this is verified by multiple sources - including the company website, SEC filings, annual reports and news articles). The two individuals who are in charge of the Government Communications Group are sourced by the company and SEC filings. Important: The SEC filing sourced clearly states that these two individuals are in charge of manufacturing ALL THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES. So this is not in violation of WP:SYNTH. It is a direct source. Additionally, both individuals are public figures with profiles in Forbes, Businessweek and news articles. These are not private individuals. This is not an attempt to paint anyone as anything. The people making the devices are relevant. It would be activism to delete their names. I restored the names. If you would like additional sources, there are SEC filings every quarter for the past 4 years with their names and stated responsibilities for the government communications products. Sorry for not posting this comment here correctly. Pepsifree11 ( talk) 21:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm unclear on the last point. Is that a rule here? By that standard, Steve Jobs is not relevant to an article on the iPad. Pepsifree11 ( talk) 22:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC) I think there are two mixed issues here (i'm new here so appreciate your patience). Is it relevant? And is it appropriately sourced? I think the first is much more clear. Who designed, manufactured and brought these devices into widespread use for the first time is relevant. Like Steve Jobs for the iPhone (not a great analogy but you get the point). The second question I thought was sufficiently answered but that seems to be the point of most disagreement. First, these are not private individuals. So the standard is not the same. And there are pretty good sources for who is running this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepsifree11 ( talk • contribs) 23:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The main issue is not who designed the device. It's a pretty basic piece of technology. That is not the "who" that is relevant to the article. The relevant "who" is who has deployed them widely within the USA for the first time. That happened in the past 3-4 years and that is the key action for the entire article. And that is why management matters. Because is is management that takes a device from the lab to being deployed in hundreds of places around the country. Who did that is very important. It is not a matter of whether it is a good or a bad thing (I have a mixed opinion of this). What matters is how it happened. I think there are solid points made on appropriate sourcing here. But I think the relevance of key people is clear. If one tobacco company quadruples its sales to young adults in Georgia in 2-3 years (which would be controversial), the question would not be who invented the cigarette. Or who financed the tobacco company. Or which global tobacco company operating in 200 countries is it. The key question would be who was in charge of sales in Georgia during that period. Pepsifree11 ( talk) 15:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Celeda ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The picture you have posted is of Danny Tenaglia, NOT Celeda you can find many pictures of me all over the web to correct this, sincerely Victoria Sharpe AKA CELEDA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C539:E60:C898:D690:10EF:D7E6 ( talk) 11:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Military Order of the Purple Heart ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a number of allegations against a man named Smith which seem very badly sourced, can someone please take a look? I ran into this tracing down some conspiracy theory sources being used in articles but I'd rather not also delete this myself. Dougweller ( talk) 10:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
P. J. Louis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We have an editor, Researchgeektoo, trying to turn this article into a resume. More eyes would be welcomed. -- NeilN talk to me 02:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Sara Flounders ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I removed unsourced material, although I wasn't sure whether it promoted the writer's views or was intended to denounce them. On an article about a controversial political writer, it should be possible to include only referenced material. Came to the article because of a post on WP:RSN which questions whether her work can be used for sourcing articles on Yugoslavia. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Kindly remove content stating she was caught at the airport. This is irrelevant to her person and most of all harms her career. We all have done stupid things in our lives once but it`s of no point to keep such information. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgajules ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Luis von Ahn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is an edit war involving multiple IPs and the lead-in's claim that Luis von Ahn is a Twitter thief with an unreliable source. I have been reverting edits that maintain this claim. I warned the initial party with a Level 2 Vandalism warning, which in retrospect should have been a more precise BLP warning; that party had already reverted another user's attempt. Then, I noted on the second party's talk page that I wished to discuss in article's talk page given their edit summary, since I realized I had not assumed good faith in the beginning. This new revert is without explanation and did not provide a reliable source despite a prior mention. 75.37.21.202 ( talk) 17:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Yank Barry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A lawsuit appears to have been filed regarding the Yank Barry Wikipedia article. Please see Talk:Yank Barry#Lawsuit against Wikipedians. Please also see the recent prior discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive201#Yank Barry. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Please also see the following additional archived recent discussions:
— BarrelProof ( talk) 02:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Please note that a discussion has also begun at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Yank Barry, legal threat. Suing for $10,000,000. — BarrelProof ( talk) 06:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
For reference, here is the filing in it's entirety. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe, if an editor is trying to improve the article in a positive, factual manner, using sourced and cited facts, and following WP:NPOV, then there is not much to worry about. After reading the lawsuit, and the comment the first day I came upon the Yank Barry article, what struck me, and I don't remember without looking which editor said it, was the comment to the effect of, "Don't kid yourselves, we are threatening his livelihood." I have no idea what it means in a court room setting, but that comment always struck me as meaning those editors know what they are doing and they are hurting this man in real life. Perhaps, I misinterpreted the intent, but the comment IS in the lawsuit. Of all the things I read in the lawsuit, that seems to be the one comment, whichever editor it was, would probably like to have back. I found it fascinating to read that lawsuit and see what was and was not mentioned. There is plenty of negative comments on the talk page that were not included in the lawsuit. This is very interesting, if nothing else. As far as editing, I think if you are following policy, and trying to improve the article in a positive and factual way, following WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, then there is nothing to worry about.-- Dr Gonzo5269 ( talk) 16:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Another discussion begun:
— BarrelProof ( talk) 20:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a bit of an edit-war over whether to exercise editorial discretion at these articles to avoid directly naming the non-notable children of these celebrities. There's no policy that necessarily demands nor prohibits their inclusion, so it's probably a matter of where editors find consensus. I generally think there should be a higher bar than just whether the names were once released by the parents. I suppose it's a question of whether there's an encyclopedic value that would outweigh any BLP concern for the specific children involved. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
BLP says to respect the privacy of the subject, but only when doing so does not dis-service public interest. For example, we would certainly want to provide the full name of Barrack Obama's wife, who is notable in her own right - the information is important and of public interest. In comparison, it's highly unlikely that the names of children of celebrities is of value to readers and very likely that releasing their names may promote stalking from paparatzi and other privacy issues. The potential for damage to the BLP is high and the opportunity to inform readers is very low, when it's just as informative to just say "has three kids". CorporateM ( Talk) 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the only time names of non-notable children not of age of otherwise notable people should be included is if the parents release that information themselves (the privacy of the children are protected by the parents otherwise). If the parents have clearly made the names known, I see no reason why not to include the children's names. If the source of the names cannot be traced to a statement made by the parents, the name should be quickly removed. -- MASEM ( t) 15:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no clue how I totally missed this discussion and did not realize it was here until I came here myself to ask the same question Elaqueate did yesterday. If I had paid attention to the link he provided, edit warring would have been avoided. How stupid of me. Anyway, yes, I totally agree that names and other identifying information of non-notable minor children should be left out of BLPs. For all the reasons already stated here by others. But I disagree that even if the parents have released the child's name it can be included. Notability is the litmus, not release of a name. Children that have had their names plastered all over by their parents have become notable because of that. And I don't believe that a child is born and having their name released right after their birth equates notability. It seems from the number of comments here supporting the non-inclusion of these names that they should be removed and remain so until notability is established. I'm not going to risk being accused of or seen as edit warring again. Is anyone here willing to remove the name and birthdate of Kelly Clarkson's baby? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Consensus and policy are clear on this. I saw no reason to keep the content in question in any of the three articles. It's been removed. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Calvin Ayre ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yes, I think this page is contentious because of the fact that Mr. Ayre breaks the law in the United States on a daily basis by operating his gambling website, bovada.lv.
My father and husband are engaged in an ongoing lawsuit with Ayre, specifically bovada.lv.
The listing is fine, but it is so long that and hardly mentions the criminality, that I think people just glaze over the fact that Mr. Ayre has been in and out of court for decades.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.123.165 ( talk) 00:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
More likely born 1947 (he and I started at St Marylebone Grammar School together in September 1958, at the age of 11). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.126.6 ( talk) 10:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The "wider problems" section is rife with cherry-picked observations from questionable sources, seemingly seeking to make a wider point about the prevalence of radicalism in Islam--a point that is not appropriate to the scope of this article. The article states "However execution is widely prescribed as an appropriate punishment for women and men leaving Islam in Saudi Arabia and in on-line Islamic websites," citing as its evidence one message board post and one other individual's commentary on one of the sayings of Muhammad.
Furthermore, the section tries to make a link between the case of Mariam Yahia Ibrahim and Muslims in the UK by claiming execution of apostates is a commonly held view among British Muslims.
The entire frame "wider problems" seeks to draw conclusions that are at best spurious and at worst motivated out of prejudice. The section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.42.79 ( talk) 12:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
We're in the build up to New Zealand general election, 2014 and Donghua Liu has been created. Donghua Liu has been at the centre of a whole lot of recent political claims, which may or may not be racially motivated (immigration to New Zealand is an electoral issue and Donghua Liu is a recent immigrant). There is a minor domestic violence issue, but nothing that rises close to notability. Most of the coverage of Donghua Liu is basically muck-raking over other people and he-said she-said; I think the article should be deleted. I have what might be considered a COI. Normally I'd take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/politics, but I thought an outside view would be useful. Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
500 Years Later ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More eyes needed on this article, which discusses the rejection of the film by a UK channel, and then quotes an email screencap. COI/SPA issues exist as well. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Ignazio Ciufolini ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An Editor, Cricecio, censored the wise and balanced version by CorporateM including the sockpuppet story. I restored it. Since shadows on my credibility were cast because of my alleged only purpose about this story, please look carefully at the Cricecio's editing history. You will see that he always and only acted as a supporter of Ciufolini in several articles, by repeatedly attempting to censore and remove verifiable pieces of information, even citations to scientific articles, which did not agree with the Ciufolini's claims. I hope that we will not see some editing war about this issue, which was previously settled. En passing, I also note how also COPE dealt recently with it. Thank you. 56OKLO34 ( talk) 13:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Mark Wahlberg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article was featured on reddit, and upon a quick glance this blp makes quite a few controversial claims. One of the claims is sourced to the smoking gun which consists of a scan of a court document. This makes this a primary source, no? I don't have time to sift through the sources, but I suspect there might be other questionable sources/claims. If someone has time, could you please take a look? Two kinds of pork ( talk) 19:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
B.N.E. (artist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The person in question (BNE) keeps deleting the "Scam Controversy" section of their entry, even though it is cited and confirmed. Is there any way to prevent them from deleting this? It is what the artist is best known for, unfortunately.
link: /info/en/?search=B.N.E._%28artist%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicyouthbh1 ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
More citations have been added, including Street Art News, the #1 Urban Art news site on the web, and a quote from Charity:Water, the charity involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.37.21 ( talk) 01:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
BNE and his friends keep deleting the scam info because they're now being investigated by the authorities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.37.21 ( talk) 02:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The two accounts listed above, both new accounts, just added material about the scam to the article in quick succession. Since this now appears like a concerted effort to add the contested material to the article, I have semi-protected the article. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Smitrovich has asserted, in this message on my talk page, that they are a victim of the alleged scam. Looks like not only is WP:BLP a concern here, but WP:COI is as well. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Historicity of Jesus has a couple of recently added quotes from leading classical historians - Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical (Ancient) History and Archaeology at Australian National University[53] has stated ""Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming."
Co-director of Ancient Cultures Research Centre at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Alanna Nobbs has stated ""While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain." (citations removed).
Wdford keeps saying on the talk page, over and over, that such statements are "patently wrong" [39],"ridiculous" [40] and that those eminent scholars are basing their statements on "zero evidence", relying on "fraud and rumour alone" and "not being neutral". [41] It has been pointed out to Wdford by several others that it is not the place of WP editors to write on this site "here is what the experts say and here is why they are totally wrong" but he pays no attention and continues to post what seem to me attacks on leading scholars' competence and integrity, albeit on a talk page, not in article space, but I still wonder if that is a BLP violation. Thanks Smeat75 ( talk) 19:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
So when you wrote "accuses them of being incompetent and dishonest," you didn't mean he actually said they were "incompetent and dishonest," correct? Hipocrite ( talk) 21:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
It is not the part of any Wikipedia editor to " know the truth" - we are simply "harmless drudges" using what others have written. (Apologies to Samuel Johnson). Collect ( talk) 21:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
In a word, no, it's not a BLP violation. What is being expressed is clearly a fringe view, but expressing personal disagreement on a talk page with a source, even a good one, is not in itself a BLP problem. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 22:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC).
This doesn't appear to be a BLP violation at this point, though it does certainly appear to be problematic and tendentious behavior. If such labels as "incompetent and dishonest" are applied to the scholars themselves, then it would be. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Stephen Fife ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
His middle name is not Jordan - it's Joseph... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.141.194 ( talk) 20:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi-I started an article about Keith Westmoreland who served in the Tennessee General Assembly. He committed suicide after being charged with lewd misconduct. His successor Michael K. Locke died recently. I just wanted to alert you people in case there are any problems. Many thanks- RFD ( talk) 12:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Gary Oldman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stepped in it in his playboy interview. Getting considerable coverage (likely WP:UNDUE in the long run) on his article. I tried to clean up the worst, but its being restored. Don't want to get into an edit war. Additional eyes would be great. Lots sourced to TMZ and "Gossip Cop". I replaced gossip cop with variety for the same content, and that was also reverted for some reason. [43] Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
A discussion on the BLP implications of this award is being held, by inadvertent mistake, at the WT:BLP#Are the Golden Raspberry Awards a BLP issue. I'm posting this as a placeholder as it really needs to be relocated here. If it isn't, this can serve as a pointer to that discussion, in case editors in the future are seeking out previous discussions on this subject. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Ney Mello ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This entry is self-authored advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.90.206 ( talk) 00:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have some eyes and third-party input on the Kazuhide Uekusa article, please, as it has been subject to a lot of edit-warring and flip-flopping recently, with one editor in particular continuously removing factual, sourced statements about the subject of the article claiming they are libelous. My understanding of Wikipedia:Libel (as outlined in more detail at Defamation) is that statements are libelous only when they are false, and that saying that a person has been arrested twice for sex offenses is not at all libelous if is a fact that has been widely reported in the media. I should add, that this is not trivial tabloid gossip, but that, rather like O.J. Simpson's arrest and trial, it is something that probably made him more widely known to the general public than his original career (as an economist and occasional TV commentator). Anyway, comments would be welcome. Thanks. -- DAJF ( talk) 01:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The article appears self serving, some of the references and links are dead, misleading or barely allude to the context. Contains personal opinions and subjective claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.54.40 ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 27 June 2014
The edit history appears primarily from the user "Australiannewsmakers" is there a way to flag this user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.78 ( talk) 04:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Phil Hellmuth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can someone familiar with poker sources review the "personality & controversy" section to ensure that the sourcing meets BLP levels of respectability? Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Frank_Lucas_(Oklahoma)#Robot_accusation I am not entirely convinced this needs to be acted on, but ... really? Really? -- j⚛e decker talk 16:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I have some concerns about honors and knighthoods listed at James O'Higgins Norman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have a minor dispute about whether MStJ and KLJ are honors or memberships, but my major issue is with the list of knighthoods. Most are unsourced although some I think can be sourced. However, " Imperial House of Vietnam: Knight Commander, Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam" seems at best inappropriate. Our article on the Order of the Dragon of Annam makes it clear that no orders have been issued since 1945. The response to my removing this was "The Order of the Dragon of Annam was revived in 2002 by the direct descendent of the last Emperor of Vietnam. He was entitled to do thi sunder the various rules that govern orders etc. See explanation on http://www.imperialvietnam.net/dragonestablish.html Apart from the subject of this article others who were born after 1945 have received the Order after it was revived including a number of European royals - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Dragon_of_Annam#Distinguished_knights_and_dames."
I'm very dubious about using this claimed revival of the order. Looking at the list of those who have supposedly been granted honors form this 'order'. It isn't mentioned at Kigeli V of Rwanda. It is mentioned at Norodom Sihanouk but sourced to Royalark.net (which is used multiple times as a source) and for which we have a clear consensus should never be used for BLPs [44]. So that article needs a cleanup and we can't claim he has this knighthood. It is mentioned at Nicholas, Crown Prince of Montenegro but the source [45] is under construction. It isn't mentioned in any of the articles of the other named recipients. In other words, out of 12 links, 2 mention it with dubious sources. I'm removing them all (not all are BLPs by the way, some are dead). Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Response from Editor of James O'Higgins Norman page The reason I referred you to the ICOC website and the World Orders of Knighthood and Merit is that they both set out the generally accepted principles for discerning the legitimacy of an Order of Knighthood or Merit. But rather than engage with me on the validity of the honour bestowed on the subject of the article vis a vis these principles you have ignored them and instead offered circumstantial information including a reference to the quality of the Imperial House' website. Ollamhnua ( talk) 12:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Pankaj Oswal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kindly take a look at the Pankaj Oswal article as it has not been written in a neutral manner. It is filled with racial abuse, and does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards on Quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.150.48 ( talk) 20:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
John Fogelman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sources keep repeatedly adding/reposting content from a tabloid site - TheWrap.com . The content contains quotes from "anonymous" sources that cannot be verified and should not be included in a factual biography.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid
Terry Davis (author) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Terry Davis lives in Good Thunder, no longer runs a motorcycle shop and had had recent major health problems (according to his own website) but I'm not experienced enough to make large-scale changes to his Wiki page.
Chip Berlet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The entry on me has been attacked for many years (since it was created in 2005) by fanatical critics of my research. Several of these persons have been banned from Wikipedia or suspended for periods of time. I spent weeks on a private discussion with Jimbo Wales and others on the topic of WikiStalking and dealing with passive-aggressive biased editors. There has yet to be a satisfactory solution to this problem, especially for folks like me who are not celebrities and cannot attract enough unbiased editors to rectify the situation.
Now the entry on me is a disgrace. Not only is there outdated and inaccurate information, but the whole entry now is based almost entirely on the POV of handful of critics. Mention of significant awards has been removed. Most of my most important scholarly journal articles and book chapters are not mentioned. The creation of a separate bibliography page has resulted primarily in the removal of almost all mentions of my scholarly work. Critics of my work wait a few weeks and then delete something positive and add something negative. A recent RFC resulted in one editor removing a lot of material without actually editing the entry to be fair or unbiased. I am not looking for a puff piece. I am looking for a fair and accurate entry.
Here are some of the people who slanted my page with biased critical material and were banned or otherwise sanctioned. This is just from 2005-2008.
/info/en/?search=User:Herschelkrustofsky
/info/en/?search=User:Weed_Harper
/info/en/?search=User:Cognition
/info/en/?search=User:Paroxysm
/info/en/?search=User:NathanDW
/info/en/?search=User:Tsunami_Butler
/info/en/?search=User:Chip_%27n_Dale_Berlet
/info/en/?search=User:SallyForth123
/info/en/?search=User:Terrawatt
/info/en/?search=User:TableManners
/info/en/?search=User:Niels_Gade
/info/en/?search=User:Leatherstocking
/info/en/?search=User:Marvin_Diode
/info/en/?search=User:Threeafterthree Chip.berlet ( talk) 04:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Manuel Schenkhuizen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Large sections of unreferenced text.
For Example: "Grubby has been known for being part of one of the most successful WC3 teams in history, namely the British 4Kings. Later teams include the Danish MeetYourMakers and the North-American Evil Geniuses. Since 2011, Grubby has been teamless and is currently independently sponsored. Grubby enjoys a large fan base throughout the world and especially in China. He's sometimes characterized as being not one of the fastest players, but one that compensates with smart and effective play styles. He's presently a Starcraft II progamer playing as Protoss."
Mike Dailly ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Excessive prominence of recent negative event--I'm not sure of pre-existing notability either. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
this editor Otto.sump is attacking the article and me now /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Otto.sump
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Mosfetfaser&diff=614889867&oldid=614889725 Mosfetfaser ( talk) 15:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Mike Ozekhome ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A part of this article was blanketed. I have since cited source and references and will be glad to have constructive input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlomos ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 29 June 2014
Doren Robbins This article is a biography of a living person, and in April 2014 (as well as at least once before), it has been vandalized several times by user Thehype1, including antisemitic comments and false information about Doren Robbins's military history, mental health, birth date, and other personal information. The article itself is not in violation of the biographies of living persons policies, but as the original creator of this page, I would like to request page protection for Doren Robbins.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrwood08 ( talk • contribs)
Does [49] "violate WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and other policies" as asserted on my user talk page? [50]
The accuser states his deliberate intent to get people blocked for such egregious edits, an edit which
Chip Berlet himself found reasonable as opinion cited as opinion.
[51] Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
21:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Daniel Amen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Your attention is called to a Request for comment at Talk:Daniel_Amen#RFC: List of journal articles. 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The talk page of the above has a "Controversies" section with "On 18 September 2013, the prosecutors filed the criminal charges against Ghervazen Longher, accusing him on two counts conflicts of interest
" and a link to a Romanian-language website. I had removed that, thinking that such material should either be in the article (and fully justified per
WP:RS and
WP:DUE and
WP:BLPCRIME), or not placed anywhere. However, the material has been re-added with some rewording. I noticed the addition while commenting at
WT:Talk page guidelines#Adding external links to talk pages where there is a proposal to systematically place relevant external links on article talk pages. Any thoughts?
Johnuniq (
talk)
01:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Reginald Mengi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Persistent attempts to edit the profile page of Reginald Mengi are being removed within hours of the edit. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia which is to accurately inform the public. If Reginald Mengi choses to place a page on Wikipedia then it is a public page who should then be free to edit it accurately. This is not being allowed to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.242.104 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 June 2014
The article on Justin Mateen contains sourced material which is being removed anonymously.
Article Link: /info/en/?search=Justin_Mateen
This article needs to be locked or monitored closely to prevent anonymous users from removing sourced and relevant content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heisenbuger ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this Getty Images page (which I believe is self-published) [53] a reliable sourced for the claim "She also took part as a nude model for the Matildas' calendar..." which appears in the BLP of Kim Revell?- Mr X 18:29, 2 July 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.
Jennifer Rubin (journalist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is an ongoing dispute on that article about including critical material sourced to reliable sources. Some fresh eyes on this would be appreciated. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Oleg Voronin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kindly take a look at the Oleg Voronin article as it has not been written in a neutral manner, references to dead links or unreliable sources.
Citation from article:
Further claims were made in a Moldovan article from the Ziarul de Gardă, and include but are not limited to: Zahar - the Moldovan sugar syndicate, which Oleg Voronin controls, and an allegedly shady 1997 deal in which several thousand tons of sugar were sold to Romania. The problem here is that the entire national product of Moldova is not this high, and the assumed source of this sugar was donations made by the Cuban government to aid Moldovan hospitals. That his opponents have been "cast away, bankrupted or arrested.
There are no references to sustain these allegation, thus these allegations have a clearly defamation nature and have to be eliminated.
Another statement with no references: “Zahar - the Moldovan sugar syndicate, which Oleg Voronin controls, and an allegedly shady 1997 deal in which several thousand tons of sugar were sold to Romania. The problem here is that the entire national product of Moldova is not this high, and the assumed source of this sugar was donations made by the Cuban government to aid Moldovan hospitals.”
In Moldova never existed any “sugar syndicate”. The only association of Moldovan sugar producers was founded in 1994 with the name “Association “Sugar” and which name was modified in 1998 as “Union of sugar producers”. It is member of the National Patronage of the Republic of Moldova.
“The younger Voronin has often been accused of corruption, …”
The hyper-link from the word “corruption” leads to the Wikipedia article “ Political Corruption”. This article gives the following definition of political corruption: “Political corruption is the use of powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties, is done under color of law or involves trading in influence.”
Thus, only the government officials, the officeholders may be accused of corruption. The subject of the article “Oleg Voronin”, according to his biography described in the same article never held any office in any government agency and, therefore, never could use his “official duties” in no activity. Thus, this statement is false.
“…but most recently it was the Tiraspol Times[2] that raised the issue.” The hyper-link from “Tiraspol Times” leads to the Wikipedia article “ Media of Transnistria”.
According to this article “Tiraspol Times was a short lived (2006–2008) English language news provider focused on Transnistria.”. Now we are in Anno Domini 2014. Hence, the qualification “most recently” is not later than 2008, i.e. at least 6 years ago. So, this is not “most recently”, but it is “once upon a time”.
Moreover, in the same Wikipedia article on Media of Transnistria this publication is characterized as “being strongly biased in favour of the Transnistrian authorities and Transnistrian independence. In order to give an example about the credibility of this publication the article states: “The site published few ads and its funding sources are not known. Edward Lucas, a journalist for Economist, suggested it could have received its funding either from the government, from Vladimir Antyufeyev's State Security Committee or from one of the Transnistrian companies.
Tom de Waal, a London-based journalist and author, was outraged to see an article under his name appear on the "Tiraspol Times" website. "I've certainly never been to Pridnestrovie, Transdneister, or Moldova, and I am certainly not arguing, as is written under my name, that Pridnestrovie has a better case for independence than Kosovo," de Waal says.”.
It also has a reference to the following dead link: http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/628
Taking all this, the given source is not enough credible to serve as a reference. Thus, the whole sentence has to be eliminated: “The younger Voronin has often been accused of corruption, but most recently it was the Tiraspol Times that raised the issue.” Altfelmd ( talk) 09:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
An unregistered user added that Seymour Barab passed away on June 28, 2014. I have since searched unsuccessfully for an internet source that confirms this claim. Are there other sources available? Hrdinský 〒 12:41, 3 July 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've included a link to what I believe to be the most recent BLPN disussions (there has been more than one). There is also considerable discussion on the article talk page, although, unfortunately, not in chronological order. The same editor, NickBryant, who is the author of an article about the topic, has come back and is trying to reinsert material into the Wikipedia article sourced to his own article. I reverted twice before ceasing the battle, although my reverts were probably exempt under WP:3RRNO. The author, who is pugnacious and, I believe, often edits without logging in (not in this instance), insisted until a final reversion by another editor and a one-week lock on the article by another administrator.
The material Bryant wants to add involves civil lawsuits filed by one of King's alleged victims. One lawsuit was against King (there were supposedly 15 other suits). There was a default judgment against King (so goes the material) because King was in prison, not on the sexual abuse charges, for which he was never indicted let alone convicted, but for embezzlement.
There is a single source in support of all the material, Bryant's article. Bryant, who is a crusader in this, has his own website, and he cites to an online version of the article located on his website.
The issues are complex. They primarily involve WP:BLP and whether, first, the material is worthy of inclusion even if reliably sourced and, second, whether a single source like Bryant's article meets the high quality necessary for negative material about a BLP. Another issue is the obvious WP:COI in Bryant citing his own material located on his own website. A third issue is WP:LINKVIO, whether the article on Bryant's website is a copyright violation (the copyright probably belongs to the publisher, not to Bryant), although that issue, of the three, could be eliminated by citing to the article offline.
To get a flavor of what Bryant wants to accomplish, read his comments here. Tom harrison was one of the editors involved in previous discussions.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 12:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Nick, in the article False Memory Syndrome Foundation that you keep mentioning they discuss an accusation made by a child against their own parent that was found to be without merit...mentioning the impetus of who was involved that led to this foundation being formed is necessary for context...I bet if I looked at that article more closely it would get trimmed significantly.-- MONGO 19:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Ignazio Ciufolini ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now, another source covering his pseudonyms appeared: COPE Digest: Publication Ethics in Practice. June 2014 (Vol. 2, Issue 6) http://publicationethics.org/cope-newsletter/2014/jun/cope-digest-publication-ethics-practice-june-2014-vol-2-issue-6#story-206 Not even COPE is a "reliable" source..? 56OKLO34 ( talk) 06:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The biography page for D. Brooke Harlow reads like a LinkedIn page. Most of the edits are from two users. It's patently clear she's created the page herself. This entry should be marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.59.231 ( talk) 11:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Helo, I am an occasional editor of various articles from or about Pakistan and am a serious editor, a retired college professor of good standing. I saw that the article on Ali Arman is a BLP without any references at all and seems to be of a dubious nature, reading like a self-promotion. Not everyone who writes or publishes/self publishes a book or two is a 'notable' writer. The Notability issue has been already raised about this article 3-4 years ago but no action taken it seems, and no talk/discussion made previously? I would please request deletion of this article which neither meets Wikipedia standards nor is of any real notability/repute. Thanks 39.54.207.44 ( talk) 01:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Prof(r) Hilda Khan, Pakistan
Currently has:
It had previously contained:
The addition of "climate change denier" appears to place this BLP squarely in the middle of using a pejorative term in a political context, and should require strong evidence to be placed here IMO. In addition the actual quote of Rubio about AGW in the LA Times article are: “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” Rubio said on ABC's "This Week." and Our climate is always changing,” Rubio said. “And what they have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer-term trend that's directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activities.”
Which quotes appear to me not to say that human activity has zero effect, but that it is not the primary agent of climate change. Thus the nuanced wording in the prior edit appears to me to be more neutral in content and tenor. Right now, the wording shouts "he is a total anti-science denier freak fringe person" which a careful reading of the quotes in the LA Times article does not support. This article clearly falls under the Climate Change arbitration case as far as I can tell if it maintains this stance. Collect ( talk) 20:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
[3] is the ArbCom decision and note that it specifically states that BLPs in this area
In the case of one person the committee found:
Which rather leads me to the suggestion that we err on the side of conservative wording here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 21:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, one editor on the talk page averred
Which avers in the editor's voice that Rubio is a "denier" and that a headline is a valid part of an article, even though it is clearly no more a part of an article than a caption is - it is not written by a reporter but by a "headline writer" and this interpretation would, indeed, make most such newspapers "unreliable". Cheers. Collect ( talk) 05:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
People: neither WP nor some of its editors are making any type of "call" or "assigning" labels. If you stop by the article you'll see that numerous WP:RS are in place to source Rubio being labeled a climate change denier, which is what's being reported. This discussion is relevant if you want to get into that issue BTW. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with additions from a BLP perspective, provided Rubio's opinions on climate change are a more than trivial part of his public persona, which appears to be the case (although I am not American and don't really know much about him - I'm just going off the sourcing). "Why not just include what Rubio said?" might be fair enough, but at the same time why do that? It's not really a BLP issue. Using BLP policy to keep criticism of politicians out of their articles would be a misuse of the policy, provided the criticism is not obscure and the coverage is proportionate.
The additions are a bit long winded, though. Maybe we could have According to
PolitiFact, "Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it."
and Rubio repudiates the label "climate change denier", accusing liberal critics of hypocrisy since, he says, they reject the "settled science" that "human life begins at conception".
Formerip (
talk)
18:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Some appear to wish to "right great wrongs" by clearly labelling those evil climate change deniers who wish to destroy the Earth. Alas -- ArbCom already ruled that BLPs are not the place to wage that sacred battle, and that NPOV is actually not negotiable on Wikipedia. Thus we must abide by that case result, even if we personally know that such fringe idiots are damned to hell for their refusal to accept the truth. Collect ( talk) 23:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It is essential, in a biography of a major US politician, to convey that politician's stance on substantive public-policy issues such as climate change. It is not essential to use the word "denier" or "denial", except insofar as it appears in direct quotes from reputable reliable sources. I proposed such an edit here, many reverts ago. A section on the labeling of Rubio as a "denier" has since been added, which I think is appropriately sourced (for the most part) but non-essential and more likely to cause disputes than to enlighten. MastCell Talk 17:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
There is an ongoing WP:RFC going on here. It is normal behavior to allow material to remain while a WP:RFC is ongoing. However, it has been removed a few times ( [7], [8], [9]). This has caused some confustion in the RFC. For example, [10]. Rather the material should be in the article or not is not the issue I am asking for help here in. The question I have is, is there a WP:BLP issue that would justify delecting the material while there is an ongoing WP:RFC. Casprings ( talk) 05:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
An editor of the Napoleon Chagnon article has been persistently inserting material to the effect that Chagnon is discredited, every other scholar in the world disagrees with him and this forced him to retire. The sources for this are unreliable at best (opinion pieces, press releases by activist organisations). In at least one case the editor has referenced the defamatory claims to a book which contains only three uses of Chagnon's name and no criticism of any kind. The editor does not respond to requests to explain this bahaviour on the article talk page. The editor is also persistently trying to add the statements from exactly the same source, apparently trolling the internet and referencing every blog or personal webpage that reposts the original opinion piece from activist group Survival International in an attempt to get it into the article. They have reposted the same material from the same press release at least three times in this manner.
This has been going on for several months now. I have no particular dog in this fight and only became involved in response to a Third Opinion request. However I've since put the article on my watch list and the insertions continue. I'd rather not have to keep removing the same defamatory statements based upon the same Survival International press release until either I, Chagnon or the editor dies.~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Marathon ( talk • contribs)
Adrien Beard was recently deleted from a PROD. I asked for it to be undeleted and added two sources. DangerousPanda re-added the BLP PROD notice saying the sources were not sufficient. I reverted his template, because I can't see a problem with the article as it is, but I feel that a closer look would be nice. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Your statements that the views or teachings are considered placebo by the scientific community may need some revision. Please see current research on meditation. Also please note that as I as an individual, in no way associated with his organization, find your statement that his teachings may sway people not to get traditional health care when needed is slanderous and inappropriate. I have been reading his books since my 20's, I am 56 now. I am a certified health coach married to an M.D. We have both attended a retreat at the Chopra Center for wellbeing. I also attended course in 2005 led by Dr. David Simon the cofounder of the Copra Center and a neurologist. Neither time was traditional was I led to avoid using a doctor. Please revise your post. Thank you. Susan Tobey Levy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.61.81 ( talk) 23:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
More eyes please at Jennifer Rubin (journalist) wherein attempts are being made to utilize blogs and opeds to trash a BLP. Thanks.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that some feedback to
Collect (
talk ·
contribs) about how to edit BLPs is needed; I've tried to offer it, but my suggestions have been rejected. Collect recently edited
Rick Santorum such that the article said Santorum opposes euthanasia
[12], but he did not supply a source (and indeed removed sources that were there earlier); he then removed a "cn" request
[13], appearing to believe it was sufficient that Santorum's being a (documented) Catholic was sufficient. He then supplied a source for the fact that S is Catholic and for the fact that Catholics (generally) oppose euthanasia
[14] -- a clear instance of SYNTH, insofar as there was still no source for Santorum's own opposition to euthanasia. Several editors have pointed out the obvious SYNTH
[15], but these attempts have not convinced Collect, and he continues to take the view that his edit did not involve SYNTH (e.g.
[16] -- here he says that each statement was sourced, but in fact in his edit (
[17], already linked above) there was no source for "Santorum opposes euthanasia").
I'm not requesting a sanction here (and anyway he hasn't repeated the article edit). I get the sense that Collect doesn't like it when I respond to his posts, so I'm suggesting that he might benefit if another editor explains to him that his edit was indeed SYNTH and therefore inappropriate particularly on a BLP. (I also expect he'll try to shift the focus onto me -- and I hope others here will be able to see beyond that, simply because it's important that we edit BLPs properly.) Thank you.
Nomoskedasticity (
talk)
14:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The charge of SYNTH was nicely absurd (The editor supported "Santorum is strongly against euthanasia" without it having any ref when he wanted that wording, but managed to assert "Santorum opposes euthanasia" as SYNTH when I used the simpler wording of the exact same claim) , as is one editor's continuing assault on me personally over an extended period. I need not comment further on a total misrepresentation of my discussion wording as it is on its face clearly a problem with the OP here.
Collect (
talk)
15:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Rather than all the puffing about above, how about actually finding a source that supports the assertion that Santorum opposes euthanasia? If he's a conservative Catholic, then I agree that is probably the case, but we don't do hunches like that in BLPs. It shouldn't be too hard to find something that confirms that this is a part of his policy platform (indeed, a quick Google search shows that he's made some controversial comments on the issue, although I don't know enough about US politics to sift out an impeccable source). If we can't back it up, then the assertion should not be in the article. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC).
Dany Bahar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is continual addition of particular false material to this page relating to a lawsuit involving the subject of this BLP. I have been reverting it for some time but a single user persists in adding false material to a direct quote from a primary source. See the History.
I suggest that this short article be cleaned of this material and then locked from editing. Or, the entire article be removed from Wikipedia until the lawsuit Dany Bahar is involved in is resolved. Cheers, Tobermory conferre 09:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I found Murray Chong doing new page patrol. This appears to be a series of minor incidents involving a local body politician, and the overall result is somewhat negative. It's well referenced though. In general, pages on New Zealand local body politicians other than Mayors have been deleted at AFD in the past. Do others share my sense of unease with this article?- gadfium 03:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Jeremy Peace ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The last paragraph of this article (beginning "On 14th of June 2014...") is completely unfounded, insulting, un-referenced and with appalling grammar. It needs to be removed immediately as it is libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.2.15 ( talk) 07:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Jesse Flynn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Could somebody look at this article and the proposed deletion? Bearian ( talk) 16:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Chamanlal Kamani (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
This is very poorly sourced given the allegations it makes about the subject of the article. The first external link is inaccessible, and the second only mentions another member of the family. --
John of Reading (
talk)
17:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
David Keyes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is one of the worst puff pieces I've seen in a long time; unfortunately I can't prune it right now. I counted seven or eight SPAs in the history, only one of which concerned with neutral writing, and two of them appear to be directly connected to one of the organizations the subject is involved with. I'd appreciate more sets of eyes. Drmies ( talk) 17:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Rajniesh Duggall ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi i am Rajniesh Duggall. . Someone has been editing my profile- Rajneesh Duggal, without my knowledge or my approval. . The keep changing my date of birth here ..from 19.11.1981 to 19.11.1976 ..my daughters name is teeyaa. kindly help and block such users..Thanks. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.104.1.244 ( talk) 02:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Rick Santorum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Euthanasia Santorum is strongly against euthanasia. In 2012 Santorum claimed that half of all euthanizations in The Netherlands are involuntary, because hospitals are euthanizing elderly patients for financial reasons. Santorum also claimed that 10% of all deaths in The Netherlands are the result of these involuntary euthanizations. According to both Washington Post journalist Glenn Kessler and to FactCheck.org, these claims are bogus. [1] [2] Santorum's comments caused a significant backlash in The Netherlands. [3]}}
Has been proposed as an edit. My personal response is that:
[4], [5], [6], etc. appear to offer a somewhat more nuanced view of what was a single speech. Collect ( talk) 14:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
References
There appears to be not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum's claims about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It is telling that his campaign did not even bother to defend his comments.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
But the facts are clear: Santorum grossly misrepresented the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands when making his case against it.
IMHO, sections in BLPs should primarily refer to the general opinions of the person on the topic, and be broader in scope than a single speech and many rebuttals to that single speech. Collect ( talk) 14:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Jason Hawke ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jason Hawke is NOT affiliated with Dark Alley Media. That is Owen Hawk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.193.175 ( talk) 23:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Aaron Gilmore ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My name is Aaron Gilmore I and others have tried more than once to remove inaccurate and imbalances in your article on me both current and historic.
Your article contains lies and media speculation that are very inaccurate about my life and has had removed large parts of it.
These changes were most recently last evening by someone. I was not aware of the material until recently. All the changes last evening have been removed despite references to highly reputable articles and changes to reflect my life. I am not a politician nor have I been for quite a while. If these changes made last night is not reversed I will consider what options are available.
Regards,
Aaron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.224.66.108 ( talk) 11:13, 14 June 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.
Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I welcome broader input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Hillary 2016 campaign article already created regarding the new Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article. John Carter ( talk) 20:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Senfronia Thompson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am listed with a middle name but I do not have a middle name. How can this be corredted?
Senfronia Thompson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.79.11 ( talk) 18:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article in total clearly lacks neutral point of view and my case is already at the NPOV board:
The main editor of this article is User:LardoBalsamico. I have been trying to deal with both the article and the user since February. You can see the summary of my situation with the user and the article here:
The reason I am contacting you from this noticeboard is; his last clearly violets the WP:LIVE policy.
As you can see, he shared a phone conversation from the investigation but all the involved parties were cleared of all charges. This is really incriminating for all the involved parties. Also, if you read it there is no clear sign of match-fixing and like all the article, it is just there to make Fenerbahce look bad.
If you read the whole article you will see the violation of this rule everywhere.
So,please help me resolve this issue. Thanks for taking the time to read my request. Rivaner ( talk) 15:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
My removal of that part is reverted by calling it vandalism and as usual the above mentioned user posted a warning on my talk page as well.
Rivaner ( talk) 15:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Paula Franzese ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just basically an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.52.53 ( talk) 19:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Pruned and stubified. -
Cwobeel
(talk)
22:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Allegations of sexual abuse were added to Ram Bahadur Bomjon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Obviously this is a serious accusation and I request editors help me with keeping unsourced allegations off the article. Shii (tock) 17:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)\
Hello - I would like to provide notice regarding a correction that is needed for the Wikipedia articles for actress Kate Mulgrew and politician Tim Hagan. Their entries both currently list them as still married to each other, which is outdated. The couple divorced in 2012. Unfortunately, the source information available online only provides indirect confirmation that does not typically meet Wikipedia standards for citing a source. However, I don't believe Wikipedia should continue to condone incorrect information in the articles for both Ms. Mulgrew and Mr. Hagan simply because we lack a "perfect" source that meets Wikipedia standards. The information in the below sources corroborate the fact that they are divorced:
Confirmation From Official Facebook Account - Ms. Mulgrew's official Facebook page noted in a comment that Tim Hagan and Kate Mulgrew are divorced, when Ms. Mulgrew made anecdotal comments about her "boyfriend" in an interview that was linked on her Facebook page.
London Star Trek Convention Comments - At the 2012 Destination: London Star Trek convention, Ms. Mulgrew made a statement that she "was" married to a politician, referring to Tim Hagan. While she doesn't refer to him by name, she was referring to their marriage in the past tense.
Orange Is The New Black Interview in 2013 - Ms. Mulgrew refers to her "boyfriend" in this 2013 interview about her role in Orange Is The New Black. This was the article listed on her Facebook page that resulted in the comment confirming her divorce.
The fact that they are divorced is not in question. The only question is whether or not the sources available are of a quality that meets Wikipedia standards. However, there is sufficient material available to confirm their marital status as divorced and failure to update their entries means that Wikipedia will potentially propogate incorrect information about Ms. Mulgrew and Mr. Hagan, since many people will use Wikipedia as a source of information. We should not let Wikipedia guidelines become a barrier that prevents the correction of information on articles we know for a fact to be incorrect.
If there are no objections from Wikipedia editors, I would like to make the updates. -- Fumetsu ( talk) 17:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The article State Bar of Texas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being used to attack DA for Travis County Rosemary Lehmberg using synthesis and original research. Rosemary Lehmberg does not have a Wikipedia article but the text inserted mentions her using WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and without providing any reliable source:
Furthermore, even though the State Bar takes a very strict view towards Bar applicants entering alcohol rehabilitation even voluntarily within the past 10 years of his or her application,<ref>[http://www.ble.state.tx.us/Applications/GenApp.htm]</ref> the bar refuses to reprimand attorneys actually convicted of driving under the influence, like Rosemary Lehmberg, successor to Ronnie Earle.
The bolded text is pure original research without any reliable source making such a connection while the sentence starting with "Furthermore" is a personal conclusion from a WP:PRIMARY source. I have removed the BLP-violation but more eyes are needed because the edit-warring editor keeps adding it using also personal attacks in his/her edit-summaries, including meatpuppetry and calling his/her opponents "liberals". Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 07:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
G. K. Vasan has been repeatedly subject to addition of a long block of unsourced text by the same editor, who has been warned and blocked in the past. I don't know if blocking this editor or semi-protecting the page is the right answer, or if there is another appropriate response. I leave this situation in your capable hands. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 03:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Author Jeanette Winterson killed a rabbit from her garden and ate it, then tweeted about it and received some blowback. The incident got a bit of coverage in the British press. A version of the story, sourced to the Daily Mail, has now been added and removed twice and then restored a third time. Does it belong in our article (per WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT) and if so, does the current version conform with WP:NPOV? Comments are invited at Talk:Jeanette Winterson#Rabbit stew. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
John Anthony Brooks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor on John Anthony Brooks is refusing to allow Mr. Brooks' nationality to be mentioned in the lede of his BLP. Mr. Brooks is a German-American (born and raised in Germany with an American military father). The editor will only allow mention that Mr. Brooks is an American. The editor claims that the WikiProject Football MOS prevails here and that it states that the country the player is playing for is to be used. However, in reviewing that Projects various and sundry MOS, the one on players didn't seem to preclude mention of the nationality, in fact, it seems to use it here. For reference here are the other footy project MOS.
The editor who is refusing to allow this stated in a reply to another editor questioning this, that: Nationality is warranted. But in the case of a footballer, the football project is clear: the team that they are representing internationally is what should be mentioned. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC
Perhaps I'm reading that wrong, but he seems to be saying that if Mr. Brooks next plays for Brazil, his BLP will call him a Brazilian? That doesn’t seem like something that should be allowed in a BLP. But you are the experts.
The BLP MOS states this. There is currently an RfC on this question on the talk page here. I only got there by the RfC bot notice, but it seems to me that since this is a BLP it might well be a violation not to correctly identify Mr. Brooks' nationality. If this is not the best venue for this, please let me know and I will withdraw the request. SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Stingray phone tracker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Stingray phone tracker article listed the names of the president of the company that makes the controversial devices and the person in charge of the division. I removed the names per WP:BLPNAME and WP:SYN, since there are no secondary sources that tie these individuals to the controversy about the devices, only sources that list their position in the company. Another editor has restored the names. I realize this is not as clear cut a BLPNAME issue as some, as the individual do have important positions in the company, but there seems to be no purpose in naming them in the article that I can see other than some form of outing. I'd welcome other opinions.-- agr ( talk) 21:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
There are many articles citing that Harris Corp is the primary designer, manufacturer and seller of the devices. The devices are made by the Government Communications Group (this is verified by multiple sources - including the company website, SEC filings, annual reports and news articles). The two individuals who are in charge of the Government Communications Group are sourced by the company and SEC filings. Important: The SEC filing sourced clearly states that these two individuals are in charge of manufacturing ALL THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES. So this is not in violation of WP:SYNTH. It is a direct source. Additionally, both individuals are public figures with profiles in Forbes, Businessweek and news articles. These are not private individuals. This is not an attempt to paint anyone as anything. The people making the devices are relevant. It would be activism to delete their names. I restored the names. If you would like additional sources, there are SEC filings every quarter for the past 4 years with their names and stated responsibilities for the government communications products. Sorry for not posting this comment here correctly. Pepsifree11 ( talk) 21:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm unclear on the last point. Is that a rule here? By that standard, Steve Jobs is not relevant to an article on the iPad. Pepsifree11 ( talk) 22:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC) I think there are two mixed issues here (i'm new here so appreciate your patience). Is it relevant? And is it appropriately sourced? I think the first is much more clear. Who designed, manufactured and brought these devices into widespread use for the first time is relevant. Like Steve Jobs for the iPhone (not a great analogy but you get the point). The second question I thought was sufficiently answered but that seems to be the point of most disagreement. First, these are not private individuals. So the standard is not the same. And there are pretty good sources for who is running this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepsifree11 ( talk • contribs) 23:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The main issue is not who designed the device. It's a pretty basic piece of technology. That is not the "who" that is relevant to the article. The relevant "who" is who has deployed them widely within the USA for the first time. That happened in the past 3-4 years and that is the key action for the entire article. And that is why management matters. Because is is management that takes a device from the lab to being deployed in hundreds of places around the country. Who did that is very important. It is not a matter of whether it is a good or a bad thing (I have a mixed opinion of this). What matters is how it happened. I think there are solid points made on appropriate sourcing here. But I think the relevance of key people is clear. If one tobacco company quadruples its sales to young adults in Georgia in 2-3 years (which would be controversial), the question would not be who invented the cigarette. Or who financed the tobacco company. Or which global tobacco company operating in 200 countries is it. The key question would be who was in charge of sales in Georgia during that period. Pepsifree11 ( talk) 15:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Celeda ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The picture you have posted is of Danny Tenaglia, NOT Celeda you can find many pictures of me all over the web to correct this, sincerely Victoria Sharpe AKA CELEDA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C539:E60:C898:D690:10EF:D7E6 ( talk) 11:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Military Order of the Purple Heart ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a number of allegations against a man named Smith which seem very badly sourced, can someone please take a look? I ran into this tracing down some conspiracy theory sources being used in articles but I'd rather not also delete this myself. Dougweller ( talk) 10:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
P. J. Louis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We have an editor, Researchgeektoo, trying to turn this article into a resume. More eyes would be welcomed. -- NeilN talk to me 02:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Sara Flounders ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I removed unsourced material, although I wasn't sure whether it promoted the writer's views or was intended to denounce them. On an article about a controversial political writer, it should be possible to include only referenced material. Came to the article because of a post on WP:RSN which questions whether her work can be used for sourcing articles on Yugoslavia. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Kindly remove content stating she was caught at the airport. This is irrelevant to her person and most of all harms her career. We all have done stupid things in our lives once but it`s of no point to keep such information. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgajules ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Luis von Ahn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is an edit war involving multiple IPs and the lead-in's claim that Luis von Ahn is a Twitter thief with an unreliable source. I have been reverting edits that maintain this claim. I warned the initial party with a Level 2 Vandalism warning, which in retrospect should have been a more precise BLP warning; that party had already reverted another user's attempt. Then, I noted on the second party's talk page that I wished to discuss in article's talk page given their edit summary, since I realized I had not assumed good faith in the beginning. This new revert is without explanation and did not provide a reliable source despite a prior mention. 75.37.21.202 ( talk) 17:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Yank Barry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A lawsuit appears to have been filed regarding the Yank Barry Wikipedia article. Please see Talk:Yank Barry#Lawsuit against Wikipedians. Please also see the recent prior discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive201#Yank Barry. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Please also see the following additional archived recent discussions:
— BarrelProof ( talk) 02:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Please note that a discussion has also begun at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Yank Barry, legal threat. Suing for $10,000,000. — BarrelProof ( talk) 06:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
For reference, here is the filing in it's entirety. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe, if an editor is trying to improve the article in a positive, factual manner, using sourced and cited facts, and following WP:NPOV, then there is not much to worry about. After reading the lawsuit, and the comment the first day I came upon the Yank Barry article, what struck me, and I don't remember without looking which editor said it, was the comment to the effect of, "Don't kid yourselves, we are threatening his livelihood." I have no idea what it means in a court room setting, but that comment always struck me as meaning those editors know what they are doing and they are hurting this man in real life. Perhaps, I misinterpreted the intent, but the comment IS in the lawsuit. Of all the things I read in the lawsuit, that seems to be the one comment, whichever editor it was, would probably like to have back. I found it fascinating to read that lawsuit and see what was and was not mentioned. There is plenty of negative comments on the talk page that were not included in the lawsuit. This is very interesting, if nothing else. As far as editing, I think if you are following policy, and trying to improve the article in a positive and factual way, following WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, then there is nothing to worry about.-- Dr Gonzo5269 ( talk) 16:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Another discussion begun:
— BarrelProof ( talk) 20:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a bit of an edit-war over whether to exercise editorial discretion at these articles to avoid directly naming the non-notable children of these celebrities. There's no policy that necessarily demands nor prohibits their inclusion, so it's probably a matter of where editors find consensus. I generally think there should be a higher bar than just whether the names were once released by the parents. I suppose it's a question of whether there's an encyclopedic value that would outweigh any BLP concern for the specific children involved. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
BLP says to respect the privacy of the subject, but only when doing so does not dis-service public interest. For example, we would certainly want to provide the full name of Barrack Obama's wife, who is notable in her own right - the information is important and of public interest. In comparison, it's highly unlikely that the names of children of celebrities is of value to readers and very likely that releasing their names may promote stalking from paparatzi and other privacy issues. The potential for damage to the BLP is high and the opportunity to inform readers is very low, when it's just as informative to just say "has three kids". CorporateM ( Talk) 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the only time names of non-notable children not of age of otherwise notable people should be included is if the parents release that information themselves (the privacy of the children are protected by the parents otherwise). If the parents have clearly made the names known, I see no reason why not to include the children's names. If the source of the names cannot be traced to a statement made by the parents, the name should be quickly removed. -- MASEM ( t) 15:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no clue how I totally missed this discussion and did not realize it was here until I came here myself to ask the same question Elaqueate did yesterday. If I had paid attention to the link he provided, edit warring would have been avoided. How stupid of me. Anyway, yes, I totally agree that names and other identifying information of non-notable minor children should be left out of BLPs. For all the reasons already stated here by others. But I disagree that even if the parents have released the child's name it can be included. Notability is the litmus, not release of a name. Children that have had their names plastered all over by their parents have become notable because of that. And I don't believe that a child is born and having their name released right after their birth equates notability. It seems from the number of comments here supporting the non-inclusion of these names that they should be removed and remain so until notability is established. I'm not going to risk being accused of or seen as edit warring again. Is anyone here willing to remove the name and birthdate of Kelly Clarkson's baby? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Consensus and policy are clear on this. I saw no reason to keep the content in question in any of the three articles. It's been removed. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Calvin Ayre ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yes, I think this page is contentious because of the fact that Mr. Ayre breaks the law in the United States on a daily basis by operating his gambling website, bovada.lv.
My father and husband are engaged in an ongoing lawsuit with Ayre, specifically bovada.lv.
The listing is fine, but it is so long that and hardly mentions the criminality, that I think people just glaze over the fact that Mr. Ayre has been in and out of court for decades.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.123.165 ( talk) 00:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
More likely born 1947 (he and I started at St Marylebone Grammar School together in September 1958, at the age of 11). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.126.6 ( talk) 10:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The "wider problems" section is rife with cherry-picked observations from questionable sources, seemingly seeking to make a wider point about the prevalence of radicalism in Islam--a point that is not appropriate to the scope of this article. The article states "However execution is widely prescribed as an appropriate punishment for women and men leaving Islam in Saudi Arabia and in on-line Islamic websites," citing as its evidence one message board post and one other individual's commentary on one of the sayings of Muhammad.
Furthermore, the section tries to make a link between the case of Mariam Yahia Ibrahim and Muslims in the UK by claiming execution of apostates is a commonly held view among British Muslims.
The entire frame "wider problems" seeks to draw conclusions that are at best spurious and at worst motivated out of prejudice. The section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.42.79 ( talk) 12:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
We're in the build up to New Zealand general election, 2014 and Donghua Liu has been created. Donghua Liu has been at the centre of a whole lot of recent political claims, which may or may not be racially motivated (immigration to New Zealand is an electoral issue and Donghua Liu is a recent immigrant). There is a minor domestic violence issue, but nothing that rises close to notability. Most of the coverage of Donghua Liu is basically muck-raking over other people and he-said she-said; I think the article should be deleted. I have what might be considered a COI. Normally I'd take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/politics, but I thought an outside view would be useful. Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
500 Years Later ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More eyes needed on this article, which discusses the rejection of the film by a UK channel, and then quotes an email screencap. COI/SPA issues exist as well. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Ignazio Ciufolini ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An Editor, Cricecio, censored the wise and balanced version by CorporateM including the sockpuppet story. I restored it. Since shadows on my credibility were cast because of my alleged only purpose about this story, please look carefully at the Cricecio's editing history. You will see that he always and only acted as a supporter of Ciufolini in several articles, by repeatedly attempting to censore and remove verifiable pieces of information, even citations to scientific articles, which did not agree with the Ciufolini's claims. I hope that we will not see some editing war about this issue, which was previously settled. En passing, I also note how also COPE dealt recently with it. Thank you. 56OKLO34 ( talk) 13:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Mark Wahlberg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article was featured on reddit, and upon a quick glance this blp makes quite a few controversial claims. One of the claims is sourced to the smoking gun which consists of a scan of a court document. This makes this a primary source, no? I don't have time to sift through the sources, but I suspect there might be other questionable sources/claims. If someone has time, could you please take a look? Two kinds of pork ( talk) 19:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
B.N.E. (artist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The person in question (BNE) keeps deleting the "Scam Controversy" section of their entry, even though it is cited and confirmed. Is there any way to prevent them from deleting this? It is what the artist is best known for, unfortunately.
link: /info/en/?search=B.N.E._%28artist%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicyouthbh1 ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
More citations have been added, including Street Art News, the #1 Urban Art news site on the web, and a quote from Charity:Water, the charity involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.37.21 ( talk) 01:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
BNE and his friends keep deleting the scam info because they're now being investigated by the authorities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.37.21 ( talk) 02:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The two accounts listed above, both new accounts, just added material about the scam to the article in quick succession. Since this now appears like a concerted effort to add the contested material to the article, I have semi-protected the article. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Smitrovich has asserted, in this message on my talk page, that they are a victim of the alleged scam. Looks like not only is WP:BLP a concern here, but WP:COI is as well. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Historicity of Jesus has a couple of recently added quotes from leading classical historians - Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical (Ancient) History and Archaeology at Australian National University[53] has stated ""Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming."
Co-director of Ancient Cultures Research Centre at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Alanna Nobbs has stated ""While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain." (citations removed).
Wdford keeps saying on the talk page, over and over, that such statements are "patently wrong" [39],"ridiculous" [40] and that those eminent scholars are basing their statements on "zero evidence", relying on "fraud and rumour alone" and "not being neutral". [41] It has been pointed out to Wdford by several others that it is not the place of WP editors to write on this site "here is what the experts say and here is why they are totally wrong" but he pays no attention and continues to post what seem to me attacks on leading scholars' competence and integrity, albeit on a talk page, not in article space, but I still wonder if that is a BLP violation. Thanks Smeat75 ( talk) 19:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
So when you wrote "accuses them of being incompetent and dishonest," you didn't mean he actually said they were "incompetent and dishonest," correct? Hipocrite ( talk) 21:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
It is not the part of any Wikipedia editor to " know the truth" - we are simply "harmless drudges" using what others have written. (Apologies to Samuel Johnson). Collect ( talk) 21:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
In a word, no, it's not a BLP violation. What is being expressed is clearly a fringe view, but expressing personal disagreement on a talk page with a source, even a good one, is not in itself a BLP problem. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 22:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC).
This doesn't appear to be a BLP violation at this point, though it does certainly appear to be problematic and tendentious behavior. If such labels as "incompetent and dishonest" are applied to the scholars themselves, then it would be. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Stephen Fife ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
His middle name is not Jordan - it's Joseph... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.141.194 ( talk) 20:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi-I started an article about Keith Westmoreland who served in the Tennessee General Assembly. He committed suicide after being charged with lewd misconduct. His successor Michael K. Locke died recently. I just wanted to alert you people in case there are any problems. Many thanks- RFD ( talk) 12:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Gary Oldman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stepped in it in his playboy interview. Getting considerable coverage (likely WP:UNDUE in the long run) on his article. I tried to clean up the worst, but its being restored. Don't want to get into an edit war. Additional eyes would be great. Lots sourced to TMZ and "Gossip Cop". I replaced gossip cop with variety for the same content, and that was also reverted for some reason. [43] Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
A discussion on the BLP implications of this award is being held, by inadvertent mistake, at the WT:BLP#Are the Golden Raspberry Awards a BLP issue. I'm posting this as a placeholder as it really needs to be relocated here. If it isn't, this can serve as a pointer to that discussion, in case editors in the future are seeking out previous discussions on this subject. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Ney Mello ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This entry is self-authored advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.90.206 ( talk) 00:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have some eyes and third-party input on the Kazuhide Uekusa article, please, as it has been subject to a lot of edit-warring and flip-flopping recently, with one editor in particular continuously removing factual, sourced statements about the subject of the article claiming they are libelous. My understanding of Wikipedia:Libel (as outlined in more detail at Defamation) is that statements are libelous only when they are false, and that saying that a person has been arrested twice for sex offenses is not at all libelous if is a fact that has been widely reported in the media. I should add, that this is not trivial tabloid gossip, but that, rather like O.J. Simpson's arrest and trial, it is something that probably made him more widely known to the general public than his original career (as an economist and occasional TV commentator). Anyway, comments would be welcome. Thanks. -- DAJF ( talk) 01:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The article appears self serving, some of the references and links are dead, misleading or barely allude to the context. Contains personal opinions and subjective claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.54.40 ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 27 June 2014
The edit history appears primarily from the user "Australiannewsmakers" is there a way to flag this user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.78 ( talk) 04:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Phil Hellmuth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can someone familiar with poker sources review the "personality & controversy" section to ensure that the sourcing meets BLP levels of respectability? Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Frank_Lucas_(Oklahoma)#Robot_accusation I am not entirely convinced this needs to be acted on, but ... really? Really? -- j⚛e decker talk 16:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I have some concerns about honors and knighthoods listed at James O'Higgins Norman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have a minor dispute about whether MStJ and KLJ are honors or memberships, but my major issue is with the list of knighthoods. Most are unsourced although some I think can be sourced. However, " Imperial House of Vietnam: Knight Commander, Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam" seems at best inappropriate. Our article on the Order of the Dragon of Annam makes it clear that no orders have been issued since 1945. The response to my removing this was "The Order of the Dragon of Annam was revived in 2002 by the direct descendent of the last Emperor of Vietnam. He was entitled to do thi sunder the various rules that govern orders etc. See explanation on http://www.imperialvietnam.net/dragonestablish.html Apart from the subject of this article others who were born after 1945 have received the Order after it was revived including a number of European royals - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Dragon_of_Annam#Distinguished_knights_and_dames."
I'm very dubious about using this claimed revival of the order. Looking at the list of those who have supposedly been granted honors form this 'order'. It isn't mentioned at Kigeli V of Rwanda. It is mentioned at Norodom Sihanouk but sourced to Royalark.net (which is used multiple times as a source) and for which we have a clear consensus should never be used for BLPs [44]. So that article needs a cleanup and we can't claim he has this knighthood. It is mentioned at Nicholas, Crown Prince of Montenegro but the source [45] is under construction. It isn't mentioned in any of the articles of the other named recipients. In other words, out of 12 links, 2 mention it with dubious sources. I'm removing them all (not all are BLPs by the way, some are dead). Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Response from Editor of James O'Higgins Norman page The reason I referred you to the ICOC website and the World Orders of Knighthood and Merit is that they both set out the generally accepted principles for discerning the legitimacy of an Order of Knighthood or Merit. But rather than engage with me on the validity of the honour bestowed on the subject of the article vis a vis these principles you have ignored them and instead offered circumstantial information including a reference to the quality of the Imperial House' website. Ollamhnua ( talk) 12:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Pankaj Oswal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kindly take a look at the Pankaj Oswal article as it has not been written in a neutral manner. It is filled with racial abuse, and does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards on Quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.150.48 ( talk) 20:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
John Fogelman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sources keep repeatedly adding/reposting content from a tabloid site - TheWrap.com . The content contains quotes from "anonymous" sources that cannot be verified and should not be included in a factual biography.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid
Terry Davis (author) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Terry Davis lives in Good Thunder, no longer runs a motorcycle shop and had had recent major health problems (according to his own website) but I'm not experienced enough to make large-scale changes to his Wiki page.
Chip Berlet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The entry on me has been attacked for many years (since it was created in 2005) by fanatical critics of my research. Several of these persons have been banned from Wikipedia or suspended for periods of time. I spent weeks on a private discussion with Jimbo Wales and others on the topic of WikiStalking and dealing with passive-aggressive biased editors. There has yet to be a satisfactory solution to this problem, especially for folks like me who are not celebrities and cannot attract enough unbiased editors to rectify the situation.
Now the entry on me is a disgrace. Not only is there outdated and inaccurate information, but the whole entry now is based almost entirely on the POV of handful of critics. Mention of significant awards has been removed. Most of my most important scholarly journal articles and book chapters are not mentioned. The creation of a separate bibliography page has resulted primarily in the removal of almost all mentions of my scholarly work. Critics of my work wait a few weeks and then delete something positive and add something negative. A recent RFC resulted in one editor removing a lot of material without actually editing the entry to be fair or unbiased. I am not looking for a puff piece. I am looking for a fair and accurate entry.
Here are some of the people who slanted my page with biased critical material and were banned or otherwise sanctioned. This is just from 2005-2008.
/info/en/?search=User:Herschelkrustofsky
/info/en/?search=User:Weed_Harper
/info/en/?search=User:Cognition
/info/en/?search=User:Paroxysm
/info/en/?search=User:NathanDW
/info/en/?search=User:Tsunami_Butler
/info/en/?search=User:Chip_%27n_Dale_Berlet
/info/en/?search=User:SallyForth123
/info/en/?search=User:Terrawatt
/info/en/?search=User:TableManners
/info/en/?search=User:Niels_Gade
/info/en/?search=User:Leatherstocking
/info/en/?search=User:Marvin_Diode
/info/en/?search=User:Threeafterthree Chip.berlet ( talk) 04:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Manuel Schenkhuizen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Large sections of unreferenced text.
For Example: "Grubby has been known for being part of one of the most successful WC3 teams in history, namely the British 4Kings. Later teams include the Danish MeetYourMakers and the North-American Evil Geniuses. Since 2011, Grubby has been teamless and is currently independently sponsored. Grubby enjoys a large fan base throughout the world and especially in China. He's sometimes characterized as being not one of the fastest players, but one that compensates with smart and effective play styles. He's presently a Starcraft II progamer playing as Protoss."
Mike Dailly ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Excessive prominence of recent negative event--I'm not sure of pre-existing notability either. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
this editor Otto.sump is attacking the article and me now /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Otto.sump
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Mosfetfaser&diff=614889867&oldid=614889725 Mosfetfaser ( talk) 15:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Mike Ozekhome ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A part of this article was blanketed. I have since cited source and references and will be glad to have constructive input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlomos ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 29 June 2014
Doren Robbins This article is a biography of a living person, and in April 2014 (as well as at least once before), it has been vandalized several times by user Thehype1, including antisemitic comments and false information about Doren Robbins's military history, mental health, birth date, and other personal information. The article itself is not in violation of the biographies of living persons policies, but as the original creator of this page, I would like to request page protection for Doren Robbins.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrwood08 ( talk • contribs)
Does [49] "violate WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and other policies" as asserted on my user talk page? [50]
The accuser states his deliberate intent to get people blocked for such egregious edits, an edit which
Chip Berlet himself found reasonable as opinion cited as opinion.
[51] Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
21:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Daniel Amen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Your attention is called to a Request for comment at Talk:Daniel_Amen#RFC: List of journal articles. 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The talk page of the above has a "Controversies" section with "On 18 September 2013, the prosecutors filed the criminal charges against Ghervazen Longher, accusing him on two counts conflicts of interest
" and a link to a Romanian-language website. I had removed that, thinking that such material should either be in the article (and fully justified per
WP:RS and
WP:DUE and
WP:BLPCRIME), or not placed anywhere. However, the material has been re-added with some rewording. I noticed the addition while commenting at
WT:Talk page guidelines#Adding external links to talk pages where there is a proposal to systematically place relevant external links on article talk pages. Any thoughts?
Johnuniq (
talk)
01:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Reginald Mengi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Persistent attempts to edit the profile page of Reginald Mengi are being removed within hours of the edit. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia which is to accurately inform the public. If Reginald Mengi choses to place a page on Wikipedia then it is a public page who should then be free to edit it accurately. This is not being allowed to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.242.104 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 June 2014
The article on Justin Mateen contains sourced material which is being removed anonymously.
Article Link: /info/en/?search=Justin_Mateen
This article needs to be locked or monitored closely to prevent anonymous users from removing sourced and relevant content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heisenbuger ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this Getty Images page (which I believe is self-published) [53] a reliable sourced for the claim "She also took part as a nude model for the Matildas' calendar..." which appears in the BLP of Kim Revell?- Mr X 18:29, 2 July 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.
Jennifer Rubin (journalist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is an ongoing dispute on that article about including critical material sourced to reliable sources. Some fresh eyes on this would be appreciated. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Oleg Voronin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kindly take a look at the Oleg Voronin article as it has not been written in a neutral manner, references to dead links or unreliable sources.
Citation from article:
Further claims were made in a Moldovan article from the Ziarul de Gardă, and include but are not limited to: Zahar - the Moldovan sugar syndicate, which Oleg Voronin controls, and an allegedly shady 1997 deal in which several thousand tons of sugar were sold to Romania. The problem here is that the entire national product of Moldova is not this high, and the assumed source of this sugar was donations made by the Cuban government to aid Moldovan hospitals. That his opponents have been "cast away, bankrupted or arrested.
There are no references to sustain these allegation, thus these allegations have a clearly defamation nature and have to be eliminated.
Another statement with no references: “Zahar - the Moldovan sugar syndicate, which Oleg Voronin controls, and an allegedly shady 1997 deal in which several thousand tons of sugar were sold to Romania. The problem here is that the entire national product of Moldova is not this high, and the assumed source of this sugar was donations made by the Cuban government to aid Moldovan hospitals.”
In Moldova never existed any “sugar syndicate”. The only association of Moldovan sugar producers was founded in 1994 with the name “Association “Sugar” and which name was modified in 1998 as “Union of sugar producers”. It is member of the National Patronage of the Republic of Moldova.
“The younger Voronin has often been accused of corruption, …”
The hyper-link from the word “corruption” leads to the Wikipedia article “ Political Corruption”. This article gives the following definition of political corruption: “Political corruption is the use of powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties, is done under color of law or involves trading in influence.”
Thus, only the government officials, the officeholders may be accused of corruption. The subject of the article “Oleg Voronin”, according to his biography described in the same article never held any office in any government agency and, therefore, never could use his “official duties” in no activity. Thus, this statement is false.
“…but most recently it was the Tiraspol Times[2] that raised the issue.” The hyper-link from “Tiraspol Times” leads to the Wikipedia article “ Media of Transnistria”.
According to this article “Tiraspol Times was a short lived (2006–2008) English language news provider focused on Transnistria.”. Now we are in Anno Domini 2014. Hence, the qualification “most recently” is not later than 2008, i.e. at least 6 years ago. So, this is not “most recently”, but it is “once upon a time”.
Moreover, in the same Wikipedia article on Media of Transnistria this publication is characterized as “being strongly biased in favour of the Transnistrian authorities and Transnistrian independence. In order to give an example about the credibility of this publication the article states: “The site published few ads and its funding sources are not known. Edward Lucas, a journalist for Economist, suggested it could have received its funding either from the government, from Vladimir Antyufeyev's State Security Committee or from one of the Transnistrian companies.
Tom de Waal, a London-based journalist and author, was outraged to see an article under his name appear on the "Tiraspol Times" website. "I've certainly never been to Pridnestrovie, Transdneister, or Moldova, and I am certainly not arguing, as is written under my name, that Pridnestrovie has a better case for independence than Kosovo," de Waal says.”.
It also has a reference to the following dead link: http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/628
Taking all this, the given source is not enough credible to serve as a reference. Thus, the whole sentence has to be eliminated: “The younger Voronin has often been accused of corruption, but most recently it was the Tiraspol Times that raised the issue.” Altfelmd ( talk) 09:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
An unregistered user added that Seymour Barab passed away on June 28, 2014. I have since searched unsuccessfully for an internet source that confirms this claim. Are there other sources available? Hrdinský 〒 12:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)