![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Lydia Cornell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We could use some eyes on this article. 108.252.17.151, states "YOU HAVE VIOLATED MY PRIVACY RIGHTS: I HAVE A STALKER THAT THREATENED MY LIFE AND FOUND MY HOME BASED ON BIRTHDATE. YOU HAVE DESTROYED MY PRIVACY AND RIGHT TO WORK. REMOVE BIRTHDATES OFF IMDB AND WIKIPEDIA" [1] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 11:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've once again tried to properly source her birth date. The primary source of the birth record ties together the undisputed day of birth and birth name with the disputed year of birth. I've added one of the secondary sources that verify she was 9 prior to her birthday in 1963. We've multiple secondary sources verifying the name change. We've multiple secondary sources verifying the day of birth. We have more sources verifying she was 9 prior to her birthday in 1963, but one should suffice. I hope editors agree that this is proper use of a primary source that verifies information already available in secondary sources per BLPPRIMARY. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
subject to the restrictions of... no original researchQuite. The primary-source material hasn't been discussed by any reliable secondary sources — or we wouldn't be having this discussion. WP:CALC is irrelevant because the primary source is not usable, as there is no secondary source for it to augment. I have to ask why you are so bound and determined to include a trivial piece of information that you can't reliably source against the apparent expressed wishes of the article subject. In matters relating to living people, intent absolutely matters, we err on the side of excluding disputed and poorly-sourced information, we edit with sensitivity toward article subjects and this incredibly minor bit of data about a relatively obscure actress seems like not at all the hill you should be choosing to die on. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 23:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I already answered that question, "You are correct that we do not have a reliable, secondary source giving the name "Lydia Cornell" and the birth date of 23 July 1953." But I think this new ref will resolve this: http://www.delawareonline.com/story/entertainment/2014/07/22/celebrity-birthdays-july/13005405/ --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
More eyes are needed on the Autumn Jackson BLP. Jackson is the woman who claims to be Bill Cosby’s daughter and was convicted of extortion back in the 90’s regarding her threats to go to tabloids with this. The Autumn Jackson BLP is apparently new. It was created after the recent Bill Cosby scandal broke, and it seems to be missing a lot of relevant factual information. For example, the current version fails to mention that Autumn Jackson’s extortion conviction against Cosby was at one point overturned [8] .I think it may have been reinstated. Could someone more knowledgeable regarding all the facts of the case, or else someone with time and inclination to properly research the relevant facts of Autumn Jackson’s case, please take a look at this BLP. This BLP probably gets lots of hits right now because Autumn Jackson’s name keeps resurfacing in the news in light of all that is currently going on with Bill Cosby and it seems to need significant work.
Also of concern is it appears to have neutrality concerns. For example, it opens with a description of Jackson as an “American criminal” instead of more neutral "American woman convicted of extortion" Additionally, the current version is referenced by questionable sources such as website: “Rhymes with snitch, news from the bathroom wall” [9] which is being used to say Jackson was charged with welfare fraud in 2007, but the current article doesn’t tell readers if she was actually convicted of welfare fraud or not. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 23:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
See
[10] "In a highly unusual move, the Federal appeals panel that overturned the conviction of a woman accused of trying to extort $40 million from Bill Cosby reversed itself yesterday and reinstated the guilty verdict against her. The woman, Autumn ..." seems to indicate the conviction was, indeed, reinstated - and by the same court.
[11] AP: "Prosecutors said Monday they are seeking the extradition of two women, one of whom was convicted a decade ago of trying to extort Bill Cosby, on unrelated charges of grand theft and perjury in a welfare fraud case. " indicating an arrest for welfare fraud. No later AP story on that case it appears. Most likely plea bargained in some way, I suppose.
Collect (
talk)
00:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
AUTUMN JACKSON has two living, breathing, toddling reasons why she desperately does not want to return to prison. The woman who her entire life has believed that actor Bill Cosby is her natural father does not want her twin sons — born while Autumn was behind bars — to grow up without a parent, like she did. “It felt like a kick to the stomach,” Autumn told me yesterday about an appeals court’s ruling that she go back to jail....Now Autumn and her family are awaiting word on when she might have to finish the last seven months of her sentence....“This is devastating. My family has already gone through this, over and over and over. “If I go back in prison, my boys are not going to trust me going anywhere. Even now, when I go out of the room, they have fits....Autumn said of Cosby. “And my advice to anyone contemplating something like I did is: Stop and think what’s important in life before jeopardizing what you have.”[13]. This source from '99 ends with
"Hasn’t she been punished enough?". I did find this source regarding the blood test refusal saying the test was indeed refused by her and by her mother because at that point they deemed the results would not help her appeals in any way [14].Regarding the welfare fraud accusation with conviction status unknown, I don't see how Jackson being notable enough for a BLP makes her ineligible for the above mentioned clause from WP:BLPCRIME. Clearly that is a policy applied to people notable enough for a BLP. In my estimation, Jackson seems comparably less notable, as far as BLP subjects go, considering the things she is notable for happened back in the 90's, and she only got a BLP a few weeks ago because the extremely notable individual here, Bill Cosby, is back in the news regarding all this. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 15:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
"A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.". I do think Autumn Jackson qualifies as "relatively unknown". As far as BLP subjects go, she seems to be minimally known considering she is notable for something that happened approx. 20 years ago, but she only got a BLP a few weeks ago, likely due to increased attention on her old case as a result of Bill Cosby being back in the news regarding sexual abuse allegations. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 17:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The image of 'Randy Ayers' in 2008 is NOT a picture of Randy Ayers!
Incorrect Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Randy_Ayers_in_2008.jpg/220px-Randy_Ayers_in_2008.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.5.223 ( talk) 00:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I came across this Rolfe D. Mandel article in the new pages feed. A significant portion of the article is sourced from a reference described as: "Personal Contact"; as primary as a primary source can be. With one exception the citations using this reference appear to be for factual information and not analysis or contentious material. I am curious to know how such situations are handled. Vrac ( talk) 14:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Jenny Willott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An anonymous IP, User:86.3.108.93, is repeatedly adding BLP-violating material to the page of this British politician. See their most recent edit here: [16] (The first addition, regarding her school fees, is sourced, though of questionable relevance. The second and third additions are entirely unsourced criticism.) I've warned them a couple of times on their talk page for re-adding this material with no response. What's the best course of action here? Should I request the page to be semi-protected, or the IP to be blocked? Robofish ( talk) 22:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, We are experiencing repeated vandalism on our page for several days now. Our page is about a rock-band. Someone deletes the name of one of the band members and says he is not a part of the band which is wrong. Every time we edit the page, this person deletes what we have done, without checking our information. We do consider this as threat and it is very harmful for the band's reputation and for the band members. We would like to block this person and then prevent them to vandalize our page. Thanks for your help. ArtemisOfMars ( talk) 09:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I scoured the web for any reference to Steve Hewitt being a member of the band Polaroid Kiss. The only article is the one the OP referrs to written in 2010 where he says he is colaborating on a project by that name. The original insertion of Polaroid Kiss, as far as I can tell was in 2011 in his discography where he is credited as a Collaborator. I have been unable to find any credits for other alblums by this band. If it were a major part of his life I would expect to see something more than a comment in the middle of an interview from over four years ago.
I would hope that InstantSnapFeedback will come here to comment. I would also think that it would be a good idea to see what is going on at Steve Hewitt. If there is nothing here to show him as a member of the band then it is certainly UNDUE to mention it in the lead of his biography. (I tried to use Wikiblame to see who first put Polaroid Kiss in the lead but could not get anything usable). RSN might be a good place to get opinions on whether the cited source is good enough for the claim he is a member of the band. JBH ( talk) 00:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
References
However, to address denials of COI, and contrary to prior assertations related to this issue; I strongly believe that ArtemisofMars and Drameu are not only one and the same, but is also a member of Polaroid Kiss. AOM has also made a number of claims relating to this "battle" which they know to be untrue. InstantSnapFeedback ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
* : Further to my previous comment, regarding ArtemisofMars, and to quote The Bard:
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".
Regardless of whether ArtemisofMars is a member of Polaroid Kiss or not, they have peddled at least a couple of outright lies. Namely: Richard Brandon Reed, AKA 'Brandun Reed' is not Irish, but American. 'Brandun Reed' resides in Stockholm, Sweden.
Further to what has been claimed by ArtemisofMars; Hanin Elias, like Steve Hewitt, was briefly involved with Polaroid Kiss; however her experience was far from pleasant, a sentiment shared by former members of Polaroid Kiss who have been edited out of the picture and / or uncredited for their efforts, including, but not limited to, Earl Dixon III of Audesi, Ian Pickering of Sneaker Pimps and Tom Shear of Assemblage 23. InstantSnapFeedback ( talk)
As to including Steve Hewitt as a member of the band I do not think that High Rotation is sufficient for a contested claim, it is a blog. The other sources on the page are links to personal blogs/websites, a link to a Facebook page, a link to a record label that only supports the fact that the alblums were released and a link to Side-Line Music that does not seem to say anything at all about the band.
Right now I strongly suggest that you all work together, on the article talk page, to get some good sources and write the article on what those sources say and nothing else. The articles notability claim seems to be WP:BAND point 6, two or more independently notable members. However there are no reliable sources to back it up so I am inclined to send it to AfD as it stands.
Finally, please stop bickering between yourselves here, it does you no credit and puts off others who might otherwise be willing to help here. If you must argue feel free to do so with me over the points I have raised, preferably over at the article talk page.
JBH ( talk) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Quoting, for context, doesn't make you a lady anymore than a brief association makes you a member of a band. That is all. InstantSnapFeedback ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@ ArtemusOfMars My apologies for not answering your question earlier. If you want to show Steve Hewitt is a member of Polaroid Kiss take a look at Identifying Reliable Sources. The essence is that a source must be published by a reliable third party with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Press releases, self-published material (Facebook) and such are not acceptable. Sometimes blogs and such can be used for non-controversial statements a subject makes about themself. The reason I object to the blog interview is (1) it is a blog; (2) it is old and even if true at the time the claim may not be true now; (3) if Polaroid Kiss is a notable project in his life it would have been mentioned somewhere else in the last 4 years. The prime rule we have here for BLP's is:
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
There is a lot of single purpose, likely COI editing going on with Polaroid Kiss they have been added to a lot of articles by a single user, Drameu See these edits( Snake River Conspiracy Thirty Seconds to Mars, Tom Shear, Steve Hewitt, and Assemblage 23). This makes me suspicious that a PR campaign is going on to tie them to more well known acts. (It worked on me when I saw this thread, I like old goth so I listened to them and hope I hear them in a club sometime. But that is neither here not there.) I have Polaroid Kiss and Steve Hewitt and their talk pages on my watch list so if you have a new source please post it there. I am far from an expert but I try to be conscientious in applying the rules/guidelines as I understand them and to be corrected with a TROUT if wrong - that is how I learn. I also would like to direct you to Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you have questions if a source is reliable for a givin claim. JBH ( talk) 22:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
This is my point entirely - namely that a single article from an unverified source over four years old is being used as part of a PR campaign to associate Polaroid Kiss with more famous artists. I understand that the article has been locked now to prevent further edit-warring; however, I would have expected that until Steve Hewitt's membership, or otherwise, could be verified through a reliable source (or number of sources) that he would not be listed as a member of Polaroid Kiss in the article, as it is simply misleading.
A good thing is the article a few editors who are passionate about it and are better able than most to find any good sources that may exist. Right now Polaroid Kiss is in dire need of sources to demonstrate its WP:NOTABILITY.
Since it looks like the edit war has calmed down and we seem to be on the same page about sourcing I would like to propose a consensus and move further discussion to the article talk page.
The consensus here as I understand it is that references to
Steve Hewitt being a member of
Polaroid Kiss should not be included until such a time as a source meeting
WP:RS and
WP:BLP is provided that makes such a claim. The appropriateness of a given source should be discussed at the article's talk page and the
WP:RSN
If you and InstantSnapFeedback agree with this please say so and we can move to the talk pages. If not please feel free to make changes that you all can agree on. If anyone else has some input, feedback or whatever please chime in. JBH ( talk) 16:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@ JBH Thanks for your answer. I will send you all the links that I'll find for your approval before putting them on the band's article. About Steve Hewitt, the thing is that I don't want him to be hurt by this story. He contributed a lot to the new album, playing drums on almost every songs. He is an excellent musician and has a very good reputation. He may not liked that we cancel his name from Polaroid Kiss article. That's not polite and may been seen as disrespectful. May we just wait for a new interview to be put online? The first single of the new album is already in the German Charts ( Deutsche Alternative Charts), so a new interview will come soon. I agree to move this discussion on the band's talk page. Thanks for your understanding ArtemisOfMars ( talk) 12:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@ ArtemisOfMars, I really would like to get the issue you brought here settled here where there are more experienced eyes than I. We can and should discuss sources over on the talk page but your earlier post appears to me to be saying that you do not accept the proposed consensus statement and think there is still a potential BLP violation. Please state plainly if you agree or disagree with the proposed consensus so this does not start up again when page protection expires. OH, and while you may not agree, Wikipedia really does not care what Steve Hewitt may or may not like the only thing that matters is what can be shown in WP:RS in line with the strict rules of WP:BLP.
"We do consider this as threat and it is very harmful for the band's reputation and for the band members"and like statements when you opened this issue. Those "We's" do not seem to be
"all the contributors to this page, from the very beginning"except in relation to the technical information that makes me think the whole Polaroid Kiss thing is the work of one person or people working together.
Polaroid Kiss's biggest contributor was Christian Sands back in 2012. That account edited only on Polaroid Kiss, Steve Hewitt and Hanin Elias all related to the band. An idiosyncratic editing pattern of this account is that they marked all of their edits as minor. Just like Drameu tends to do (45/60 edits). Between those two we have another SPA Sosgeneral who also marks all edits as minor they are further linked to Drameu in that they stopped editing Polaroid Kiss on 2013-07-26T06:47:21 while Drameu's first edit is 2013-07-26T11:02:30 the very next edit to the page. This tells me that this is a very low traffic page managed by a single user.
Now we get to your account ArtemisOfMars. You show up after the conflict started between InstantSnapFeedback and Drameu. Drameu reverts [21] (not marked minor) then IsntantSnapFeedback [22] then you pick up the ball with your first edit [23] and soon take up the issue here and at AIV and protection not your common new user. You also support Drameu such as in this series of edits Drameu - InstantSnapFeedback - AtremisOfMars] over exactly the same text.
So in short your the behavioral evidence gives you at least an apparent COI while the technical evidence makes you seem to be a sock or meat puppet of Christian Sands- Sosgeneral- Drameu. On a higher traffic page I might think otherwise but Polaroid Kiss seems to attract only people who have a passion about the politics of the band. (InstantSnapFeedback seems to have edited under at least one other account Salivasnapshot unless two people edit from the same POV from mobile devices with similar usernames [24]) but the editing seems to be consecutive rather than concurrent so meh.)So you have a lot of weight overcoming WP:AGF JBH ( talk) 19:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion the sources do not support your desire to include Steve Hewitt. As well as it being likely that the article fails WP:BAND since there are no RS sources supporting their notability claim.
It is possible] I am completely wrong in my reading of policy so I have asked 220_of_Borg [25], NeilN [26], and Tokyo Girl [27] to weigh in. They are all neutral editors who have a lot of experience in BLP. JBH ( talk) 21:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If there is a dispute, then to settle this conclusively, we need an independent source (not the band, not the band members, not Hewitt) saying Hewitt is part of the band. Having an independent source helps in these cases:
Skimming through the above text, I don't see independent sources being listed. Do they exist? -- NeilN talk to me 21:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Can someone from Wikipedia's editing team remove references to Steve Hewitt until if and when independently verifiable sources are added to the Polaroid Kiss Wikipedia entry, please? InstantSnapFeedback ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@ NeilN My apologies for being hasty in my response. You strike me as a thoroughly reasonable individual. InstantSnapFeedback ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the Tony Sly Wikipedia entry ("It was later determined that a drug-related seizure was the cause of Sly's Death.") that is not cited. I cannot find any resources online that would corroborate this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.166.11 ( talk) 13:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
An SPA, first using an IP, then a user account PAgrad46 ( talk · contribs), keeps adding "John Steinmetz" to the list of notable graduates of the High School of Performing Arts. I kept reverting, and have asked for justification on his talk page. He has now given a longer edit summary, which at least identified him enough so I could identify him as this fellow, but he has not given any evidence of WP:N (Steinmetz is not on imdb even).
I'm not sure where to post this, actually. Choor monster ( talk) 16:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Steverci has created in his sandbox an article titled Crowe propaganda. It appears in a google search. [29] I'm thinking the title is a BLP violation. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone could please help me with the NLL table, I have tried over and over to edit it properly but I don't know what I'm doing incorrectly. Thank you! -- WestJet ( talk) 10:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that's fixed now. 14GTR ( talk) 12:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The photo linked to Robert Wiley (Robert John Wiley is a former Australian rules footballer...) has the wrong person's photo listed, being Robert Wiley - Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The first photo on the attached link is the correct photo. Can you please change it? I have confirmed this with Robert Wiley personally so he knows I'm requesting this on his behalf.
Dee Walsh
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=robert+wiley&safe=active&biw=1680&bih=869&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=WMO9VOnkNorn8AWXzILgDg&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=1#safe=active&tbm=isch&q=robert+wiley+carlton&imgdii=_&imgrc=zYXSiNGBsWN-7M%253A%3BJI3p7p4Hj6LdxM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww4.pictures.zimbio.com%252Fgi%252FRobert%252BWiley%252BFg33H-nffoem.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.zimbio.com%252FRobert%252BWiley%252Fpictures%252Fpro%3B360%3B240 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.186.250.9 ( talk) 05:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear friends, Recently I wrote in WP:BLP page, under the heading Beatrix Campbell, as follows: "I would like to learn in particular whether there is provision, if an erroneous paragraph is continually reinserted into an entry, of placing an immovable statement to the effect that the subject of the biography contests its truth. And secondly, is there provision, in cases where the subject of a biography finds it continually misrepresents her, to have the entry in her name removed from Wikipedia completely. Advice will be very welcome." You will see from the last entries to the Beatrix Campbell discussion on WP:BLP that her version is still being contested. I have not received any reply,giving the advice I request.Bold text Could somebody help please? Sturdytree ( talk) 11:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Fab Five: The Texas Cheerleader Scandal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article seems like a large
WP:COATRACK for
WP:BLP issues. I significantly trimmed the article to reduce the issues
[30] but am concerned that it still may be a BLP violation to use sources discussing a TV show as sources of fact for real people the show is based on. In some cases the sources used do discuss the real people, but the source doing so is the TV producer/director etc, which I feel may be unreliable for negative statements of fact about real people . ex
[31] The real-life story of these cheerleaders shocked many when the story broke, not only for their racy and inappropriate behavior but also for the inaction of the school's administrators and parents," Lifetime senior vp original movies Tanya Lopez said. "We hope this movie reminds parents how important it is to set limits on their children.
Obviously the plot of the show itself can be discussed in the article, even where that may imply something about the real people, but I don't think the article should have much about the real people in it at all, especially when newsweek writes
[32] By all accounts the girls' behavior is wildly exaggerated on screen, but it makes for good TV
There is another newsweek story, directly about the real people from the time the real story broke. Ironically, it is not used in the article at all. [33]
Additional input would be appreciated. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Pat Ahumada ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A somewhat controversial former mayor who is, apparently, running again. The article is poor and has mostly negative (though sourced) information. There is more out on the internetz ( here, for instance) but I haven't found anything positive. Whether the guy is notable in the first place is an interesting matter. In the second place, I wonder if recent edits have anything to do with his campaign. Your eyes are appreciated. Drmies ( talk) 16:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This article's title is inaccurate. Gannon's name is "Kathy" not "Cathy": http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kathy-gannon-canadian-reporter-wounded-and-photographer-killed-in-afghanistan-1.2597928 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.249.131 ( talk) 18:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
More eyes are needed, there is one camp turning the article into a hagiographic (and extremely extended) speakers promotional blurb and another camp attempting to insinuate that she has lied about everything she ever stated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Profile pic is of the wrong person - definitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.37.103.10 ( talk) 04:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Carol W. Greider, a 2009 Nobel Prize winner, has recently been editing her page (along with her assistant) to remove mentions of her husband, Nathaniel C. Comfort. Both User:Carol.w.greider and User:Scrow1 (her assistant) have deleted the references multiple times without adding any additional sourcing. It's evident based on a number of different sources that they were married in 1993, but I've yet to come across any sourcing to indicate otherwise. Per a note left by User:Scrow1 on my talk page, she's attempting to remove mention of her (apparently now ex-)husband.
My question is since Greider is clearly a public figure, 1. is she (or assistant) allowed to edit her page without it being a conflict of interest, 2. is she allowed to remove current, sourced information, and 3. to what extent, if any, is she allowed to dictate what appears on her page?
Thanks.
— GauchoDude ( talk) 17:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
kajol is born in 1975 as i heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reloade ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Harry the Dirty Dog has insisted on including this external link in the subject's biography, which apparently he decided is actually the subject based on original research rather than relying on a secondary source. The image was previously being used (in conjunction with IMDb) to support the subject's date of birth, with this hidden note:
DO NOT change the year of birth to 1970. Jayne was born in 1960. The date on the photos linked below (1979 in both cases) is the year these people would have graduated high school, not the year the photo was taken. Jayne could not have been in both grade 4 and grade 6 in the same year. To graduate from high school in 1979, she would have to be born in 1960
This kind of OR is unacceptable in biographies, and while my removal of the DOB was not challenged, they insist on keeping the external link, which makes no sense since there no biographical information regarding the subject's early life, and in any case it is an unacceptable source to begin with. Further, Harry the Dirty Dog has apparently managed to elucidate which of those children is actually the subject, based on some unknown criteria (age regression?) and a faded 36-year old signature. Is there consensus that this is acceptable as a standalone external link? § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Is
Directly relevant to a BLP about Bobby Jindal? Collect ( talk) 20:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This issue could also belong at WP:RSN or WP:COIN - bringing it here as this seems to have the most eyes. Over the past year, a COI editor has been adding puffery to this article. [42] Today, she added this. I reverted because I'd seen those claims before, using a "garbage" source (excuse my term, it's difficult when an editor is only here to promote something). [43] This time, I took another look and she's using another source, one that has a Wikipedia article: Limca Book of Records. Is this a reliable source for the claims she's making? If not, should the claims still appear if attributed to that source? -- NeilN talk to me 16:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
There's some editing that needs further attention -- see this section of the COIN. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject field to look at it with the necessary care DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sajin_Vass_Gunawardena&curid=27170258&diff=643823440&oldid=643808700 is a large edit which looks to me to be laden with potential BLP issues. I reverted it once (no time to pick through the whole thing and it looked like it would clearly violate BLP policy if left alone) but it's back. Some of this material has been in before, and the page was semi-protected in December 2013.
I'm calling for help; it seems clear there are BLP issues, but equally some of the material may be good. I have no time to pick through it, and know nothing about Sri Lankan politics. Pinkbeast ( talk) 14:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIMARY says not to use public records etc. for living people - just to confirm, this does not apply as soon as someone dies, such as using a public record to confirm death details? Giant Snowman 19:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's presumptively fine. To quote policy: Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers..." If only people would spend half the time reining in bad editors that they spend confronting good editors who, by virtue of exercising their editorial judgment broadly and research skills extensively, are adding value. Yes, there is a such a thing as unacceptable original research, but every time we exercise our editorial judgment we are doing something "original" if we are not engaging in serial copyright violations.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 06:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
James R. Clapper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article states: He responded - committing the felony of lying to congress under oath - "No, sir."
This is a legal opinion. Unless the writer can cite a felony conviction, it has no place in the article.
Nor does the section heading. The administration expressed confidence that the Director answered in the least misleading way possible, given the wording of the questions. To use the phrase "False testimony" is an opinion and is not supported by any citations to legal findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.221.224.205 ( talk) 22:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Donald Keene ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As the template for BLPs says "If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns", material has been repeatedly inserted and undone, and there are concerns outlined in the Talk page for the subject in question. In particular, COI via self-promotion self-referencing, (indirect) libel, and relevence of putting outlier information not shared by mainstream sources.
Not sure how much detail I should add here, but the gist of the concern is in the Talk Page for the Wikipedia BLP mentioned above. Eido INOUE 02:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Subject of BLP continues to make edits to the bio, removing all content that is negative towards him or shows verifiable proof of his past work actions, in violation of BLP guidelines and standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.17.230 ( talk) 05:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. User Brian Dell seeks to demonstrate or imply that David O. Carpenter is a biased editor-in-chief of this journal. For an editor of a peer reviewed journal, this is a serious allegation. Brian Dell has advocated persistently on the Talk page [44] since his Dec 7th edit [45] and subsequent attempts have been rebuffed by 2 other editors and myself, who joined the conversation with a 3PO. Dell and User:Randykitty have been edit warring IMO, though they do discuss in Talk and both avoid a formal 3RR violation.
The most recent Dell edit [46] does finally provide a source for the allegation against Carpenter. However, it's from an admittedly biased source -- and so the controversial allegation is very poorly sourced. Maybe reliable sources will come to light? Meanwhile, I am concerned that Dell's edits violate our BLP policy and should be removed. Is it appropriate for me to report this and then remove the problematic edit myself? Thanks! HG | Talk 06:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI, Guy et al. Mr. Dell has reinserted the allegations from the (biased) industry publication. Now the allegations do not contain the BLP name, but the source is unreliable and the implication against the individual is clear (and in the industry allegation). Thanks. HG | Talk 04:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Some clarification would be helpful here, because I think it's best to remove completely unsourced info related to WP:BLPs from articles.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
More time was spent arguing over this than it took me to find the sources. It might actually take me more time to write this comment than it took me to find the sources. It DEFINITELY took both Cirt and Murry1975 more time to revert and argue over this than it would have taken either of them to find the sources. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Please note that there is now a WP:AE request about this issue. Feedback is welcome here. [47] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 05:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Joni Ernst ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joni Ernst's Wikipedia page states " ..the first woman ever elected on a statewide level in Iowa...." this is incorrect. Patty Judge was elected Iowa's Iowa Secretaries of Agriculture in 1998 and served until 2007 Iowa Auditor of State Mary Mosiman was elected in 2013 and is the current Auditor. Secretary of State office has been Held by Mary Jane Odell elected in 1980 and served until 1987 and Elaine Baxter elected in 1987 and served until 1994 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.107.1 ( talk) 19:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Tulipmaster ( talk · contribs), formerly Islandsound ( talk · contribs) has added some controversial info to J.C. Jones about the person being charged for fraud under the name Charles Jones. While one of the added ( Lebanon Democrat) does verify that a Charles Jones was charged with fraud, it does not give any indication that this is the same person. The other two sources added give 404s.
I asked the user about this, and they responded by saying, "I have had personal dealings with this guy. I can send court documents on the matter if need be. Image can be verified via youtube search via his music. People who steal like alias names." and providing a link to YouTube which proves nothing. I then explained that Tulipmaster seems to have a WP:COI
Is there any chance that this user can be blocked for harmful COI edits? Also, should their edits be redacted from the history due to lack of valid sourcing identifying this as the same person? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
This article conflates David Eisenhower with David Eisenhower II. The first is the son of a President, the second is the grandson. See the article to view the errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4380:5AB2:C11B:7277:185C:3A84 ( talk) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
absolutely none of this page is sourced, and it reads like promotional material. This man is not a person of note, the page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.244.102.210 ( talk) 18:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I have proposed moving the above article at Talk:Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy#Requested move 24 January 2015 because I see at least potential BLP issues in the existing name, which I more or less itemize in the comments there. I think that this might not be the only instance of common names which might be unfortunate for BLP's, and I would welcome any input on the specific move and any possible, similar, title questions elsewhere in the future. John Carter ( talk) 20:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The section titled "Controversies" does not have a valid reference or base. It is added by people who did not like his principles and they wanted to bring bad name to him. There is no evidence to prove that he acted as mentioned in this section. So, please remove this section from this wiki page. This hurts millions of people who consider him as grate hero and who fought for a cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.102.43 ( talk) 21:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
This individual's wiki article appears to be largely promotional and self-serving. The external links he provides are known in the legal profession to be websites that help lawyers promote themselves, often in exchange for a fee. The cases in which his name appears as counsel, which are not themselves legally prominent, are no different than the thousands of searchable cases in which various names of other attorneys are also listed. Cbreitel ( talk) 05:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Charles Gordon-Lennox, Earl of March and Kinrara ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Charles Gordon-Lennox, Earl of March and Kinrara, an entirely unfamiliar name to me, popped up in my watchlist. Even by WP standards, the article was dreadful. I rather lazily sprayed it with warning flags and added a few internal links. Later, I noticed that it had been edited again, with no edit summary, and took a quick look (mostly to see whether hagiographic elements had been reinserted). It was then that I noticed that there'd been a series of edits changing unsourced factoids to different unsourced factoids.
The biographee seems notable for horseracing, car racing, and running a large house, three areas of which I know very little. While I'm concerned that WP should not misinform, I'm not the best person to be fact-checking this material. (I also have other, major demands on my time.) Could other, level-headed editors please take a look at this article and its fairly recent history? (If a sweeping reversion is in order and my own changes are among those that are swept away, of course I shan't take offence.) -- Hoary ( talk) 00:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
BUMP Cwobeel, the editor who said (close above) that he'd stubify it and check for notability, merely stuck a humdrum template on it and seemingly left it at that. Cwobeel is now in no position to edit anything and has announced retirement. Is there nobody here with any interest (in the desirable sense of this word) in horse-racing, car-racing, or running a large house? I could try it myself, but I know nothing of these matters and am not tempted to read up on them. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I did this last night but I'm not entirely sure about it. As I pointed out on the talk page, it seems the view of his under discussion was expressed in an early work (published when he was in his late 20s) that happens to have had an influence on other scholars, and scholars (at least those of the opposing school) consider him to be the "founder"of the revisionist view in question. A seemingly neutral review in The Journal of Japanese Studies apparently considers his scholarly method to have been flawed but not without merit, as other scholars continue to take this view. (By "neutral" I mean in relation to this debate, not to make some sort of claim that one source is superior to another based on how objective and NPOV it is.)
But regardless of which view is more mainstream, I'm inclined to think discussion of that debate belongs in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article, not in the form of criticisms of one of the scholars on one side.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Election 2016 is a little way off, but already polls are being taken on all sorts of "possible candidates" all over the place by every organization. I rather think that adding such polls to political BLPs is pure recentism and makes Wikipedia into an ersatz newspaper, but others demur. So far at Marco Rubio an extensive section of all the current polls was added -- at this rate, and adding each poll as it is released, the BLP will be 90% "polling results" long before election day. Again, IMO, polls taken this far out are of minimal, if any, biographical value, and of nil encyclopedic value. I objected to the 2014 polls added to many candidates which aggregated up to 150 polls for each candidate <g> and I suspect the mere eight or ten added in the first half of January will easily surpass that level in 2016. How much weight in BLPs should be given to crystal ball polls as opposed to actual election polling? Collect ( talk) 12:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit to Chad Ford happened on January 25th entering libelous, unfounded character attack. Should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.241.50 ( talk) 19:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Uzi Rabi This Page is full of blunt inaccuracies. I've checked several of the facts presented in this page and they turned up as absolutely not true (for example: Rabi's name never appeared in the Wall Street Journal, and only 3 times in the New York Times (And even then he was not "interviewed" - he was only mentioned), A quick search in Google Scholar will show that Rabi's articles and books were cited very few times - So I doubt that's he's a "leading authority" in his field) and also: "Prof. Rabi consults regularly with Israeli and world leaders" - that sounds ridiculous to me. What do you think, and what should be done in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjrr5 ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 20:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Make the BLP day and also redirect Susan Sarandon filmography, and Nicolas Cage filmography. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing them is always better than removing them. In my opinion the lists should be as comprehensive and well sourced as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
[52] is an iterated edit made sans any sourcing. Actually his edit summary gives a source: There is a source. The source is life, general knowledge. Read a newspaper. Wake up, sheeple which I did not think quite meets WP:RS. And looking carefully in all the usual celebrity gossip sites, I did not find the claim substantiated, but I am tired of dealing with the all-knowing IP. Someone - please look. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 23:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello - this page contains personal, mundane details about the life of Charles Bryant that fail to follow the guidelines for living persons. The "facts" are culled from the podcast that Charles Bryant hosts and are not true in all cases because the show features comedy and exaggeration that was taken as fact. If anyone can help correct this page it would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.183.88 ( talk) 00:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Steven Emerson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(See Steven Emerson part 2 below for continued discussion.)
There is a discussion on the Steven Emerson talk page on if we should include the following to the lede:
Emerson has been accused of inaccuracy and anti-Islam rhetoric by people and organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, [1] the Muslim Public Affairs Council, [2] New York Times reviewer Adrienne Edgar, [3] investigative reporter Robert Friedman, [4] Eric Boehlert, [5] and was directly contradicted by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, [6] leading Salon writer Alex Seitz-Wald to describe Emerson as a "fringe" theorist [6]. Despite these progressive detractors, Emerson has frequently testified before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, [7] with his own Investigative Project on Terrorism describing Emerson as having been "consulted by White House, National Security Council, FBI, Justice Department, Congress and intelligence agencies". [8]
References
The five key misinformation experts identified by the report [include] Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Their research – which is routinely exaggerated, deceptively selective or outright false – empowers key "grassroots" activists
Emerson's lack of precision leads him to conflate legitimate organizations that can help America and secure the homeland with others that are neither genuinely American nor transparent. ... Emerson's decade-long investigation of the American Muslim community is discredited by deliberate distortions, questionable sources and shoddy research techniques. ... His work ... is plagued by anti-Islam and anti-Muslim alarmist rhetoric.
Whether this egregious conceptual flaw, which renders most of his book all but worthless, is the result of a political agenda to demonize passionate supporters of the Palestinian cause as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, or is simply the result of hysteria and/or ignorance, is unclear. ... Nor does Emerson's at times loose way with the facts inspire confidence. ... [ Vince Cannistraro, a former director of counterterrorism for the CIA] dismisses Emerson's entire thesis. ... 'He doesn't know what he's talking about.' ... The truth is, Emerson uses the word "terrorist" the way Sen. Joseph McCarthy used to use the word "communist."
Just hours after controversial terrorism expert Steve Emerson reported last night on Sean Hannity's show that unnamed "sources" told him the government was quietly deporting the Saudi national who was initially suspected in the bombing, South Carolina GOP Rep. Jeff Duncan grilled Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on the rumor at a hearing this morning. ... "I am not going to answer that question, it is so full of misstatements and misapprehensions that it's just not worthy of an answer," the Homeland Security secretary shot back ... Duncan's willingness to embrace Emerson's charge highlights how quickly theories can go from the fringe to the mainstream in an environment when the political opposition is desperate to score political points against the president, and less concerned about getting facts right.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
This section is supposed to reference Steven Emerson#Controversies and Steven Emerson#Media and testimony sections of the article according to WP:LEDE, and would replace another sentence which was removed because of accusations of WP:BLP violations. we seem to have hit an impasse where editors on bot sides are accusing each other of bias and one group claiming that it is a WP:BLP violations. I'll not summarize the arguments so that I avoid misrepresenting either side. I am not satisfied that it is a BLP violation to add sourced references about controversies to the lede. Please advise. Coffeepusher ( talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Administrator attention please? This BLP is being attacked with both unsourced blanket criticism, and poorly sourced contentious statements, including an accusation of prejudice - [Islamophobia] - in the lead which is totally unacceptable. [58] I realize residents in the UK would like to lynch this guy - he made a huge blunder - but it doesn't justify the personal attacks. Atsme☯ Consult 19:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't being hypocritical, I was being bi-partisan. I couldn't think of a better way to demonstrate my point. Well, except maybe for this one: [61]. I think it's fascinating how things appear depending on the angle of bias. We all just need to remember that WP is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Atsme☯ Consult 23:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
There are many RS that have labeled civil rights activists as racists and race baiters, or that have expressed views of anti-Semitism or whatever. Such labels and contentious material is not included in the leads of WP:BLPs. Using the term Islamophobia, or fomenting Islamophobia applies equally - it is hate speech, and it doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP. WP is neither a tabloid nor a partisan (mis)information source - we don't hang labels on people. Reliance on what pundits claim in partisan media, and then writing about it as "encyclopedic" is terrible authorship - embarrassing, in fact - especially knowing the media has been known to screw-up the facts at one time or another. WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability is of the utmost importance. Please pay heed.
Read WP:Verifiability,_not_truth, If it's written in a book, it must be true!":
- Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts: "The hypno-toad is supreme" is more likely to be found than "our opinion is that the hypno-toad is supreme, but there are others who disagree with us." It is the task of the Wikipedia editor to present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Wikipedia's voice; this is one reason Wikipedia's voice should be neutral.
- The best way to describe a dispute is to work with a tertiary source that already describes the dispute and cite it as a reference. Tertiary sources may also help to confirm that there is a legitimate dispute to begin with, and not just a fringe theory against a universally accepted idea.
- It is important not to "cherry-pick" quotations or other material. Source material should be summarized in context to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately.
- In some cases, publication in a reliable source is not sufficient to establish that a view is significant. Reliable sources may be outdated or disputed by other sources.
The issues at Emerson are a result of not following the above guidelines. Atsme☯ Consult 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.
An edited volume from a major academic press certainly appears to be a BLP-appropriate source for contentious claims. And there are multiple high-quality sources here. I don't see how there's a problem beyond WP:IDHT. Guettarda ( talk) 21:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm moving this into a new discussion below since we have gone so far from what the original post is, and if I was not involved in the ongoing discussion, I would have no idea what User:ChrisGualtieri was talking about. So Chris, I'm going to paste your above comment in the section below, if you feel I'm misrepresenting your position feel free to modify it or delete it as you choose. Cheers! Coffeepusher ( talk) 05:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
No need to worry about my position. Neutrality, fact-checking, and verifying sources has never been an issue for me throughout my 30+ year career as a writer/publisher. I'm ok with the lead as it is now, but if it is ever expanded, I believe it should be done with the same adherence to policy, and with the consistency, care and careful consideration that was given to Anthony Weiner, Tony Blair, Anjem Choudary, Jesse Jackson, and Eric Holder.
In response to Guettarda's question, yes Hammer and Safi failed verifiability because they said things that were not in the source they cited. The Cambridge statement, "Islamophobes Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh), etc. was attributed in the book with an inline citation to an article written by Think Progress [64] which states, "Most notably, in 1995, Emerson claimed that the Oklahoma City bombing showed “a Middle East trait” because it “was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible.” <---- Where in that statement do you see Muslim? Where do you see Islamopobes? Where do you see "discredited terrorism expert"? The use of "Islamophobe" is a biased slur and the opinion of the author(s). Emerson actually works to help Muslim groups protect against terrorism [65]. I have not read anything to date in a RS that validates or justifies Islamophobe or Islamophobia labels on Emerson, and certainly not in Wiki voice. I listed a similar breakdown at the TP for all the other sources that were used to justify the contentious material in the lead. Atsme☯ Consult 08:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
(Discussion continued below under new header: Steven Emerson part 2.)
Charlo Greene ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm not sure if this is a BLP/N thing or maybe an issue for another forum. Long story short, I've had someone make a few comments on the talk page saying that Greene doesn't pass notability guidelines (she passed an AfD) and making statements that come across like they're saying that there's a bias on the page because it doesn't contain this or that content. I'll be honest: it really comes across like the editor in question has a genuine strong dislike of the person because of how they've phrased everything. I've told them that if anything is missing or seems overly puffy that they can make edits if they think that they can do it in a neutral fashion, but I'm fairly concerned that any edits by them would be done with the specific goal of stripping sources from the article and editing to reflect their point of view, which is that she's non notable and the article should be deleted. I would like someone to come in to the article and help with edits and also with mediation with the editor in question. It just feels like unless some other people step in this is just going to be a pattern where the editor comes back, makes more POINTy comments about Greene and the article (stating how there's a bias and that it's missing information that they don't seem to want to add), and then takes off to do other things. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Archie Roach, Not sure who they are referring to in the sentence below": "Roach and his family subsequently moved to Framlingham, where his mother was born.[4]"
But if it is referring to Archie Roach his mother can not be born in a place that her son moves to…? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.236.161 ( talk) 07:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Riki graduated high school in 1979 or 1980. Which would make him born a few years before 1965. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.246.254 ( talk) 22:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The article reads like an attack article. I removed a paragraph based on Nyheter Idag, a forum linked ot Sverigedemokraterna, puffed up with OR citing Expo.
I need help with first removing BLP violations and sections built on unreliable sources. Then there needs to be some effort at WP:NPOV and WP:Due Weight. For example, it is strange that Aftonbladets notorious Kultursida is used as the basis for a discussion of Bildt on Ukraine, and high quality reliable sources ignored. is a 11:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Lydia Cornell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We could use some eyes on this article. 108.252.17.151, states "YOU HAVE VIOLATED MY PRIVACY RIGHTS: I HAVE A STALKER THAT THREATENED MY LIFE AND FOUND MY HOME BASED ON BIRTHDATE. YOU HAVE DESTROYED MY PRIVACY AND RIGHT TO WORK. REMOVE BIRTHDATES OFF IMDB AND WIKIPEDIA" [1] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 11:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've once again tried to properly source her birth date. The primary source of the birth record ties together the undisputed day of birth and birth name with the disputed year of birth. I've added one of the secondary sources that verify she was 9 prior to her birthday in 1963. We've multiple secondary sources verifying the name change. We've multiple secondary sources verifying the day of birth. We have more sources verifying she was 9 prior to her birthday in 1963, but one should suffice. I hope editors agree that this is proper use of a primary source that verifies information already available in secondary sources per BLPPRIMARY. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
subject to the restrictions of... no original researchQuite. The primary-source material hasn't been discussed by any reliable secondary sources — or we wouldn't be having this discussion. WP:CALC is irrelevant because the primary source is not usable, as there is no secondary source for it to augment. I have to ask why you are so bound and determined to include a trivial piece of information that you can't reliably source against the apparent expressed wishes of the article subject. In matters relating to living people, intent absolutely matters, we err on the side of excluding disputed and poorly-sourced information, we edit with sensitivity toward article subjects and this incredibly minor bit of data about a relatively obscure actress seems like not at all the hill you should be choosing to die on. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 23:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I already answered that question, "You are correct that we do not have a reliable, secondary source giving the name "Lydia Cornell" and the birth date of 23 July 1953." But I think this new ref will resolve this: http://www.delawareonline.com/story/entertainment/2014/07/22/celebrity-birthdays-july/13005405/ --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
More eyes are needed on the Autumn Jackson BLP. Jackson is the woman who claims to be Bill Cosby’s daughter and was convicted of extortion back in the 90’s regarding her threats to go to tabloids with this. The Autumn Jackson BLP is apparently new. It was created after the recent Bill Cosby scandal broke, and it seems to be missing a lot of relevant factual information. For example, the current version fails to mention that Autumn Jackson’s extortion conviction against Cosby was at one point overturned [8] .I think it may have been reinstated. Could someone more knowledgeable regarding all the facts of the case, or else someone with time and inclination to properly research the relevant facts of Autumn Jackson’s case, please take a look at this BLP. This BLP probably gets lots of hits right now because Autumn Jackson’s name keeps resurfacing in the news in light of all that is currently going on with Bill Cosby and it seems to need significant work.
Also of concern is it appears to have neutrality concerns. For example, it opens with a description of Jackson as an “American criminal” instead of more neutral "American woman convicted of extortion" Additionally, the current version is referenced by questionable sources such as website: “Rhymes with snitch, news from the bathroom wall” [9] which is being used to say Jackson was charged with welfare fraud in 2007, but the current article doesn’t tell readers if she was actually convicted of welfare fraud or not. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 23:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
See
[10] "In a highly unusual move, the Federal appeals panel that overturned the conviction of a woman accused of trying to extort $40 million from Bill Cosby reversed itself yesterday and reinstated the guilty verdict against her. The woman, Autumn ..." seems to indicate the conviction was, indeed, reinstated - and by the same court.
[11] AP: "Prosecutors said Monday they are seeking the extradition of two women, one of whom was convicted a decade ago of trying to extort Bill Cosby, on unrelated charges of grand theft and perjury in a welfare fraud case. " indicating an arrest for welfare fraud. No later AP story on that case it appears. Most likely plea bargained in some way, I suppose.
Collect (
talk)
00:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
AUTUMN JACKSON has two living, breathing, toddling reasons why she desperately does not want to return to prison. The woman who her entire life has believed that actor Bill Cosby is her natural father does not want her twin sons — born while Autumn was behind bars — to grow up without a parent, like she did. “It felt like a kick to the stomach,” Autumn told me yesterday about an appeals court’s ruling that she go back to jail....Now Autumn and her family are awaiting word on when she might have to finish the last seven months of her sentence....“This is devastating. My family has already gone through this, over and over and over. “If I go back in prison, my boys are not going to trust me going anywhere. Even now, when I go out of the room, they have fits....Autumn said of Cosby. “And my advice to anyone contemplating something like I did is: Stop and think what’s important in life before jeopardizing what you have.”[13]. This source from '99 ends with
"Hasn’t she been punished enough?". I did find this source regarding the blood test refusal saying the test was indeed refused by her and by her mother because at that point they deemed the results would not help her appeals in any way [14].Regarding the welfare fraud accusation with conviction status unknown, I don't see how Jackson being notable enough for a BLP makes her ineligible for the above mentioned clause from WP:BLPCRIME. Clearly that is a policy applied to people notable enough for a BLP. In my estimation, Jackson seems comparably less notable, as far as BLP subjects go, considering the things she is notable for happened back in the 90's, and she only got a BLP a few weeks ago because the extremely notable individual here, Bill Cosby, is back in the news regarding all this. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 15:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
"A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.". I do think Autumn Jackson qualifies as "relatively unknown". As far as BLP subjects go, she seems to be minimally known considering she is notable for something that happened approx. 20 years ago, but she only got a BLP a few weeks ago, likely due to increased attention on her old case as a result of Bill Cosby being back in the news regarding sexual abuse allegations. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 17:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The image of 'Randy Ayers' in 2008 is NOT a picture of Randy Ayers!
Incorrect Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Randy_Ayers_in_2008.jpg/220px-Randy_Ayers_in_2008.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.5.223 ( talk) 00:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I came across this Rolfe D. Mandel article in the new pages feed. A significant portion of the article is sourced from a reference described as: "Personal Contact"; as primary as a primary source can be. With one exception the citations using this reference appear to be for factual information and not analysis or contentious material. I am curious to know how such situations are handled. Vrac ( talk) 14:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Jenny Willott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An anonymous IP, User:86.3.108.93, is repeatedly adding BLP-violating material to the page of this British politician. See their most recent edit here: [16] (The first addition, regarding her school fees, is sourced, though of questionable relevance. The second and third additions are entirely unsourced criticism.) I've warned them a couple of times on their talk page for re-adding this material with no response. What's the best course of action here? Should I request the page to be semi-protected, or the IP to be blocked? Robofish ( talk) 22:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, We are experiencing repeated vandalism on our page for several days now. Our page is about a rock-band. Someone deletes the name of one of the band members and says he is not a part of the band which is wrong. Every time we edit the page, this person deletes what we have done, without checking our information. We do consider this as threat and it is very harmful for the band's reputation and for the band members. We would like to block this person and then prevent them to vandalize our page. Thanks for your help. ArtemisOfMars ( talk) 09:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I scoured the web for any reference to Steve Hewitt being a member of the band Polaroid Kiss. The only article is the one the OP referrs to written in 2010 where he says he is colaborating on a project by that name. The original insertion of Polaroid Kiss, as far as I can tell was in 2011 in his discography where he is credited as a Collaborator. I have been unable to find any credits for other alblums by this band. If it were a major part of his life I would expect to see something more than a comment in the middle of an interview from over four years ago.
I would hope that InstantSnapFeedback will come here to comment. I would also think that it would be a good idea to see what is going on at Steve Hewitt. If there is nothing here to show him as a member of the band then it is certainly UNDUE to mention it in the lead of his biography. (I tried to use Wikiblame to see who first put Polaroid Kiss in the lead but could not get anything usable). RSN might be a good place to get opinions on whether the cited source is good enough for the claim he is a member of the band. JBH ( talk) 00:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
References
However, to address denials of COI, and contrary to prior assertations related to this issue; I strongly believe that ArtemisofMars and Drameu are not only one and the same, but is also a member of Polaroid Kiss. AOM has also made a number of claims relating to this "battle" which they know to be untrue. InstantSnapFeedback ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
* : Further to my previous comment, regarding ArtemisofMars, and to quote The Bard:
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".
Regardless of whether ArtemisofMars is a member of Polaroid Kiss or not, they have peddled at least a couple of outright lies. Namely: Richard Brandon Reed, AKA 'Brandun Reed' is not Irish, but American. 'Brandun Reed' resides in Stockholm, Sweden.
Further to what has been claimed by ArtemisofMars; Hanin Elias, like Steve Hewitt, was briefly involved with Polaroid Kiss; however her experience was far from pleasant, a sentiment shared by former members of Polaroid Kiss who have been edited out of the picture and / or uncredited for their efforts, including, but not limited to, Earl Dixon III of Audesi, Ian Pickering of Sneaker Pimps and Tom Shear of Assemblage 23. InstantSnapFeedback ( talk)
As to including Steve Hewitt as a member of the band I do not think that High Rotation is sufficient for a contested claim, it is a blog. The other sources on the page are links to personal blogs/websites, a link to a Facebook page, a link to a record label that only supports the fact that the alblums were released and a link to Side-Line Music that does not seem to say anything at all about the band.
Right now I strongly suggest that you all work together, on the article talk page, to get some good sources and write the article on what those sources say and nothing else. The articles notability claim seems to be WP:BAND point 6, two or more independently notable members. However there are no reliable sources to back it up so I am inclined to send it to AfD as it stands.
Finally, please stop bickering between yourselves here, it does you no credit and puts off others who might otherwise be willing to help here. If you must argue feel free to do so with me over the points I have raised, preferably over at the article talk page.
JBH ( talk) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Quoting, for context, doesn't make you a lady anymore than a brief association makes you a member of a band. That is all. InstantSnapFeedback ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@ ArtemusOfMars My apologies for not answering your question earlier. If you want to show Steve Hewitt is a member of Polaroid Kiss take a look at Identifying Reliable Sources. The essence is that a source must be published by a reliable third party with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Press releases, self-published material (Facebook) and such are not acceptable. Sometimes blogs and such can be used for non-controversial statements a subject makes about themself. The reason I object to the blog interview is (1) it is a blog; (2) it is old and even if true at the time the claim may not be true now; (3) if Polaroid Kiss is a notable project in his life it would have been mentioned somewhere else in the last 4 years. The prime rule we have here for BLP's is:
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
There is a lot of single purpose, likely COI editing going on with Polaroid Kiss they have been added to a lot of articles by a single user, Drameu See these edits( Snake River Conspiracy Thirty Seconds to Mars, Tom Shear, Steve Hewitt, and Assemblage 23). This makes me suspicious that a PR campaign is going on to tie them to more well known acts. (It worked on me when I saw this thread, I like old goth so I listened to them and hope I hear them in a club sometime. But that is neither here not there.) I have Polaroid Kiss and Steve Hewitt and their talk pages on my watch list so if you have a new source please post it there. I am far from an expert but I try to be conscientious in applying the rules/guidelines as I understand them and to be corrected with a TROUT if wrong - that is how I learn. I also would like to direct you to Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you have questions if a source is reliable for a givin claim. JBH ( talk) 22:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
This is my point entirely - namely that a single article from an unverified source over four years old is being used as part of a PR campaign to associate Polaroid Kiss with more famous artists. I understand that the article has been locked now to prevent further edit-warring; however, I would have expected that until Steve Hewitt's membership, or otherwise, could be verified through a reliable source (or number of sources) that he would not be listed as a member of Polaroid Kiss in the article, as it is simply misleading.
A good thing is the article a few editors who are passionate about it and are better able than most to find any good sources that may exist. Right now Polaroid Kiss is in dire need of sources to demonstrate its WP:NOTABILITY.
Since it looks like the edit war has calmed down and we seem to be on the same page about sourcing I would like to propose a consensus and move further discussion to the article talk page.
The consensus here as I understand it is that references to
Steve Hewitt being a member of
Polaroid Kiss should not be included until such a time as a source meeting
WP:RS and
WP:BLP is provided that makes such a claim. The appropriateness of a given source should be discussed at the article's talk page and the
WP:RSN
If you and InstantSnapFeedback agree with this please say so and we can move to the talk pages. If not please feel free to make changes that you all can agree on. If anyone else has some input, feedback or whatever please chime in. JBH ( talk) 16:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@ JBH Thanks for your answer. I will send you all the links that I'll find for your approval before putting them on the band's article. About Steve Hewitt, the thing is that I don't want him to be hurt by this story. He contributed a lot to the new album, playing drums on almost every songs. He is an excellent musician and has a very good reputation. He may not liked that we cancel his name from Polaroid Kiss article. That's not polite and may been seen as disrespectful. May we just wait for a new interview to be put online? The first single of the new album is already in the German Charts ( Deutsche Alternative Charts), so a new interview will come soon. I agree to move this discussion on the band's talk page. Thanks for your understanding ArtemisOfMars ( talk) 12:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@ ArtemisOfMars, I really would like to get the issue you brought here settled here where there are more experienced eyes than I. We can and should discuss sources over on the talk page but your earlier post appears to me to be saying that you do not accept the proposed consensus statement and think there is still a potential BLP violation. Please state plainly if you agree or disagree with the proposed consensus so this does not start up again when page protection expires. OH, and while you may not agree, Wikipedia really does not care what Steve Hewitt may or may not like the only thing that matters is what can be shown in WP:RS in line with the strict rules of WP:BLP.
"We do consider this as threat and it is very harmful for the band's reputation and for the band members"and like statements when you opened this issue. Those "We's" do not seem to be
"all the contributors to this page, from the very beginning"except in relation to the technical information that makes me think the whole Polaroid Kiss thing is the work of one person or people working together.
Polaroid Kiss's biggest contributor was Christian Sands back in 2012. That account edited only on Polaroid Kiss, Steve Hewitt and Hanin Elias all related to the band. An idiosyncratic editing pattern of this account is that they marked all of their edits as minor. Just like Drameu tends to do (45/60 edits). Between those two we have another SPA Sosgeneral who also marks all edits as minor they are further linked to Drameu in that they stopped editing Polaroid Kiss on 2013-07-26T06:47:21 while Drameu's first edit is 2013-07-26T11:02:30 the very next edit to the page. This tells me that this is a very low traffic page managed by a single user.
Now we get to your account ArtemisOfMars. You show up after the conflict started between InstantSnapFeedback and Drameu. Drameu reverts [21] (not marked minor) then IsntantSnapFeedback [22] then you pick up the ball with your first edit [23] and soon take up the issue here and at AIV and protection not your common new user. You also support Drameu such as in this series of edits Drameu - InstantSnapFeedback - AtremisOfMars] over exactly the same text.
So in short your the behavioral evidence gives you at least an apparent COI while the technical evidence makes you seem to be a sock or meat puppet of Christian Sands- Sosgeneral- Drameu. On a higher traffic page I might think otherwise but Polaroid Kiss seems to attract only people who have a passion about the politics of the band. (InstantSnapFeedback seems to have edited under at least one other account Salivasnapshot unless two people edit from the same POV from mobile devices with similar usernames [24]) but the editing seems to be consecutive rather than concurrent so meh.)So you have a lot of weight overcoming WP:AGF JBH ( talk) 19:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion the sources do not support your desire to include Steve Hewitt. As well as it being likely that the article fails WP:BAND since there are no RS sources supporting their notability claim.
It is possible] I am completely wrong in my reading of policy so I have asked 220_of_Borg [25], NeilN [26], and Tokyo Girl [27] to weigh in. They are all neutral editors who have a lot of experience in BLP. JBH ( talk) 21:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If there is a dispute, then to settle this conclusively, we need an independent source (not the band, not the band members, not Hewitt) saying Hewitt is part of the band. Having an independent source helps in these cases:
Skimming through the above text, I don't see independent sources being listed. Do they exist? -- NeilN talk to me 21:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Can someone from Wikipedia's editing team remove references to Steve Hewitt until if and when independently verifiable sources are added to the Polaroid Kiss Wikipedia entry, please? InstantSnapFeedback ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@ NeilN My apologies for being hasty in my response. You strike me as a thoroughly reasonable individual. InstantSnapFeedback ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the Tony Sly Wikipedia entry ("It was later determined that a drug-related seizure was the cause of Sly's Death.") that is not cited. I cannot find any resources online that would corroborate this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.166.11 ( talk) 13:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
An SPA, first using an IP, then a user account PAgrad46 ( talk · contribs), keeps adding "John Steinmetz" to the list of notable graduates of the High School of Performing Arts. I kept reverting, and have asked for justification on his talk page. He has now given a longer edit summary, which at least identified him enough so I could identify him as this fellow, but he has not given any evidence of WP:N (Steinmetz is not on imdb even).
I'm not sure where to post this, actually. Choor monster ( talk) 16:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Steverci has created in his sandbox an article titled Crowe propaganda. It appears in a google search. [29] I'm thinking the title is a BLP violation. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone could please help me with the NLL table, I have tried over and over to edit it properly but I don't know what I'm doing incorrectly. Thank you! -- WestJet ( talk) 10:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that's fixed now. 14GTR ( talk) 12:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The photo linked to Robert Wiley (Robert John Wiley is a former Australian rules footballer...) has the wrong person's photo listed, being Robert Wiley - Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The first photo on the attached link is the correct photo. Can you please change it? I have confirmed this with Robert Wiley personally so he knows I'm requesting this on his behalf.
Dee Walsh
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=robert+wiley&safe=active&biw=1680&bih=869&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=WMO9VOnkNorn8AWXzILgDg&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=1#safe=active&tbm=isch&q=robert+wiley+carlton&imgdii=_&imgrc=zYXSiNGBsWN-7M%253A%3BJI3p7p4Hj6LdxM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww4.pictures.zimbio.com%252Fgi%252FRobert%252BWiley%252BFg33H-nffoem.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.zimbio.com%252FRobert%252BWiley%252Fpictures%252Fpro%3B360%3B240 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.186.250.9 ( talk) 05:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear friends, Recently I wrote in WP:BLP page, under the heading Beatrix Campbell, as follows: "I would like to learn in particular whether there is provision, if an erroneous paragraph is continually reinserted into an entry, of placing an immovable statement to the effect that the subject of the biography contests its truth. And secondly, is there provision, in cases where the subject of a biography finds it continually misrepresents her, to have the entry in her name removed from Wikipedia completely. Advice will be very welcome." You will see from the last entries to the Beatrix Campbell discussion on WP:BLP that her version is still being contested. I have not received any reply,giving the advice I request.Bold text Could somebody help please? Sturdytree ( talk) 11:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Fab Five: The Texas Cheerleader Scandal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article seems like a large
WP:COATRACK for
WP:BLP issues. I significantly trimmed the article to reduce the issues
[30] but am concerned that it still may be a BLP violation to use sources discussing a TV show as sources of fact for real people the show is based on. In some cases the sources used do discuss the real people, but the source doing so is the TV producer/director etc, which I feel may be unreliable for negative statements of fact about real people . ex
[31] The real-life story of these cheerleaders shocked many when the story broke, not only for their racy and inappropriate behavior but also for the inaction of the school's administrators and parents," Lifetime senior vp original movies Tanya Lopez said. "We hope this movie reminds parents how important it is to set limits on their children.
Obviously the plot of the show itself can be discussed in the article, even where that may imply something about the real people, but I don't think the article should have much about the real people in it at all, especially when newsweek writes
[32] By all accounts the girls' behavior is wildly exaggerated on screen, but it makes for good TV
There is another newsweek story, directly about the real people from the time the real story broke. Ironically, it is not used in the article at all. [33]
Additional input would be appreciated. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Pat Ahumada ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A somewhat controversial former mayor who is, apparently, running again. The article is poor and has mostly negative (though sourced) information. There is more out on the internetz ( here, for instance) but I haven't found anything positive. Whether the guy is notable in the first place is an interesting matter. In the second place, I wonder if recent edits have anything to do with his campaign. Your eyes are appreciated. Drmies ( talk) 16:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This article's title is inaccurate. Gannon's name is "Kathy" not "Cathy": http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kathy-gannon-canadian-reporter-wounded-and-photographer-killed-in-afghanistan-1.2597928 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.249.131 ( talk) 18:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
More eyes are needed, there is one camp turning the article into a hagiographic (and extremely extended) speakers promotional blurb and another camp attempting to insinuate that she has lied about everything she ever stated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Profile pic is of the wrong person - definitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.37.103.10 ( talk) 04:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Carol W. Greider, a 2009 Nobel Prize winner, has recently been editing her page (along with her assistant) to remove mentions of her husband, Nathaniel C. Comfort. Both User:Carol.w.greider and User:Scrow1 (her assistant) have deleted the references multiple times without adding any additional sourcing. It's evident based on a number of different sources that they were married in 1993, but I've yet to come across any sourcing to indicate otherwise. Per a note left by User:Scrow1 on my talk page, she's attempting to remove mention of her (apparently now ex-)husband.
My question is since Greider is clearly a public figure, 1. is she (or assistant) allowed to edit her page without it being a conflict of interest, 2. is she allowed to remove current, sourced information, and 3. to what extent, if any, is she allowed to dictate what appears on her page?
Thanks.
— GauchoDude ( talk) 17:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
kajol is born in 1975 as i heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reloade ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Harry the Dirty Dog has insisted on including this external link in the subject's biography, which apparently he decided is actually the subject based on original research rather than relying on a secondary source. The image was previously being used (in conjunction with IMDb) to support the subject's date of birth, with this hidden note:
DO NOT change the year of birth to 1970. Jayne was born in 1960. The date on the photos linked below (1979 in both cases) is the year these people would have graduated high school, not the year the photo was taken. Jayne could not have been in both grade 4 and grade 6 in the same year. To graduate from high school in 1979, she would have to be born in 1960
This kind of OR is unacceptable in biographies, and while my removal of the DOB was not challenged, they insist on keeping the external link, which makes no sense since there no biographical information regarding the subject's early life, and in any case it is an unacceptable source to begin with. Further, Harry the Dirty Dog has apparently managed to elucidate which of those children is actually the subject, based on some unknown criteria (age regression?) and a faded 36-year old signature. Is there consensus that this is acceptable as a standalone external link? § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Is
Directly relevant to a BLP about Bobby Jindal? Collect ( talk) 20:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This issue could also belong at WP:RSN or WP:COIN - bringing it here as this seems to have the most eyes. Over the past year, a COI editor has been adding puffery to this article. [42] Today, she added this. I reverted because I'd seen those claims before, using a "garbage" source (excuse my term, it's difficult when an editor is only here to promote something). [43] This time, I took another look and she's using another source, one that has a Wikipedia article: Limca Book of Records. Is this a reliable source for the claims she's making? If not, should the claims still appear if attributed to that source? -- NeilN talk to me 16:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
There's some editing that needs further attention -- see this section of the COIN. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject field to look at it with the necessary care DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sajin_Vass_Gunawardena&curid=27170258&diff=643823440&oldid=643808700 is a large edit which looks to me to be laden with potential BLP issues. I reverted it once (no time to pick through the whole thing and it looked like it would clearly violate BLP policy if left alone) but it's back. Some of this material has been in before, and the page was semi-protected in December 2013.
I'm calling for help; it seems clear there are BLP issues, but equally some of the material may be good. I have no time to pick through it, and know nothing about Sri Lankan politics. Pinkbeast ( talk) 14:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIMARY says not to use public records etc. for living people - just to confirm, this does not apply as soon as someone dies, such as using a public record to confirm death details? Giant Snowman 19:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's presumptively fine. To quote policy: Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers..." If only people would spend half the time reining in bad editors that they spend confronting good editors who, by virtue of exercising their editorial judgment broadly and research skills extensively, are adding value. Yes, there is a such a thing as unacceptable original research, but every time we exercise our editorial judgment we are doing something "original" if we are not engaging in serial copyright violations.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 06:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
James R. Clapper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article states: He responded - committing the felony of lying to congress under oath - "No, sir."
This is a legal opinion. Unless the writer can cite a felony conviction, it has no place in the article.
Nor does the section heading. The administration expressed confidence that the Director answered in the least misleading way possible, given the wording of the questions. To use the phrase "False testimony" is an opinion and is not supported by any citations to legal findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.221.224.205 ( talk) 22:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Donald Keene ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As the template for BLPs says "If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns", material has been repeatedly inserted and undone, and there are concerns outlined in the Talk page for the subject in question. In particular, COI via self-promotion self-referencing, (indirect) libel, and relevence of putting outlier information not shared by mainstream sources.
Not sure how much detail I should add here, but the gist of the concern is in the Talk Page for the Wikipedia BLP mentioned above. Eido INOUE 02:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Subject of BLP continues to make edits to the bio, removing all content that is negative towards him or shows verifiable proof of his past work actions, in violation of BLP guidelines and standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.17.230 ( talk) 05:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. User Brian Dell seeks to demonstrate or imply that David O. Carpenter is a biased editor-in-chief of this journal. For an editor of a peer reviewed journal, this is a serious allegation. Brian Dell has advocated persistently on the Talk page [44] since his Dec 7th edit [45] and subsequent attempts have been rebuffed by 2 other editors and myself, who joined the conversation with a 3PO. Dell and User:Randykitty have been edit warring IMO, though they do discuss in Talk and both avoid a formal 3RR violation.
The most recent Dell edit [46] does finally provide a source for the allegation against Carpenter. However, it's from an admittedly biased source -- and so the controversial allegation is very poorly sourced. Maybe reliable sources will come to light? Meanwhile, I am concerned that Dell's edits violate our BLP policy and should be removed. Is it appropriate for me to report this and then remove the problematic edit myself? Thanks! HG | Talk 06:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI, Guy et al. Mr. Dell has reinserted the allegations from the (biased) industry publication. Now the allegations do not contain the BLP name, but the source is unreliable and the implication against the individual is clear (and in the industry allegation). Thanks. HG | Talk 04:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Some clarification would be helpful here, because I think it's best to remove completely unsourced info related to WP:BLPs from articles.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
More time was spent arguing over this than it took me to find the sources. It might actually take me more time to write this comment than it took me to find the sources. It DEFINITELY took both Cirt and Murry1975 more time to revert and argue over this than it would have taken either of them to find the sources. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Please note that there is now a WP:AE request about this issue. Feedback is welcome here. [47] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 05:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Joni Ernst ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joni Ernst's Wikipedia page states " ..the first woman ever elected on a statewide level in Iowa...." this is incorrect. Patty Judge was elected Iowa's Iowa Secretaries of Agriculture in 1998 and served until 2007 Iowa Auditor of State Mary Mosiman was elected in 2013 and is the current Auditor. Secretary of State office has been Held by Mary Jane Odell elected in 1980 and served until 1987 and Elaine Baxter elected in 1987 and served until 1994 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.107.1 ( talk) 19:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Tulipmaster ( talk · contribs), formerly Islandsound ( talk · contribs) has added some controversial info to J.C. Jones about the person being charged for fraud under the name Charles Jones. While one of the added ( Lebanon Democrat) does verify that a Charles Jones was charged with fraud, it does not give any indication that this is the same person. The other two sources added give 404s.
I asked the user about this, and they responded by saying, "I have had personal dealings with this guy. I can send court documents on the matter if need be. Image can be verified via youtube search via his music. People who steal like alias names." and providing a link to YouTube which proves nothing. I then explained that Tulipmaster seems to have a WP:COI
Is there any chance that this user can be blocked for harmful COI edits? Also, should their edits be redacted from the history due to lack of valid sourcing identifying this as the same person? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
This article conflates David Eisenhower with David Eisenhower II. The first is the son of a President, the second is the grandson. See the article to view the errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4380:5AB2:C11B:7277:185C:3A84 ( talk) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
absolutely none of this page is sourced, and it reads like promotional material. This man is not a person of note, the page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.244.102.210 ( talk) 18:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I have proposed moving the above article at Talk:Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy#Requested move 24 January 2015 because I see at least potential BLP issues in the existing name, which I more or less itemize in the comments there. I think that this might not be the only instance of common names which might be unfortunate for BLP's, and I would welcome any input on the specific move and any possible, similar, title questions elsewhere in the future. John Carter ( talk) 20:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The section titled "Controversies" does not have a valid reference or base. It is added by people who did not like his principles and they wanted to bring bad name to him. There is no evidence to prove that he acted as mentioned in this section. So, please remove this section from this wiki page. This hurts millions of people who consider him as grate hero and who fought for a cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.102.43 ( talk) 21:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
This individual's wiki article appears to be largely promotional and self-serving. The external links he provides are known in the legal profession to be websites that help lawyers promote themselves, often in exchange for a fee. The cases in which his name appears as counsel, which are not themselves legally prominent, are no different than the thousands of searchable cases in which various names of other attorneys are also listed. Cbreitel ( talk) 05:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Charles Gordon-Lennox, Earl of March and Kinrara ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Charles Gordon-Lennox, Earl of March and Kinrara, an entirely unfamiliar name to me, popped up in my watchlist. Even by WP standards, the article was dreadful. I rather lazily sprayed it with warning flags and added a few internal links. Later, I noticed that it had been edited again, with no edit summary, and took a quick look (mostly to see whether hagiographic elements had been reinserted). It was then that I noticed that there'd been a series of edits changing unsourced factoids to different unsourced factoids.
The biographee seems notable for horseracing, car racing, and running a large house, three areas of which I know very little. While I'm concerned that WP should not misinform, I'm not the best person to be fact-checking this material. (I also have other, major demands on my time.) Could other, level-headed editors please take a look at this article and its fairly recent history? (If a sweeping reversion is in order and my own changes are among those that are swept away, of course I shan't take offence.) -- Hoary ( talk) 00:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
BUMP Cwobeel, the editor who said (close above) that he'd stubify it and check for notability, merely stuck a humdrum template on it and seemingly left it at that. Cwobeel is now in no position to edit anything and has announced retirement. Is there nobody here with any interest (in the desirable sense of this word) in horse-racing, car-racing, or running a large house? I could try it myself, but I know nothing of these matters and am not tempted to read up on them. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I did this last night but I'm not entirely sure about it. As I pointed out on the talk page, it seems the view of his under discussion was expressed in an early work (published when he was in his late 20s) that happens to have had an influence on other scholars, and scholars (at least those of the opposing school) consider him to be the "founder"of the revisionist view in question. A seemingly neutral review in The Journal of Japanese Studies apparently considers his scholarly method to have been flawed but not without merit, as other scholars continue to take this view. (By "neutral" I mean in relation to this debate, not to make some sort of claim that one source is superior to another based on how objective and NPOV it is.)
But regardless of which view is more mainstream, I'm inclined to think discussion of that debate belongs in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article, not in the form of criticisms of one of the scholars on one side.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Election 2016 is a little way off, but already polls are being taken on all sorts of "possible candidates" all over the place by every organization. I rather think that adding such polls to political BLPs is pure recentism and makes Wikipedia into an ersatz newspaper, but others demur. So far at Marco Rubio an extensive section of all the current polls was added -- at this rate, and adding each poll as it is released, the BLP will be 90% "polling results" long before election day. Again, IMO, polls taken this far out are of minimal, if any, biographical value, and of nil encyclopedic value. I objected to the 2014 polls added to many candidates which aggregated up to 150 polls for each candidate <g> and I suspect the mere eight or ten added in the first half of January will easily surpass that level in 2016. How much weight in BLPs should be given to crystal ball polls as opposed to actual election polling? Collect ( talk) 12:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit to Chad Ford happened on January 25th entering libelous, unfounded character attack. Should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.241.50 ( talk) 19:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Uzi Rabi This Page is full of blunt inaccuracies. I've checked several of the facts presented in this page and they turned up as absolutely not true (for example: Rabi's name never appeared in the Wall Street Journal, and only 3 times in the New York Times (And even then he was not "interviewed" - he was only mentioned), A quick search in Google Scholar will show that Rabi's articles and books were cited very few times - So I doubt that's he's a "leading authority" in his field) and also: "Prof. Rabi consults regularly with Israeli and world leaders" - that sounds ridiculous to me. What do you think, and what should be done in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjrr5 ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 20:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Make the BLP day and also redirect Susan Sarandon filmography, and Nicolas Cage filmography. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing them is always better than removing them. In my opinion the lists should be as comprehensive and well sourced as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
[52] is an iterated edit made sans any sourcing. Actually his edit summary gives a source: There is a source. The source is life, general knowledge. Read a newspaper. Wake up, sheeple which I did not think quite meets WP:RS. And looking carefully in all the usual celebrity gossip sites, I did not find the claim substantiated, but I am tired of dealing with the all-knowing IP. Someone - please look. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 23:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello - this page contains personal, mundane details about the life of Charles Bryant that fail to follow the guidelines for living persons. The "facts" are culled from the podcast that Charles Bryant hosts and are not true in all cases because the show features comedy and exaggeration that was taken as fact. If anyone can help correct this page it would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.183.88 ( talk) 00:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Steven Emerson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(See Steven Emerson part 2 below for continued discussion.)
There is a discussion on the Steven Emerson talk page on if we should include the following to the lede:
Emerson has been accused of inaccuracy and anti-Islam rhetoric by people and organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, [1] the Muslim Public Affairs Council, [2] New York Times reviewer Adrienne Edgar, [3] investigative reporter Robert Friedman, [4] Eric Boehlert, [5] and was directly contradicted by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, [6] leading Salon writer Alex Seitz-Wald to describe Emerson as a "fringe" theorist [6]. Despite these progressive detractors, Emerson has frequently testified before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, [7] with his own Investigative Project on Terrorism describing Emerson as having been "consulted by White House, National Security Council, FBI, Justice Department, Congress and intelligence agencies". [8]
References
The five key misinformation experts identified by the report [include] Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Their research – which is routinely exaggerated, deceptively selective or outright false – empowers key "grassroots" activists
Emerson's lack of precision leads him to conflate legitimate organizations that can help America and secure the homeland with others that are neither genuinely American nor transparent. ... Emerson's decade-long investigation of the American Muslim community is discredited by deliberate distortions, questionable sources and shoddy research techniques. ... His work ... is plagued by anti-Islam and anti-Muslim alarmist rhetoric.
Whether this egregious conceptual flaw, which renders most of his book all but worthless, is the result of a political agenda to demonize passionate supporters of the Palestinian cause as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, or is simply the result of hysteria and/or ignorance, is unclear. ... Nor does Emerson's at times loose way with the facts inspire confidence. ... [ Vince Cannistraro, a former director of counterterrorism for the CIA] dismisses Emerson's entire thesis. ... 'He doesn't know what he's talking about.' ... The truth is, Emerson uses the word "terrorist" the way Sen. Joseph McCarthy used to use the word "communist."
Just hours after controversial terrorism expert Steve Emerson reported last night on Sean Hannity's show that unnamed "sources" told him the government was quietly deporting the Saudi national who was initially suspected in the bombing, South Carolina GOP Rep. Jeff Duncan grilled Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on the rumor at a hearing this morning. ... "I am not going to answer that question, it is so full of misstatements and misapprehensions that it's just not worthy of an answer," the Homeland Security secretary shot back ... Duncan's willingness to embrace Emerson's charge highlights how quickly theories can go from the fringe to the mainstream in an environment when the political opposition is desperate to score political points against the president, and less concerned about getting facts right.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
This section is supposed to reference Steven Emerson#Controversies and Steven Emerson#Media and testimony sections of the article according to WP:LEDE, and would replace another sentence which was removed because of accusations of WP:BLP violations. we seem to have hit an impasse where editors on bot sides are accusing each other of bias and one group claiming that it is a WP:BLP violations. I'll not summarize the arguments so that I avoid misrepresenting either side. I am not satisfied that it is a BLP violation to add sourced references about controversies to the lede. Please advise. Coffeepusher ( talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Administrator attention please? This BLP is being attacked with both unsourced blanket criticism, and poorly sourced contentious statements, including an accusation of prejudice - [Islamophobia] - in the lead which is totally unacceptable. [58] I realize residents in the UK would like to lynch this guy - he made a huge blunder - but it doesn't justify the personal attacks. Atsme☯ Consult 19:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't being hypocritical, I was being bi-partisan. I couldn't think of a better way to demonstrate my point. Well, except maybe for this one: [61]. I think it's fascinating how things appear depending on the angle of bias. We all just need to remember that WP is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Atsme☯ Consult 23:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
There are many RS that have labeled civil rights activists as racists and race baiters, or that have expressed views of anti-Semitism or whatever. Such labels and contentious material is not included in the leads of WP:BLPs. Using the term Islamophobia, or fomenting Islamophobia applies equally - it is hate speech, and it doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP. WP is neither a tabloid nor a partisan (mis)information source - we don't hang labels on people. Reliance on what pundits claim in partisan media, and then writing about it as "encyclopedic" is terrible authorship - embarrassing, in fact - especially knowing the media has been known to screw-up the facts at one time or another. WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability is of the utmost importance. Please pay heed.
Read WP:Verifiability,_not_truth, If it's written in a book, it must be true!":
- Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts: "The hypno-toad is supreme" is more likely to be found than "our opinion is that the hypno-toad is supreme, but there are others who disagree with us." It is the task of the Wikipedia editor to present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Wikipedia's voice; this is one reason Wikipedia's voice should be neutral.
- The best way to describe a dispute is to work with a tertiary source that already describes the dispute and cite it as a reference. Tertiary sources may also help to confirm that there is a legitimate dispute to begin with, and not just a fringe theory against a universally accepted idea.
- It is important not to "cherry-pick" quotations or other material. Source material should be summarized in context to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately.
- In some cases, publication in a reliable source is not sufficient to establish that a view is significant. Reliable sources may be outdated or disputed by other sources.
The issues at Emerson are a result of not following the above guidelines. Atsme☯ Consult 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.
An edited volume from a major academic press certainly appears to be a BLP-appropriate source for contentious claims. And there are multiple high-quality sources here. I don't see how there's a problem beyond WP:IDHT. Guettarda ( talk) 21:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm moving this into a new discussion below since we have gone so far from what the original post is, and if I was not involved in the ongoing discussion, I would have no idea what User:ChrisGualtieri was talking about. So Chris, I'm going to paste your above comment in the section below, if you feel I'm misrepresenting your position feel free to modify it or delete it as you choose. Cheers! Coffeepusher ( talk) 05:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
No need to worry about my position. Neutrality, fact-checking, and verifying sources has never been an issue for me throughout my 30+ year career as a writer/publisher. I'm ok with the lead as it is now, but if it is ever expanded, I believe it should be done with the same adherence to policy, and with the consistency, care and careful consideration that was given to Anthony Weiner, Tony Blair, Anjem Choudary, Jesse Jackson, and Eric Holder.
In response to Guettarda's question, yes Hammer and Safi failed verifiability because they said things that were not in the source they cited. The Cambridge statement, "Islamophobes Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh), etc. was attributed in the book with an inline citation to an article written by Think Progress [64] which states, "Most notably, in 1995, Emerson claimed that the Oklahoma City bombing showed “a Middle East trait” because it “was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible.” <---- Where in that statement do you see Muslim? Where do you see Islamopobes? Where do you see "discredited terrorism expert"? The use of "Islamophobe" is a biased slur and the opinion of the author(s). Emerson actually works to help Muslim groups protect against terrorism [65]. I have not read anything to date in a RS that validates or justifies Islamophobe or Islamophobia labels on Emerson, and certainly not in Wiki voice. I listed a similar breakdown at the TP for all the other sources that were used to justify the contentious material in the lead. Atsme☯ Consult 08:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
(Discussion continued below under new header: Steven Emerson part 2.)
Charlo Greene ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm not sure if this is a BLP/N thing or maybe an issue for another forum. Long story short, I've had someone make a few comments on the talk page saying that Greene doesn't pass notability guidelines (she passed an AfD) and making statements that come across like they're saying that there's a bias on the page because it doesn't contain this or that content. I'll be honest: it really comes across like the editor in question has a genuine strong dislike of the person because of how they've phrased everything. I've told them that if anything is missing or seems overly puffy that they can make edits if they think that they can do it in a neutral fashion, but I'm fairly concerned that any edits by them would be done with the specific goal of stripping sources from the article and editing to reflect their point of view, which is that she's non notable and the article should be deleted. I would like someone to come in to the article and help with edits and also with mediation with the editor in question. It just feels like unless some other people step in this is just going to be a pattern where the editor comes back, makes more POINTy comments about Greene and the article (stating how there's a bias and that it's missing information that they don't seem to want to add), and then takes off to do other things. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Archie Roach, Not sure who they are referring to in the sentence below": "Roach and his family subsequently moved to Framlingham, where his mother was born.[4]"
But if it is referring to Archie Roach his mother can not be born in a place that her son moves to…? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.236.161 ( talk) 07:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Riki graduated high school in 1979 or 1980. Which would make him born a few years before 1965. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.246.254 ( talk) 22:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The article reads like an attack article. I removed a paragraph based on Nyheter Idag, a forum linked ot Sverigedemokraterna, puffed up with OR citing Expo.
I need help with first removing BLP violations and sections built on unreliable sources. Then there needs to be some effort at WP:NPOV and WP:Due Weight. For example, it is strange that Aftonbladets notorious Kultursida is used as the basis for a discussion of Bildt on Ukraine, and high quality reliable sources ignored. is a 11:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)