![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Myself and McVeigh are in a revert struggle over the "Partner(s)" section of the article subject's infobox. I am trying to remove a reference in the "Partner(s)" slot to the article subject's recently-ended three-year dating relationship. I don't think Wikipedia should be deciding and declaring that such non-committed relationships rise to the level of "Partnership" because of mere duration. If they'd gotten married or had some other strong indicia of lasting commitment, I'd think differently, but I haven't seen evidence of that. McVeigh obviously disagrees with me. He can state his own case here if he so chooses. But at this point I don't want to violate WP:3RR, so I respectfully request advice from this noticeboard. Thank you. Townlake ( talk) 18:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I have removed this item from the "Partner" section of the article based on the feedback obtained from the discussion here. Townlake ( talk) 06:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Anyone familiar with fine art in Detroit might be helpful at Graham W. J. Beal (Director of the Detroit Institute of Arts), where the coverage of recent financial allegations has just been removed by an obvious COI IP, self-identifying as the subject. Incoming. Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Sayuki ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DAJF removes any positive content at all from this page and has been doing so for nearly eight years. This affects the lives of Sayuki and of her apprentices and other geisha who work with her. He only edits a few pages on Wikipedia and is clearly obsessed with damaging Sayuki's reputation. What he doesn't understand is that he damages the opportunities and income of all the people who get work through Sayuki. Please have him banned from editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.24.62.233 ( talk) 16:49, December 18, 2014
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.
Some of the GamerGate personalities are still being vandalized especially due to arbcom and what not. Protections tend to expire without notice. Can we get year long or so pending change protection to:
Brianna Wu (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Frank Wu (artist) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Anita Sarkeesian (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Zoe Quinn (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
and any other names that come up? Frank Wu must have recently expired and was vandalized requiring 10 oversights for IP BLP violation. Pending Changes lets IP editors add info but doesn't create massive oversight issue. It's semi-protected until tomorrow but no reason to let it troll back up. No reason we can't have a pending changes set for a really long time is there? Request duplicated at PP board. Whoever is first.
--
DHeyward (
talk)
00:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Over the past six weeks an individual has been adding a criticism section to the Federal Way Public Academy site. The content is based on a summary of student opinions from Rate My Teacher Website. The links clearly identify four individuals, and attribute inappropriate and possible illegal behavior. All the claims are based on unsubstantiated claims from an opinion website. Three different editors have removed material and shared reasons for removal. We have also used the talk page. The person posting has already been warned by Wikipedia about posting comments that do not take a Neutral Point of View. Since individual names are clearly mentioned in the links - it is a serious violation of the BLP policy. Even without the links, the posting are in appropriate.
Hallway monitor ( talk) 06:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Hallway Monitor
An anonymous user (or users) has repeatedly inserted unsourced and defamatory material in this article about a living person. I have reverted appropriately and with explanatory comment each time but it's leading to an edit war. Can administrators help, please?
Perhaps edits can be restricted to registered users only so that the culprit(s) can be deterred or identified. Or perhaps there are better ways of dealing with the problem.
Thanks! JoeMCMXLVII ( talk) 04:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It appears a great many persons are categorized as Mormon (LDS) sans any actual reference for self-identification. Spot check shows this is true of about 50% of those in Category:American Latter Day Saints. I am not about to try removing the possibly as many as 1000 entries - but is this covered by WP:BLP? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPF : Should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 ( talk • contribs)
Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: " Orson Scott Card#Politics"?
(Also see a 2013 blogpost by M Aspan citing this from Card in 2000 rgding allegedly non-racist use of nigga'.)
See discussion here: Talk:Orson Scott Card#RfC: Subject of blp racist?
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 21:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Katerina Ksenyeva ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1. self published page
2. no credible sources
3. verifiably false information. for example "became a Grammy Pre Nominee"
Looking at the contentious WP:BLP material at A Rape on Campus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and the WP:Edit warring going on there, I think that more eyes are needed on that article. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Kelli Finglass ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, this is Kelli Finglass
My biography was apparently changed on Nov 30, 2014 to include an arrest and assault charges in Atlanta. This is absolutely not true and harmful to my professional career.
Can you help me remove it? Can you help me with IP address of contributor. I will press legal charges
Thank you
In response to this newspaper article wider input at Talk:Angelina Jolie#Changing "Shiloh Jolie-Pitt" name would be welcome. Giant Snowman 09:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a question of general principle rather than in reference to a particular article or source. It has become a point of contention at Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Preliminary_collation_of_balancing_sources as to what sources could in principle be cited. For a general feel of the types of sources under discussion, see [ [1]] and [ [2]]
Are there existing guidelines with regard to citing a source for claims not about a living person, when the source also contains contentious claims about a living person? Assume the two claims appear within the distance of a physical paper page or computer screen from one another, such that someone verifying one would be likely to see the other.
I know this is rather broad, so if it helps it may be assumed that the source would be considered reliable for the non-BLP claims and questionable for BLP claims. The BLP content may be assumed to be contentious but not appearing prima facie as defamation, with applicable Defamation#Other_defenses such as as being opinion, vituperative, or made in good faith using supporting evidence.
Rhoark ( talk) 21:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that where the source proffered has substantial material which would run counter to WP:BLP and where a reliable secondary source which does not have that problem is available, that we deprecate the source which may cause BLP issues in favour of the more neutrally worded source. Where multiple sources are available, editors may reasonably choose that which is least problematic. Collect ( talk) 22:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Collect and I seldom see eye to eye, but I'd agree with his assessment. If a source contains libelous or contentious information about a LP, it should be avoided in favor of other sources that may have similar content sans the negative material. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Is
"contentious claims about third parties from a questionable source which is against WP:QS, WP:Aboutself, and WP:BLP" or is it a proper use of a source using opinion properly cited as opinion about a large group not aimed at a small group of identifiable individuals? Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#RFC_-_Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_film_review? is an RfC on the same source which has the closing statement Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. Samsara 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC). Collect ( talk) 12:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
A BLP violation is not dependent upon the topic being discussed.What does this even mean in this context? The article we're citing singles out Rafter Guzman, Martin Tsai, Peter Sobcynski and others. I think movie critics that write for RS are considered quotable in articles for the contents of their movie reviews. If they're not published by RS, then the same standard should apply to them as Breitbart. I just don't think Breitbart has a reputation for accurately reviewing the people who happen to be movie reviewers, or other people for that matter. If this was a source with a better reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, there would be no issue about using its published opinion about third parties. But everything I see in the archives makes me think this is widely considered a challenged source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Some more watchers would be useful at this article, where for years at least five SPA accounts plus IPs have been trying to introduce material about two step-brothers. The first was blocked for legal threats, the most recent one has a short block for edit-warring, but they or another will probably be back. The information about the step-brothers is (a) unsourced, (b) apparently being added for promotional purposes (e.g. here) and (c) in my opinion irrelevant to an article about Ms De Mornay and her career.
The persistence of the attempts may be explained by this book extract. JohnCD ( talk) 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There's currently a dispute about the references used at Jeff Smisek. In particular:
Personally I think the HuffPo piece is a blog post by a musician with no apparent qualifications in either economics or journalism. Lauraface32 claimed that "many, many, MANY" reliable sources cited that HuffPo article, but upon request could not provide any such citations. It should be de-emphasized, possibly removed entirely. The claim Lauraface32 cites it for is not in fact supported by the source anyway, as has been pointed out before by MusikAnimal. The Crain's piece, on the other hand, is not just a personal commentary but a news report on the prevailing sentiment of analysts, written by an experienced journalist; by an equivalent of WP:RS/AC we can use it to make the regaining of trust a statement of fact, not just of the author's opinion. Huon ( talk) 00:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I should say that I used to work as a corporate officer of a US airline. But I am retired now, and have never met Mr. Smisek. I don't think that should matter, but I thought I would disclose it anyway just to be safe. I have been following this debate for a while now from a distance.
Here are my two cents: I like how the page currently covers both the criticism and the rebuttal. I think it is probably best to keep these things in separate paragraphs.
I think the Huffington Post piece is well done. As a former corporate officer in the airline industry, I can tell you that just because someone knows a lot about music does not not mean that she can't hit a home run when it comes to criticizing a CEO. I do find it a little strange that we of all people would question his qualifications. Are any of us professionally trained to be encyclopedia authors and editors?
Huon is attacking Fagin's personal narrative rather than his published analysis. I do not think this is appropriate. This is a published article. As a former executive, I can say that I found it an interesting and persuasive read. It is not up to us to judge whether Fagin is smart or experienced enough to be allowed to write an article. It really just comes down to whether the article is well-reasoned. It seems to me that the best thing to do in this situation is keep things as they are. The Wikipedia entry simply says that this is a published claim. Which it is. What is wrong with that?
That being said, it is certainly an opinion piece. It is merely one person's well-reasoned analysis. But all financial reporting of corporate performance essentially boils down to mere opinion. For whatever it is worth, I like the way the current author represents it as coming from "one commentator." From my perspective, that is the best way to go.
It doesn't matter if other outlet's treated Fagin's piece as legit. Did any other outlets mention Crains' piece. The rules should be applied equally and fairly. If the standard is whether or not other outlet's cited the article, then we must delete BOTH Fagin AND Crains.
Topdog76 ( talk) 01:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Topdog76 ( talk) 01:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
After a quick read, I don't think the Huffington Post article is problematic. It seems find to me. The Wiki editor does not overemphasize it. It is fine. Adamduker ( talk) 15:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The HuffPo piece is fully unusable - it is an opinion piece entirely, written by a person not known as an expert on business, or on airlines in any way at all. Heck, it is based on a conversation with an anonymous person who works for United -- a really strong source - not. Joe Cahill's piece is also "opinion" and is not a "news article" as one normally uses the term. Cahill's opinion is usable as opinion cited to Cahill. Collect ( talk) 15:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article illridewithyou, created by User:The_Almightey_Drill, had an edit undone by an administrator, based on a claim it is a violation of BLP: [6].
I looked at it pretty thoroughly and it seems to flow on nicely with the paragraph before it, is well referenced, and there doesn't seem to be anything even remotely related to a BLP violation.
Given that the person who undid the revision, User:Nick-D, also blocked the creator almost immediately after creating the article: [7] and given that the article was then put up for deletion (albeit by a different editor): [8], I question the legitimacy of this apparent BLP violation.
I undid the edit: [9] and it was reverted by the same blocking editor: [10] with what appears to be a threat.
I'd like some other people to look at this to see if they really think that a BLP violation has taken place here, and also, related to this, if the block and related AFD nomination were made in good faith. I know that I am supposed to assume good faith, but it looks very much like some manipulation has taken place here. KrampusC ( talk) 02:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Additional: I also got threats for creating this: [11] [12]. I never got that kind of treatment from other articles I edited, just this one. Something funny is going on here. KrampusC ( talk) 02:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
“Confession time. In my Facebook status, I editorialised. She wasn’t sitting next to me. She was a bit away, towards the other end of the carriage,” she wrote.
Detailing her thought process, Ms Jacobs now says she wondered if she even needed to help.“She might not even be Muslim or she could have just been warm!,” she wrote."
That's admitting to fabricating the story. Or at least editorialising it.
Interestingly, the Brisbane Times ran a story relating to her being exposed for fabricating the story, saying that she shouldn't have been exposed as it was from her private Facebook page. That (and only that) could be used as the basis of a BLP violation: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/sydney-siege-illridewithyou-raises-questions-about-facebook-privacy-20141219-12agyg.html KrampusC ( talk) 02:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
References
A new user keeps adding a religion to the infobox without any support for it in the body of the article (at least none that I could see - it's a long article) in violation of WP:BLPCAT. I've reverted the editor and warned them. Another user has also reverted, although the user reverted again. I've now warned the user about edit warring. I would be within my rights to revert based on the BLP violation, but I'm not keen on claiming the exemption in an edit war and would prefer to have others look at it. Thus far, the user never talks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:43, 23 December 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.
Serious defamatory claims were added to Talk:Gamergate controversy, which I believe require a rev-del.
Unfortunately I cannot connect to the #wikipedia-en-revdel channel at the moment to request this. Many thanks. — Strongjam ( talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like to get the input of other BLP/N discussion participants regarding one element of the Lisa Raymond article. The last sentence of the lead is "Raymond is openly lesbian.[1]" There is no other mention of Raymond's sexuality anywhere within the article, and the article does not presently include a "personal life" section or something similar. It is fairly well documented in reliable media that Raymond is a lesbian, but she has not been particularly forward about it, she is not a LGBT activist, and has not sought to be publicly defined by her sexuality. Personally, I think it is not appropriate to include a single sentence in the lead defining her sexuality without sourced main body text, anymore than it would be to include "Clinton is openly heterosexual" in the lead of the Bill Clinton article. Reactions? Suggestions? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no strong reliable source to make categorization of her sexuality at all. See WP:BLPCAT. Thus we can not make reference to it. Collect ( talk) 17:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Disruptive edits, and BLP violation by User:Couldn't think of a decent username. Offensive language, which was removed by myself and another user, but is being repeatedly readded by the user with offensive edit summaries. -- Dmol ( talk) 12:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello all, I'm back once more with a final request for editors' thoughts on the article for author and television personality Touré.
For anyone who missed my prior requests, I'd previously asked here for input on some material at the start of the Writing career section, which focuses on criticisms regarding a student publication Touré founded at Emory University. At the time, I mentioned that the biggest issue was the main cited source from The Daily Caller, since its first bylined reporter is the now-notorious Charles C. Johnson (discussed by David Carr in the NYT and Dave Weigel at Slate). Initially, an editor reviewed my request and removed everything cited to The Caller, however a second editor then added in a compromise wording that I'd offered initially as an option if editors felt that the details absolutely had to stay. The first editor disagreed with this addition but although I've asked both for a further considerartion, neither returned to the discussion. It would be great if some other editors could take a look and see what they think about removing the information cited to The Caller altogether.
Secondly, I'm looking for input on the number of times that Touré's former surname appears in the article. Given that he has formally changed his name to drop his surname, does not use this name, has never used the name professionally, and it is mentioned in just a very very few sources, it seems perhaps a bit much to mention the name three times in a fairly short article. I'm curious if editors would feel comfortable with reducing the mentions of the name to the introduction and infobox only. I have started a discussion on the Talk page and welcome comments from editors here. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I was looking at Skye McCole Bartusiak's article and her death was partly caused by 1,1-Difluoroethane poisoning. However the 1,1-Difluoroethane article posits that she intentionally inhaled the substance which is not mentioned in Skye McCole Bartusiak article itself. I'm unable to access the source that might support this assertion in the 1,1-Difluoroethane - if someone could look into this I would appreciate it. This looks like a tragic case and we shouldn't be implying someone intentionally abused a substance without proof. Thank you. Quintessential British Gentleman ( talk) 14:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The section about Burton Albion is a scam. Someone replaced the section about his current club Fenerbahce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:500:A90:4CA2:874A:AC5D:7B37 ( talk) 15:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
At a number of supercentenarians articles ( List_of_living_supercentenarians#Unverified_living_supercentenarians, List of European supercentenarians, List of North American supercentenarians, List of supercentenarians from the United States, etc.) there are a number of people listed as "pending" or "unverified." WP:DOB would side against listing the birth dates of BLPs (or possible BLPs) so I'd supporting removing names with no reliable sources. The articles here all based whether or not the person is the oldest based solely on Gerontology Research Group which is called the main authority for the subject. Two concerns: it feels like we're throwing out our entire WP:RS policies in favor of citing a single sources. When looking at something more generic on world records, there are various sources ( RecordSetter versus Guinness World Records) so if WP:RS state that someone else is older, shouldn't that be included? Alternatively it could fall under WP:FRINGE and be removed. That leaves the "unverified" claimants: if the GRC has not verified it, then that as a reliable source has not verified it. However, whether we should continue to list names that are unverified by GRC by using other RS is based on whether we are solely using GRC as the basis for the claims or not. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 18:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with SiameseTurtle's opinion. I would like to add, that the Gerontology Research Group is an scientific organization, which is cited within many press and internet reports throughout the world as the leading authority in terms of extreme longevity, gerontology and supercentenarians' study. The determination of the authenticity of human's age requires much professionalism, sensitivity and patience. That is why the GRG was founded. The GRG is an organization very well organized with main body located in University of California, Los Angeles and over 50 international correspondents, who are respinsible for the extreme longevity tracking in their respective countries. The fact, that the Gerontology Research Group is an scientific organization is in my belief beyond doubt; the titles of publications published by the GRG members are available for insight from its official website. Yes, it is true, that the GRG is not the lone organization, which conducts research on supercentenarians. It is closely related with other scientific associations like Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research International Database on Longevity and also the Guiness World Records. All the organizations respect each other's reseach and this is true also for the GRG, which recognizes the research of Kestenbaum Study, GWR, Mr. Roger Thatcher and others. Each verification of supercentenarian claim is the result of months of hard work of international correspondents, who track documentation for every single case dating back 110 years and more and often also perform the research "in field" by visiting the supercentenarians themselves and interview the supercentenarians and their relatives. Then the gathered knowledge is being put under a detailed analysis by the GRG senior claims investigators before the final verification is done. The process involves many researchers affiliated with universities in many countries on different continents. The Wikipedia only reflects the final outcome of this research. It's the true tip of the iceberg. And that is exactly how this should function, because any encyclopedia is to provide the reader the discovered, checked and validated information. Wikipedia is here not an exception. The readers know about the phenomenon of evolution thanks to Darwin's discoveries and research and samely, the reader can learn about the phenomenon of longevity thanks to the GRG's discoveries and research. I would advise to respect the Wikipedia's significant role in helping of education of the society by not erasing and questioning when not necessary its content, which is developed by tireless efforts of many other Wikipedia contributors, who rightly trust in the GRG source and work for the sake of the greater knowledge of our international society. Waenceslaus ( talk) 20:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
White savior narrative in film ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article asserts as fact that many main-stream Hollywood movies are racist, based on the opinions of various commentators and scholars. Movies are made by people. To say that they are racist based on someone's opinion seems like a BLP concern to me. The article just went through AfD. I voted to keep because the point of view is notable and well-documented. The list of movies is what I have a problem with. I also suggested this on the article's talk page, but I'd like some other opinions on it. Borock ( talk) 06:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Done
There is a disagreement about whether Cairns child killings should be included in "murder" categories. A suspect in the case has been named and charged, but not convicted. Further opinions are requested in the discussion at Talk:Cairns child killings#Categories: murder. Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Input is sought at Talk:2014 Cairns child killings#Poll on disputed BLP items. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
there is an error in one of the names disclosed in this ariticle, see the copy/paste below
(1982-1986) Vilma Frias (1982-1989) instead of Vilma Frias is Irma Frias
Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:4E80:242:FD92:F344:20B0:5013 ( talk) 01:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I have recently received an editing warning from Wikipedia regarding a potential double standard in what is allowed in Wikipedia biographies. To excercise the greatest sensitivity, I will restate my concerns without identifying the party who may be receiving preferential treatment from Wikipedia.
Briefly, I note that the Bill Cosby biography contains a section on "Sexual assault allegations and fallout." To the best of my knowledge, these allegations are just that - allegations. However, there exists another Wikipedia biography where the subject has been convicted of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 years. There is no mention of this conviction in this person's biography except for a zero-context statement on the talk page concerning whether the LA Times (one source of published information about this conviction) is a reliable source. My added source of confirmatory information was from the California Sex Offenders database.
My question is quite simple. Why can as-yet unproven allegations of sexual misconduct about Bill Cosby be allowed on Wikipedia and information about confirmed sex crimes about another Wikipedia biographical subject be disallowed? I await a coherent answer from a responsible party to explain this apparent double standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2462:BB60:18A8:49FD:D5AF:24E ( talk) 20:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply. This person's crimes were reported in the Los Angeles Times in at least two separate articles that can be located via Google. (I do not include the URLs here lest I be banned for defaming the subject since both articles give the subject's name.) As to the notability of the subject, he was a featured performer on network and syndicated television over approximately 20 years, and has released numerous recordings under his own name on major national recording labels.
I find it troubling that unproven allegations receive such prominent placement in Wikipedia while criminal convictions published in major national newspapers are ignored. Cosby is undoubtedly more famous than the subject at hand, but both are legitimate public figures.
More worrisome, however, is the similiarity between this case and Wikipedia's treatment of another celebrity, James Stacy. Mr. Stacy Wikipedia biography states that, "In November 1995, Stacy pleaded no contest to a charge of molesting an 11-year-old girl.[8]" The single reference in this case is the Star-News, arguably an inferior source to the Los Angeles Times.
Again, why does Wikipedia treat these two public figures differently? Both involved underage sexual activity and both individuals pleaded no contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2462:BB60:18A8:49FD:D5AF:24E ( talk) 22:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
After doing a Google search for sources, I believe the same standard for James Stacy would apply to this individual if he were notable. Afronig ( talk) 23:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The issue for me is far more about the consistent application of Wikipedia's policies than about about whether the subject is notable. Deleting the subject's biography on the grounds of lack of notability would avoid rather than resolve the issue of Wikipedia's consistency. Two points should be made here (1) former drag racer Gene Snow is perhaps a better example of someone of comparable-to-lesser notability who receives very different treatment from Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no problems noting Mr. Snow's similar legal issues in his biography using references that appear to be blog entries and (2) concerning the subject's notability, I note that individuals such as Johnny Zell, Mary Lou Metzger, Jack Imel, and Bob Havens (similar performers of less prominence than the subject) have their own Wikipedia biographies.
This will conclude my comments on this subject. Wikipedia remains a remarkable institution, and I wish you well in you efforts to maintain and improve this amazing resource. This exchange has given me greater appreciation of the work involved in this endeavor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2462:BB60:18A8:49FD:D5AF:24E ( talk) 02:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Reported death in 2003 is an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.142.3 ( talk) 00:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like to get some eyes on Microsoft licensing corruption scandal which is thinly-sourced to some non-English sources. Several names of living persons are listed as being involved in the corruption scandal.- Mr X 15:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
At Natalia Poklonskaya ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have reverted for the second time the addition that Poklonskaya was rated by the sexist Maxim magazine as one of the 100 sexiest Russian women. I think that the opinion of a sexist publication which bases its success on presenting women as sex objects is not relevant to the article of this professional woman. The reverting editor went in with all guns blazing, mentioning the cliché of censorship in the edit summary. Not wanting to escalate matters further I bring this matter to the board and I would appreciate some advice from the editors here. Thank you in advance. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 18:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
old gripes, old grudgesand
character assassinationin the post above? Please explain otherwise retract your absurd hyperbole. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 18:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
character asassinationis both unjustified and a nasty personal attack. I think you should retract it. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 18:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
you're intentionally baiting an emotional response out of meis AGF-shredding. You should retract that too. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 18:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
based on our personal opinions of the magazine.I disagree. The magazine makes its money by sexually objectifying women and the quality of its journalism may well be even lower than that of a tabloid, and we know that generally tabloids are not acceptable sources for BLPs. This is something that should be taken into consideration when reporting that Poklonskaya has also been objectified and ranked according to her sex-appeal and in a stereotypical fashion. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 18:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
personal preferenceas I explained just above. It was based on the GIGO principle. That is, if Maxim produces sexist garbage and that garbage is reproduced by others, it is still garbage. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 19:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
you probably have a gripe with the entirety of Wikipedia's handling of these topics as welldiff. Again, please do not be heavy-handed putting words in my mouth. This is a subtle form of a personal attack. Unlike the other examples you put forward, Poklonskaya is not a glamour model or a woman known to promote that part of herself. She is primarily a legal professional. Sexist classifications of that type don't belong in her biography. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 20:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a noticeboard, any disucssion as to the validity of Maxim as a source for Natalia Poklonskaya should occur on Talk:Natalia_Poklonskaya any discusion of Maxims reliability in general should occur at WT:Identifying_reliable_sources or some other such location. CombatWombat42 ( talk)
That being said, though, "krymedia" seems to be the only source reporting on this, and it's a poor source. It would be better to cite Maxim itself, or more preferably, a third-party source (English-language if possible). And as that won't happen, it should be removed until a better article becomes available. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 22:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
...entire argument is based in its entirety upon personal opinion, and discounting a particular viewpoint/magazine simply due to its focus area/target...I disagree. Tabloids like the Daily Mail are not RS for BLPs. Maxim is on the same level as a tabloid or perhaps even lower. In addition a video game or a car magazine are respectable because they delve in subjects that need some knowledge to examine. There is no knowledge required to appraise the sexiness factor of a woman, other than the stereotypical view of her as a sex object. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 04:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it a NPOV violation? Nope, it's stating a fact without giving an opinion.Not true. It is an arbitrary and sexist classification solely based on her gender and only reflecting the opinion of a subset of the male readers of a sexist magazine who chose to participate in an unrepresentative, unscientific poll about a meaningless metric which has nothing to do with her career as a professional lawyer and is specifically designed to ignore any meaningful contributions she has made as a legal professional, but instead focuses on sex, treating her as an object. It is a serious WP:WEIGHT violation. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 08:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
What part of the BLP is being violated here? Only in death does duty end ( talk) 18:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Nate Moore (actor) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There are two editors, Shark310 and Hemi.pwr, who have a history of removing the information about the subject's involvement in a case. If I am not mistaken, the fact that the case has been dispensed of with a no contest plea allows the information to be included under the WP:BLPCRIME policy. I have started a discussion on the article's talk page, and invited these users to the discussion. I don't want to get caught in a 2-on-1 edit war here, however, and would appreciate any input or assistance as to how this should be handled. Thank you for your time. — Josh3580 talk/ hist 01:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nate_Moore_%28actor%29 - Govindaharihari ( talk) 12:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
To update - the creator of the two biographies that are now at deletion discussion Nate Moore (actor) and Dave Oren Ward is now creating an article about the death, what do editors think about the notability of this death? Killing of Dave Owen Ward and its existence and creation in regards to WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME Govindaharihari ( talk) 19:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Brandi Glanville ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I just added considerable factual content to a Living Bio page and it was deleted, while defamatory gossip and private family info was restored. I require assistance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyPants ( talk • contribs) 06:15, 27 December 2014
I just made some significant edits to the Real Housewives section of that article, as explained in my edit summary there. Please have a look, all. Townlake ( talk) 07:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
NaturalNews ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article wholly appears to have become an attack page on the website owner. A lot of the sourcing is to blogs etc. Please review and take action as appropriate. Thanks. OrangesRyellow ( talk) 10:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction has much the same issues as the other article on "White saviors" in movies. It presents opinion as fact and includes a long list of living people (in this case African American actors) in a negative way. Borock ( talk) 14:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Dorothy King ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I know she has asked in the past for her page to be deleted as she does not think she is notable enough.
Having seen the things people have written, and the really unpleasant edits constantly made mostly recently by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/91.180.48.239 I can understand why.
Who cares that she was not in Playboy? Neither were 99.99999999% of women, and including this suggests female academics should not have any value other than her breasts.
Also since she wrote recently she was 41, she clearly was not born in 1975.
Who cares re "being too old to expose her wrinkled curves."? Why write that? Are women of no value over a certain age? And who says she does expose herself or wants to? Every photograph in the press I have seen, she is perfectly modestly dressed?
The editor thinks her book is "controversial"? And his source is an obscure blog with a very one track opinion on the issue. For god's sake even Mother Teresa had critics, everyone does, but is Wikipedia the place for them?
I do not even know what to make of the claim she "is a self-proclaimed" archaeologist. I've seen her at conferences at Oxford and Athens and all over, and she seems to be accepted as one by her peers, and to have given lectures at the Courtauld, several museums, colleges, etc. That and several heavy historians thanking her for help with their books surely is a better source than one angry person in Belgium?
The talk section baffled me with the claim she sued people; actually it was Gillian McKeith who treatened to sue her over libel, and was quite a large cause celebre in the UK, if anyone Googles it, Ben Goldacre covered it in the Guardian and in his book Bad Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.185.140 ( talk) 19:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The last paragraph about Laudner's playing career is filled with too many "woulds", such as "Laudner would be/have/return" instead of just saying "Laudner was/Laudner returned". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.2.72.168 ( talk) 00:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I have been trying to improve this Joshua Clover entry, which had a lot of problems and was spottily or incorrectly sourced. It seems, however, that the subject of the entry--Joshua Clover--is editing the entry. He uses a variety of pseudonyms, including Janedark and, most recently, Janeplain.
In a 2007 exchange with another editor, recorded in the "talk" section of his entry, Janedark says, "I won't edit this page, as it has been explained to me that this would be poor form." But Janeplain is now doing just that. As you can see from one of the most recent edits by Janeplain, Joshua Clover sometimes writes under the pseudonym Jane Dark. Here is what Janeplain added to the Joshua Clover entry:
"Under the pseudonym "Jane Dark," Clover has written a number of film and music reviews for various outlets."
The main issue right now is that Jane/Clover keeps taking out reference to the fact that he studied with Jorie Graham while at the Iowa Writers' Workshop. I don't know why this is being taken out, since Jorie Graham is a notable American poet and Jorie Graham is also quoted earlier in the entry saying very positive things about Clover's poetry.
Thank you for looking into this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCBerkeley ( talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't know what that means. That I should make a report? I don't know where to do that. I'm just trying to get some help. Is it acceptable for subjects to edit their own entries? My additions to the Joshua Clover entry are factual and plainly stated with ample citations and yet the subject keeps taking them out and saying they're irrelevant. Thank you for your help. JCBerkeley ( talk) 18:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Saudade7: Thank you for your note. I am not Joshua Clover's father. I do not know him. Nor have I edited the entry before, using other usernames. As a Wikipedia Ambassador, do you have thoughts about whether subjects should edit their own entries, as Clover is here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCBerkeley ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
If anyone has some time, going through to de-gossip page Katrina Kaif would be appreciated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
page is totally inaccurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.136.26.41 ( talk) 20:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
[20] with the edit summary scandal implies immorality and/or impropriety, illegality is not required. There is certainly enough notability re-adding people who were mentioned but not implicated in any illegal activity.
The lead of that list states: A good guideline is whether or not an action is, or appears to be, illegal. Since everyone, particularly a politician, is expected to be law abiding, breaking the law is, by definition, a scandal. The finding of a court with jurisdiction is the sole method used to determine a violation of law—though not all scandals reach a court.
I rather think that implying anything remotely illegal or improper requires stronger sourcing than "someone mentioned them." [21] is an insufficient source for saying " Christie's Deputy Chief of Staff was fired" in a list of people involved in scandals - noting that the NYT piece stops well short of that claim.
Nor does [22] make claims sufficient to say "Christie's No. 2 appointee at the Port Authority — who attended high school with Christie — also resigned" as a link to a "scandal". And so on.
Lists of "people in scandals" is not a carte blanche of being able to shame people who have not been implicated in anything illegal as far as any legal claims are concerned, in my opinion. I invite others to determine whether that list should be restricted to those who have been actually implicated in any illegal acts, not just any vague "scandal" where the investigations so far do not make implications that these people violated laws. Other opinions? Collect ( talk) 22:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Currently has a section on an article from that site which mistakenly conflated two Loretta Lynches.
The writer of the article is identified by name, which I rather think means claims about his writing fall under WP:BLP
Two editors are changing:
To:
The section already states that there are two Loretta Lynches, but the addition of "The article was untrue" is SYNTH as placed in the revision, implying a deliberate untruth from a living person. The Politifact article is specifically about the spreading of the story, and has nothing to do with the original error by a living person, other than to be used to imply that no article ever written for Breitbart is true at all (editors saying the website has a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating as a website) [23] Media Matters has a 100% "True" rating while Breitbart.com has a 100% "Pants of Fire" rating , The RS standard isn't "just as bad as this arbitrary set of examples", the standard is a reputation for factchecking and accuracy. It's clear from the evidence linked above and the 100% Pants on Fire rating from Politifact that it has the opposite reputation. Gamaliel (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC) , scroll above to see the links offered by TRDOD and the discussion of the 100% Pants on Fire rating from Politifact. Gamaliel (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC), etc. The NYT cite is now used twice for a single paragraph, seemingly only to criticize the original correction, but which has little to do with the actual article. The main point is that since we mention a specific living person, the entire section must conform to WP:BLP and the use of SYNTH to make an implicit statement that the author deliberately wrote a falsehood is a contentious claim under WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 21:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
References
editors saying the website has a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating as a websiteis a non sequitur as no such language appears in the article, nor has any editor proposed to insert such language into the article. It is an accusation fabricated from whole cloth. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 21:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Collect, your over the top exaggerations really destroy your credibility. Here's the actual statement: "
PolitiFact rated the claim "Pants on Fire"". The "claim" was rated, not the "website". I agree with
NorthBySouthBaranof, who wrote: "Collect's statement that editors saying the website has a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating as a website
is a non sequitur as no such language appears in the article, nor has any editor proposed to insert such language into the article. It is an accusation fabricated from whole cloth."
Based on that, I suggest this dubious thread be closed and Collect be warned and possibly topic banned. -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:25, 28 December 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. |
Myself and McVeigh are in a revert struggle over the "Partner(s)" section of the article subject's infobox. I am trying to remove a reference in the "Partner(s)" slot to the article subject's recently-ended three-year dating relationship. I don't think Wikipedia should be deciding and declaring that such non-committed relationships rise to the level of "Partnership" because of mere duration. If they'd gotten married or had some other strong indicia of lasting commitment, I'd think differently, but I haven't seen evidence of that. McVeigh obviously disagrees with me. He can state his own case here if he so chooses. But at this point I don't want to violate WP:3RR, so I respectfully request advice from this noticeboard. Thank you. Townlake ( talk) 18:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I have removed this item from the "Partner" section of the article based on the feedback obtained from the discussion here. Townlake ( talk) 06:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Anyone familiar with fine art in Detroit might be helpful at Graham W. J. Beal (Director of the Detroit Institute of Arts), where the coverage of recent financial allegations has just been removed by an obvious COI IP, self-identifying as the subject. Incoming. Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Sayuki ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DAJF removes any positive content at all from this page and has been doing so for nearly eight years. This affects the lives of Sayuki and of her apprentices and other geisha who work with her. He only edits a few pages on Wikipedia and is clearly obsessed with damaging Sayuki's reputation. What he doesn't understand is that he damages the opportunities and income of all the people who get work through Sayuki. Please have him banned from editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.24.62.233 ( talk) 16:49, December 18, 2014
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.
Some of the GamerGate personalities are still being vandalized especially due to arbcom and what not. Protections tend to expire without notice. Can we get year long or so pending change protection to:
Brianna Wu (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Frank Wu (artist) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Anita Sarkeesian (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Zoe Quinn (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
and any other names that come up? Frank Wu must have recently expired and was vandalized requiring 10 oversights for IP BLP violation. Pending Changes lets IP editors add info but doesn't create massive oversight issue. It's semi-protected until tomorrow but no reason to let it troll back up. No reason we can't have a pending changes set for a really long time is there? Request duplicated at PP board. Whoever is first.
--
DHeyward (
talk)
00:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Over the past six weeks an individual has been adding a criticism section to the Federal Way Public Academy site. The content is based on a summary of student opinions from Rate My Teacher Website. The links clearly identify four individuals, and attribute inappropriate and possible illegal behavior. All the claims are based on unsubstantiated claims from an opinion website. Three different editors have removed material and shared reasons for removal. We have also used the talk page. The person posting has already been warned by Wikipedia about posting comments that do not take a Neutral Point of View. Since individual names are clearly mentioned in the links - it is a serious violation of the BLP policy. Even without the links, the posting are in appropriate.
Hallway monitor ( talk) 06:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Hallway Monitor
An anonymous user (or users) has repeatedly inserted unsourced and defamatory material in this article about a living person. I have reverted appropriately and with explanatory comment each time but it's leading to an edit war. Can administrators help, please?
Perhaps edits can be restricted to registered users only so that the culprit(s) can be deterred or identified. Or perhaps there are better ways of dealing with the problem.
Thanks! JoeMCMXLVII ( talk) 04:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It appears a great many persons are categorized as Mormon (LDS) sans any actual reference for self-identification. Spot check shows this is true of about 50% of those in Category:American Latter Day Saints. I am not about to try removing the possibly as many as 1000 entries - but is this covered by WP:BLP? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPF : Should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 ( talk • contribs)
Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: " Orson Scott Card#Politics"?
(Also see a 2013 blogpost by M Aspan citing this from Card in 2000 rgding allegedly non-racist use of nigga'.)
See discussion here: Talk:Orson Scott Card#RfC: Subject of blp racist?
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 21:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Katerina Ksenyeva ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1. self published page
2. no credible sources
3. verifiably false information. for example "became a Grammy Pre Nominee"
Looking at the contentious WP:BLP material at A Rape on Campus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and the WP:Edit warring going on there, I think that more eyes are needed on that article. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Kelli Finglass ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, this is Kelli Finglass
My biography was apparently changed on Nov 30, 2014 to include an arrest and assault charges in Atlanta. This is absolutely not true and harmful to my professional career.
Can you help me remove it? Can you help me with IP address of contributor. I will press legal charges
Thank you
In response to this newspaper article wider input at Talk:Angelina Jolie#Changing "Shiloh Jolie-Pitt" name would be welcome. Giant Snowman 09:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a question of general principle rather than in reference to a particular article or source. It has become a point of contention at Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Preliminary_collation_of_balancing_sources as to what sources could in principle be cited. For a general feel of the types of sources under discussion, see [ [1]] and [ [2]]
Are there existing guidelines with regard to citing a source for claims not about a living person, when the source also contains contentious claims about a living person? Assume the two claims appear within the distance of a physical paper page or computer screen from one another, such that someone verifying one would be likely to see the other.
I know this is rather broad, so if it helps it may be assumed that the source would be considered reliable for the non-BLP claims and questionable for BLP claims. The BLP content may be assumed to be contentious but not appearing prima facie as defamation, with applicable Defamation#Other_defenses such as as being opinion, vituperative, or made in good faith using supporting evidence.
Rhoark ( talk) 21:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that where the source proffered has substantial material which would run counter to WP:BLP and where a reliable secondary source which does not have that problem is available, that we deprecate the source which may cause BLP issues in favour of the more neutrally worded source. Where multiple sources are available, editors may reasonably choose that which is least problematic. Collect ( talk) 22:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Collect and I seldom see eye to eye, but I'd agree with his assessment. If a source contains libelous or contentious information about a LP, it should be avoided in favor of other sources that may have similar content sans the negative material. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Is
"contentious claims about third parties from a questionable source which is against WP:QS, WP:Aboutself, and WP:BLP" or is it a proper use of a source using opinion properly cited as opinion about a large group not aimed at a small group of identifiable individuals? Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#RFC_-_Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_film_review? is an RfC on the same source which has the closing statement Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. Samsara 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC). Collect ( talk) 12:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
A BLP violation is not dependent upon the topic being discussed.What does this even mean in this context? The article we're citing singles out Rafter Guzman, Martin Tsai, Peter Sobcynski and others. I think movie critics that write for RS are considered quotable in articles for the contents of their movie reviews. If they're not published by RS, then the same standard should apply to them as Breitbart. I just don't think Breitbart has a reputation for accurately reviewing the people who happen to be movie reviewers, or other people for that matter. If this was a source with a better reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, there would be no issue about using its published opinion about third parties. But everything I see in the archives makes me think this is widely considered a challenged source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Some more watchers would be useful at this article, where for years at least five SPA accounts plus IPs have been trying to introduce material about two step-brothers. The first was blocked for legal threats, the most recent one has a short block for edit-warring, but they or another will probably be back. The information about the step-brothers is (a) unsourced, (b) apparently being added for promotional purposes (e.g. here) and (c) in my opinion irrelevant to an article about Ms De Mornay and her career.
The persistence of the attempts may be explained by this book extract. JohnCD ( talk) 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There's currently a dispute about the references used at Jeff Smisek. In particular:
Personally I think the HuffPo piece is a blog post by a musician with no apparent qualifications in either economics or journalism. Lauraface32 claimed that "many, many, MANY" reliable sources cited that HuffPo article, but upon request could not provide any such citations. It should be de-emphasized, possibly removed entirely. The claim Lauraface32 cites it for is not in fact supported by the source anyway, as has been pointed out before by MusikAnimal. The Crain's piece, on the other hand, is not just a personal commentary but a news report on the prevailing sentiment of analysts, written by an experienced journalist; by an equivalent of WP:RS/AC we can use it to make the regaining of trust a statement of fact, not just of the author's opinion. Huon ( talk) 00:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I should say that I used to work as a corporate officer of a US airline. But I am retired now, and have never met Mr. Smisek. I don't think that should matter, but I thought I would disclose it anyway just to be safe. I have been following this debate for a while now from a distance.
Here are my two cents: I like how the page currently covers both the criticism and the rebuttal. I think it is probably best to keep these things in separate paragraphs.
I think the Huffington Post piece is well done. As a former corporate officer in the airline industry, I can tell you that just because someone knows a lot about music does not not mean that she can't hit a home run when it comes to criticizing a CEO. I do find it a little strange that we of all people would question his qualifications. Are any of us professionally trained to be encyclopedia authors and editors?
Huon is attacking Fagin's personal narrative rather than his published analysis. I do not think this is appropriate. This is a published article. As a former executive, I can say that I found it an interesting and persuasive read. It is not up to us to judge whether Fagin is smart or experienced enough to be allowed to write an article. It really just comes down to whether the article is well-reasoned. It seems to me that the best thing to do in this situation is keep things as they are. The Wikipedia entry simply says that this is a published claim. Which it is. What is wrong with that?
That being said, it is certainly an opinion piece. It is merely one person's well-reasoned analysis. But all financial reporting of corporate performance essentially boils down to mere opinion. For whatever it is worth, I like the way the current author represents it as coming from "one commentator." From my perspective, that is the best way to go.
It doesn't matter if other outlet's treated Fagin's piece as legit. Did any other outlets mention Crains' piece. The rules should be applied equally and fairly. If the standard is whether or not other outlet's cited the article, then we must delete BOTH Fagin AND Crains.
Topdog76 ( talk) 01:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Topdog76 ( talk) 01:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
After a quick read, I don't think the Huffington Post article is problematic. It seems find to me. The Wiki editor does not overemphasize it. It is fine. Adamduker ( talk) 15:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The HuffPo piece is fully unusable - it is an opinion piece entirely, written by a person not known as an expert on business, or on airlines in any way at all. Heck, it is based on a conversation with an anonymous person who works for United -- a really strong source - not. Joe Cahill's piece is also "opinion" and is not a "news article" as one normally uses the term. Cahill's opinion is usable as opinion cited to Cahill. Collect ( talk) 15:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article illridewithyou, created by User:The_Almightey_Drill, had an edit undone by an administrator, based on a claim it is a violation of BLP: [6].
I looked at it pretty thoroughly and it seems to flow on nicely with the paragraph before it, is well referenced, and there doesn't seem to be anything even remotely related to a BLP violation.
Given that the person who undid the revision, User:Nick-D, also blocked the creator almost immediately after creating the article: [7] and given that the article was then put up for deletion (albeit by a different editor): [8], I question the legitimacy of this apparent BLP violation.
I undid the edit: [9] and it was reverted by the same blocking editor: [10] with what appears to be a threat.
I'd like some other people to look at this to see if they really think that a BLP violation has taken place here, and also, related to this, if the block and related AFD nomination were made in good faith. I know that I am supposed to assume good faith, but it looks very much like some manipulation has taken place here. KrampusC ( talk) 02:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Additional: I also got threats for creating this: [11] [12]. I never got that kind of treatment from other articles I edited, just this one. Something funny is going on here. KrampusC ( talk) 02:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
“Confession time. In my Facebook status, I editorialised. She wasn’t sitting next to me. She was a bit away, towards the other end of the carriage,” she wrote.
Detailing her thought process, Ms Jacobs now says she wondered if she even needed to help.“She might not even be Muslim or she could have just been warm!,” she wrote."
That's admitting to fabricating the story. Or at least editorialising it.
Interestingly, the Brisbane Times ran a story relating to her being exposed for fabricating the story, saying that she shouldn't have been exposed as it was from her private Facebook page. That (and only that) could be used as the basis of a BLP violation: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/sydney-siege-illridewithyou-raises-questions-about-facebook-privacy-20141219-12agyg.html KrampusC ( talk) 02:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
References
A new user keeps adding a religion to the infobox without any support for it in the body of the article (at least none that I could see - it's a long article) in violation of WP:BLPCAT. I've reverted the editor and warned them. Another user has also reverted, although the user reverted again. I've now warned the user about edit warring. I would be within my rights to revert based on the BLP violation, but I'm not keen on claiming the exemption in an edit war and would prefer to have others look at it. Thus far, the user never talks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:43, 23 December 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.
Serious defamatory claims were added to Talk:Gamergate controversy, which I believe require a rev-del.
Unfortunately I cannot connect to the #wikipedia-en-revdel channel at the moment to request this. Many thanks. — Strongjam ( talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like to get the input of other BLP/N discussion participants regarding one element of the Lisa Raymond article. The last sentence of the lead is "Raymond is openly lesbian.[1]" There is no other mention of Raymond's sexuality anywhere within the article, and the article does not presently include a "personal life" section or something similar. It is fairly well documented in reliable media that Raymond is a lesbian, but she has not been particularly forward about it, she is not a LGBT activist, and has not sought to be publicly defined by her sexuality. Personally, I think it is not appropriate to include a single sentence in the lead defining her sexuality without sourced main body text, anymore than it would be to include "Clinton is openly heterosexual" in the lead of the Bill Clinton article. Reactions? Suggestions? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no strong reliable source to make categorization of her sexuality at all. See WP:BLPCAT. Thus we can not make reference to it. Collect ( talk) 17:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Disruptive edits, and BLP violation by User:Couldn't think of a decent username. Offensive language, which was removed by myself and another user, but is being repeatedly readded by the user with offensive edit summaries. -- Dmol ( talk) 12:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello all, I'm back once more with a final request for editors' thoughts on the article for author and television personality Touré.
For anyone who missed my prior requests, I'd previously asked here for input on some material at the start of the Writing career section, which focuses on criticisms regarding a student publication Touré founded at Emory University. At the time, I mentioned that the biggest issue was the main cited source from The Daily Caller, since its first bylined reporter is the now-notorious Charles C. Johnson (discussed by David Carr in the NYT and Dave Weigel at Slate). Initially, an editor reviewed my request and removed everything cited to The Caller, however a second editor then added in a compromise wording that I'd offered initially as an option if editors felt that the details absolutely had to stay. The first editor disagreed with this addition but although I've asked both for a further considerartion, neither returned to the discussion. It would be great if some other editors could take a look and see what they think about removing the information cited to The Caller altogether.
Secondly, I'm looking for input on the number of times that Touré's former surname appears in the article. Given that he has formally changed his name to drop his surname, does not use this name, has never used the name professionally, and it is mentioned in just a very very few sources, it seems perhaps a bit much to mention the name three times in a fairly short article. I'm curious if editors would feel comfortable with reducing the mentions of the name to the introduction and infobox only. I have started a discussion on the Talk page and welcome comments from editors here. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I was looking at Skye McCole Bartusiak's article and her death was partly caused by 1,1-Difluoroethane poisoning. However the 1,1-Difluoroethane article posits that she intentionally inhaled the substance which is not mentioned in Skye McCole Bartusiak article itself. I'm unable to access the source that might support this assertion in the 1,1-Difluoroethane - if someone could look into this I would appreciate it. This looks like a tragic case and we shouldn't be implying someone intentionally abused a substance without proof. Thank you. Quintessential British Gentleman ( talk) 14:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The section about Burton Albion is a scam. Someone replaced the section about his current club Fenerbahce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:500:A90:4CA2:874A:AC5D:7B37 ( talk) 15:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
At a number of supercentenarians articles ( List_of_living_supercentenarians#Unverified_living_supercentenarians, List of European supercentenarians, List of North American supercentenarians, List of supercentenarians from the United States, etc.) there are a number of people listed as "pending" or "unverified." WP:DOB would side against listing the birth dates of BLPs (or possible BLPs) so I'd supporting removing names with no reliable sources. The articles here all based whether or not the person is the oldest based solely on Gerontology Research Group which is called the main authority for the subject. Two concerns: it feels like we're throwing out our entire WP:RS policies in favor of citing a single sources. When looking at something more generic on world records, there are various sources ( RecordSetter versus Guinness World Records) so if WP:RS state that someone else is older, shouldn't that be included? Alternatively it could fall under WP:FRINGE and be removed. That leaves the "unverified" claimants: if the GRC has not verified it, then that as a reliable source has not verified it. However, whether we should continue to list names that are unverified by GRC by using other RS is based on whether we are solely using GRC as the basis for the claims or not. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 18:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with SiameseTurtle's opinion. I would like to add, that the Gerontology Research Group is an scientific organization, which is cited within many press and internet reports throughout the world as the leading authority in terms of extreme longevity, gerontology and supercentenarians' study. The determination of the authenticity of human's age requires much professionalism, sensitivity and patience. That is why the GRG was founded. The GRG is an organization very well organized with main body located in University of California, Los Angeles and over 50 international correspondents, who are respinsible for the extreme longevity tracking in their respective countries. The fact, that the Gerontology Research Group is an scientific organization is in my belief beyond doubt; the titles of publications published by the GRG members are available for insight from its official website. Yes, it is true, that the GRG is not the lone organization, which conducts research on supercentenarians. It is closely related with other scientific associations like Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research International Database on Longevity and also the Guiness World Records. All the organizations respect each other's reseach and this is true also for the GRG, which recognizes the research of Kestenbaum Study, GWR, Mr. Roger Thatcher and others. Each verification of supercentenarian claim is the result of months of hard work of international correspondents, who track documentation for every single case dating back 110 years and more and often also perform the research "in field" by visiting the supercentenarians themselves and interview the supercentenarians and their relatives. Then the gathered knowledge is being put under a detailed analysis by the GRG senior claims investigators before the final verification is done. The process involves many researchers affiliated with universities in many countries on different continents. The Wikipedia only reflects the final outcome of this research. It's the true tip of the iceberg. And that is exactly how this should function, because any encyclopedia is to provide the reader the discovered, checked and validated information. Wikipedia is here not an exception. The readers know about the phenomenon of evolution thanks to Darwin's discoveries and research and samely, the reader can learn about the phenomenon of longevity thanks to the GRG's discoveries and research. I would advise to respect the Wikipedia's significant role in helping of education of the society by not erasing and questioning when not necessary its content, which is developed by tireless efforts of many other Wikipedia contributors, who rightly trust in the GRG source and work for the sake of the greater knowledge of our international society. Waenceslaus ( talk) 20:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
White savior narrative in film ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article asserts as fact that many main-stream Hollywood movies are racist, based on the opinions of various commentators and scholars. Movies are made by people. To say that they are racist based on someone's opinion seems like a BLP concern to me. The article just went through AfD. I voted to keep because the point of view is notable and well-documented. The list of movies is what I have a problem with. I also suggested this on the article's talk page, but I'd like some other opinions on it. Borock ( talk) 06:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Done
There is a disagreement about whether Cairns child killings should be included in "murder" categories. A suspect in the case has been named and charged, but not convicted. Further opinions are requested in the discussion at Talk:Cairns child killings#Categories: murder. Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Input is sought at Talk:2014 Cairns child killings#Poll on disputed BLP items. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
there is an error in one of the names disclosed in this ariticle, see the copy/paste below
(1982-1986) Vilma Frias (1982-1989) instead of Vilma Frias is Irma Frias
Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:4E80:242:FD92:F344:20B0:5013 ( talk) 01:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I have recently received an editing warning from Wikipedia regarding a potential double standard in what is allowed in Wikipedia biographies. To excercise the greatest sensitivity, I will restate my concerns without identifying the party who may be receiving preferential treatment from Wikipedia.
Briefly, I note that the Bill Cosby biography contains a section on "Sexual assault allegations and fallout." To the best of my knowledge, these allegations are just that - allegations. However, there exists another Wikipedia biography where the subject has been convicted of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 years. There is no mention of this conviction in this person's biography except for a zero-context statement on the talk page concerning whether the LA Times (one source of published information about this conviction) is a reliable source. My added source of confirmatory information was from the California Sex Offenders database.
My question is quite simple. Why can as-yet unproven allegations of sexual misconduct about Bill Cosby be allowed on Wikipedia and information about confirmed sex crimes about another Wikipedia biographical subject be disallowed? I await a coherent answer from a responsible party to explain this apparent double standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2462:BB60:18A8:49FD:D5AF:24E ( talk) 20:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply. This person's crimes were reported in the Los Angeles Times in at least two separate articles that can be located via Google. (I do not include the URLs here lest I be banned for defaming the subject since both articles give the subject's name.) As to the notability of the subject, he was a featured performer on network and syndicated television over approximately 20 years, and has released numerous recordings under his own name on major national recording labels.
I find it troubling that unproven allegations receive such prominent placement in Wikipedia while criminal convictions published in major national newspapers are ignored. Cosby is undoubtedly more famous than the subject at hand, but both are legitimate public figures.
More worrisome, however, is the similiarity between this case and Wikipedia's treatment of another celebrity, James Stacy. Mr. Stacy Wikipedia biography states that, "In November 1995, Stacy pleaded no contest to a charge of molesting an 11-year-old girl.[8]" The single reference in this case is the Star-News, arguably an inferior source to the Los Angeles Times.
Again, why does Wikipedia treat these two public figures differently? Both involved underage sexual activity and both individuals pleaded no contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2462:BB60:18A8:49FD:D5AF:24E ( talk) 22:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
After doing a Google search for sources, I believe the same standard for James Stacy would apply to this individual if he were notable. Afronig ( talk) 23:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The issue for me is far more about the consistent application of Wikipedia's policies than about about whether the subject is notable. Deleting the subject's biography on the grounds of lack of notability would avoid rather than resolve the issue of Wikipedia's consistency. Two points should be made here (1) former drag racer Gene Snow is perhaps a better example of someone of comparable-to-lesser notability who receives very different treatment from Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no problems noting Mr. Snow's similar legal issues in his biography using references that appear to be blog entries and (2) concerning the subject's notability, I note that individuals such as Johnny Zell, Mary Lou Metzger, Jack Imel, and Bob Havens (similar performers of less prominence than the subject) have their own Wikipedia biographies.
This will conclude my comments on this subject. Wikipedia remains a remarkable institution, and I wish you well in you efforts to maintain and improve this amazing resource. This exchange has given me greater appreciation of the work involved in this endeavor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2462:BB60:18A8:49FD:D5AF:24E ( talk) 02:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Reported death in 2003 is an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.142.3 ( talk) 00:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like to get some eyes on Microsoft licensing corruption scandal which is thinly-sourced to some non-English sources. Several names of living persons are listed as being involved in the corruption scandal.- Mr X 15:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
At Natalia Poklonskaya ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have reverted for the second time the addition that Poklonskaya was rated by the sexist Maxim magazine as one of the 100 sexiest Russian women. I think that the opinion of a sexist publication which bases its success on presenting women as sex objects is not relevant to the article of this professional woman. The reverting editor went in with all guns blazing, mentioning the cliché of censorship in the edit summary. Not wanting to escalate matters further I bring this matter to the board and I would appreciate some advice from the editors here. Thank you in advance. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 18:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
old gripes, old grudgesand
character assassinationin the post above? Please explain otherwise retract your absurd hyperbole. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 18:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
character asassinationis both unjustified and a nasty personal attack. I think you should retract it. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 18:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
you're intentionally baiting an emotional response out of meis AGF-shredding. You should retract that too. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 18:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
based on our personal opinions of the magazine.I disagree. The magazine makes its money by sexually objectifying women and the quality of its journalism may well be even lower than that of a tabloid, and we know that generally tabloids are not acceptable sources for BLPs. This is something that should be taken into consideration when reporting that Poklonskaya has also been objectified and ranked according to her sex-appeal and in a stereotypical fashion. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 18:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
personal preferenceas I explained just above. It was based on the GIGO principle. That is, if Maxim produces sexist garbage and that garbage is reproduced by others, it is still garbage. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 19:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
you probably have a gripe with the entirety of Wikipedia's handling of these topics as welldiff. Again, please do not be heavy-handed putting words in my mouth. This is a subtle form of a personal attack. Unlike the other examples you put forward, Poklonskaya is not a glamour model or a woman known to promote that part of herself. She is primarily a legal professional. Sexist classifications of that type don't belong in her biography. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 20:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a noticeboard, any disucssion as to the validity of Maxim as a source for Natalia Poklonskaya should occur on Talk:Natalia_Poklonskaya any discusion of Maxims reliability in general should occur at WT:Identifying_reliable_sources or some other such location. CombatWombat42 ( talk)
That being said, though, "krymedia" seems to be the only source reporting on this, and it's a poor source. It would be better to cite Maxim itself, or more preferably, a third-party source (English-language if possible). And as that won't happen, it should be removed until a better article becomes available. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 22:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
...entire argument is based in its entirety upon personal opinion, and discounting a particular viewpoint/magazine simply due to its focus area/target...I disagree. Tabloids like the Daily Mail are not RS for BLPs. Maxim is on the same level as a tabloid or perhaps even lower. In addition a video game or a car magazine are respectable because they delve in subjects that need some knowledge to examine. There is no knowledge required to appraise the sexiness factor of a woman, other than the stereotypical view of her as a sex object. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 04:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it a NPOV violation? Nope, it's stating a fact without giving an opinion.Not true. It is an arbitrary and sexist classification solely based on her gender and only reflecting the opinion of a subset of the male readers of a sexist magazine who chose to participate in an unrepresentative, unscientific poll about a meaningless metric which has nothing to do with her career as a professional lawyer and is specifically designed to ignore any meaningful contributions she has made as a legal professional, but instead focuses on sex, treating her as an object. It is a serious WP:WEIGHT violation. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 08:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
What part of the BLP is being violated here? Only in death does duty end ( talk) 18:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Nate Moore (actor) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There are two editors, Shark310 and Hemi.pwr, who have a history of removing the information about the subject's involvement in a case. If I am not mistaken, the fact that the case has been dispensed of with a no contest plea allows the information to be included under the WP:BLPCRIME policy. I have started a discussion on the article's talk page, and invited these users to the discussion. I don't want to get caught in a 2-on-1 edit war here, however, and would appreciate any input or assistance as to how this should be handled. Thank you for your time. — Josh3580 talk/ hist 01:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nate_Moore_%28actor%29 - Govindaharihari ( talk) 12:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
To update - the creator of the two biographies that are now at deletion discussion Nate Moore (actor) and Dave Oren Ward is now creating an article about the death, what do editors think about the notability of this death? Killing of Dave Owen Ward and its existence and creation in regards to WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME Govindaharihari ( talk) 19:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Brandi Glanville ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I just added considerable factual content to a Living Bio page and it was deleted, while defamatory gossip and private family info was restored. I require assistance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyPants ( talk • contribs) 06:15, 27 December 2014
I just made some significant edits to the Real Housewives section of that article, as explained in my edit summary there. Please have a look, all. Townlake ( talk) 07:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
NaturalNews ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article wholly appears to have become an attack page on the website owner. A lot of the sourcing is to blogs etc. Please review and take action as appropriate. Thanks. OrangesRyellow ( talk) 10:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction has much the same issues as the other article on "White saviors" in movies. It presents opinion as fact and includes a long list of living people (in this case African American actors) in a negative way. Borock ( talk) 14:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Dorothy King ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I know she has asked in the past for her page to be deleted as she does not think she is notable enough.
Having seen the things people have written, and the really unpleasant edits constantly made mostly recently by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/91.180.48.239 I can understand why.
Who cares that she was not in Playboy? Neither were 99.99999999% of women, and including this suggests female academics should not have any value other than her breasts.
Also since she wrote recently she was 41, she clearly was not born in 1975.
Who cares re "being too old to expose her wrinkled curves."? Why write that? Are women of no value over a certain age? And who says she does expose herself or wants to? Every photograph in the press I have seen, she is perfectly modestly dressed?
The editor thinks her book is "controversial"? And his source is an obscure blog with a very one track opinion on the issue. For god's sake even Mother Teresa had critics, everyone does, but is Wikipedia the place for them?
I do not even know what to make of the claim she "is a self-proclaimed" archaeologist. I've seen her at conferences at Oxford and Athens and all over, and she seems to be accepted as one by her peers, and to have given lectures at the Courtauld, several museums, colleges, etc. That and several heavy historians thanking her for help with their books surely is a better source than one angry person in Belgium?
The talk section baffled me with the claim she sued people; actually it was Gillian McKeith who treatened to sue her over libel, and was quite a large cause celebre in the UK, if anyone Googles it, Ben Goldacre covered it in the Guardian and in his book Bad Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.185.140 ( talk) 19:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The last paragraph about Laudner's playing career is filled with too many "woulds", such as "Laudner would be/have/return" instead of just saying "Laudner was/Laudner returned". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.2.72.168 ( talk) 00:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I have been trying to improve this Joshua Clover entry, which had a lot of problems and was spottily or incorrectly sourced. It seems, however, that the subject of the entry--Joshua Clover--is editing the entry. He uses a variety of pseudonyms, including Janedark and, most recently, Janeplain.
In a 2007 exchange with another editor, recorded in the "talk" section of his entry, Janedark says, "I won't edit this page, as it has been explained to me that this would be poor form." But Janeplain is now doing just that. As you can see from one of the most recent edits by Janeplain, Joshua Clover sometimes writes under the pseudonym Jane Dark. Here is what Janeplain added to the Joshua Clover entry:
"Under the pseudonym "Jane Dark," Clover has written a number of film and music reviews for various outlets."
The main issue right now is that Jane/Clover keeps taking out reference to the fact that he studied with Jorie Graham while at the Iowa Writers' Workshop. I don't know why this is being taken out, since Jorie Graham is a notable American poet and Jorie Graham is also quoted earlier in the entry saying very positive things about Clover's poetry.
Thank you for looking into this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCBerkeley ( talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't know what that means. That I should make a report? I don't know where to do that. I'm just trying to get some help. Is it acceptable for subjects to edit their own entries? My additions to the Joshua Clover entry are factual and plainly stated with ample citations and yet the subject keeps taking them out and saying they're irrelevant. Thank you for your help. JCBerkeley ( talk) 18:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Saudade7: Thank you for your note. I am not Joshua Clover's father. I do not know him. Nor have I edited the entry before, using other usernames. As a Wikipedia Ambassador, do you have thoughts about whether subjects should edit their own entries, as Clover is here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCBerkeley ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
If anyone has some time, going through to de-gossip page Katrina Kaif would be appreciated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
page is totally inaccurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.136.26.41 ( talk) 20:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
[20] with the edit summary scandal implies immorality and/or impropriety, illegality is not required. There is certainly enough notability re-adding people who were mentioned but not implicated in any illegal activity.
The lead of that list states: A good guideline is whether or not an action is, or appears to be, illegal. Since everyone, particularly a politician, is expected to be law abiding, breaking the law is, by definition, a scandal. The finding of a court with jurisdiction is the sole method used to determine a violation of law—though not all scandals reach a court.
I rather think that implying anything remotely illegal or improper requires stronger sourcing than "someone mentioned them." [21] is an insufficient source for saying " Christie's Deputy Chief of Staff was fired" in a list of people involved in scandals - noting that the NYT piece stops well short of that claim.
Nor does [22] make claims sufficient to say "Christie's No. 2 appointee at the Port Authority — who attended high school with Christie — also resigned" as a link to a "scandal". And so on.
Lists of "people in scandals" is not a carte blanche of being able to shame people who have not been implicated in anything illegal as far as any legal claims are concerned, in my opinion. I invite others to determine whether that list should be restricted to those who have been actually implicated in any illegal acts, not just any vague "scandal" where the investigations so far do not make implications that these people violated laws. Other opinions? Collect ( talk) 22:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Currently has a section on an article from that site which mistakenly conflated two Loretta Lynches.
The writer of the article is identified by name, which I rather think means claims about his writing fall under WP:BLP
Two editors are changing:
To:
The section already states that there are two Loretta Lynches, but the addition of "The article was untrue" is SYNTH as placed in the revision, implying a deliberate untruth from a living person. The Politifact article is specifically about the spreading of the story, and has nothing to do with the original error by a living person, other than to be used to imply that no article ever written for Breitbart is true at all (editors saying the website has a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating as a website) [23] Media Matters has a 100% "True" rating while Breitbart.com has a 100% "Pants of Fire" rating , The RS standard isn't "just as bad as this arbitrary set of examples", the standard is a reputation for factchecking and accuracy. It's clear from the evidence linked above and the 100% Pants on Fire rating from Politifact that it has the opposite reputation. Gamaliel (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC) , scroll above to see the links offered by TRDOD and the discussion of the 100% Pants on Fire rating from Politifact. Gamaliel (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC), etc. The NYT cite is now used twice for a single paragraph, seemingly only to criticize the original correction, but which has little to do with the actual article. The main point is that since we mention a specific living person, the entire section must conform to WP:BLP and the use of SYNTH to make an implicit statement that the author deliberately wrote a falsehood is a contentious claim under WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 21:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
References
editors saying the website has a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating as a websiteis a non sequitur as no such language appears in the article, nor has any editor proposed to insert such language into the article. It is an accusation fabricated from whole cloth. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 21:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Collect, your over the top exaggerations really destroy your credibility. Here's the actual statement: "
PolitiFact rated the claim "Pants on Fire"". The "claim" was rated, not the "website". I agree with
NorthBySouthBaranof, who wrote: "Collect's statement that editors saying the website has a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating as a website
is a non sequitur as no such language appears in the article, nor has any editor proposed to insert such language into the article. It is an accusation fabricated from whole cloth."
Based on that, I suggest this dubious thread be closed and Collect be warned and possibly topic banned. -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)