![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Joe Klein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May well be Jewish, but is nndb.com a reliable source for labelling and categorizing him as one? [1], [2] are the edits at issue. Collect ( talk) 12:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Listen, people can vote whichever way they want, for whatever reason they want. I just don't want to see policy makers who make decisions on the basis of whether American policy will benefit Israel or not. In some cases, you want to provide protection for Israel certainly, but you don't want to go to war with Iran. When Jennifer Rubin or Abe Foxman calls me antisemitic, they're wrong. I am anti-neoconservative. I think these people are following very perversely extremist policies and I really did believe that it was time for mainstream Jews to stand up and say, "They don't represent us, they don't represent Israel." [3]
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Same problem:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-postel/israelpolitik-the-neocons_b_6585506.html now added to the
http://www.nndb.com/people/408/000044276/ "source.
Is the HuffPo sentence:
Sufficient here to state in Wikipedia's voice that Klein is Jewish? If not - will someone tell the editor not to continuously and repeatedly re-add such claims into BLPs. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 13:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@ MrX: I don't know whether the characterization belongs in the lead or whatnot as I don't work on BLPs very often, but it isn't even mentioned in the article despite the high-profile he's received in media coverage of the debate. I don't have time to sort out a text for the article.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Note:
[5] is not even remotely acceptable under
WP:BLPCAT and I find the continued insistence to label a person a JEW in Wikipedia's voice without clear self-identification is distasteful.
Collect (
talk)
14:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLPCAT:Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. is Wikipedia policy.
Collect (
talk)
14:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
For the record, here is another quote from the Atlantic interview
JG: You seem very angry at people who you specifically identify as Jewish neocons. And you're using the word "Jewish" in ways that we haven't seen Jewish reporters and Jewish columnists use.
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
This piece, the underlined statement in particular, includes another candidate for "specific and non-ambiguous self-identification"
I have now been called antisemitic and intellectually unstable and a whole bunch of other silly things by the folks over at the Commentary blog. They want Time Magazine to fire or silence me. This is happening because I said something that is palpably true, but unspoken in polite society: There is a small group of Jewish neoconservatives who...Happily, these people represent a very small sliver of the Jewish population in this country...I remain proud of my Jewish heritage, a strong supporter of Israel and a realist about the slim chance of finding some common ground with the Iranians. But I am not willing to grant these ideologues the anonymity they seek. When Extremists Attack
Note that it is also quoted in the HP article linked to above On Joe Klein and the Jewish Neoconservatives. (Ubikwit unsigned)
Nope. Klein does not say he follows the Jewish religion and the edits which do not have self-identification behind them are a direct violation of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
"Over 5000 years of history, we Jews have demonstrated a remarkable talent for survival, the promulgation of morality and justice, tolerance of others, terrible cuisine and an almost protozoan genius for subdividing ourselves."
— Joe Kein - Time (emphasis added)
"Where I come from–the outer boroughs of New York City–Jews were known for, and entertained ourselves by, arguing about everything. Nothing was ever off the table.""
— Joe Kein - Time (emphasis added)
Per the Austrian article referenced (#5), Heimo resigned, a mutual agreement, not a sacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.25.29 ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Poorly sourced article (only one publication by a religious organisation is listed). Other for being "recognized" as a tulku (re-incarnate lama), which hundreds of people are, I don't see how this person meets notability criteria. Should it be deleted? Chris Fynn ( talk) 10:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
This article states that the first time Sobraj was jailed was in 1993 in Paris. This is clearly inaccurate; if I remember Thomas Thompson's book 'Serpentine' correctly, his first arrest and imprisonment in Poissy Prison was 1963. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.94.36 ( talk) 02:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
IP address 171.99.139.55 is adding personal life material that is only sourced to a tabloid newspaper. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 09:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd really like some help with this issue. Thanks -- Dweller ( talk) 13:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
An editor is removing a cited claim that this person is the great grandnephew of a former President on the basis that VVS Laxman told him he's not the grandson of any President. Ignoring the error (nephew/son) to what extent does a purported conversation between a BLP subject and a Wikipedian trump WP:V? I looked in our self-published guidelines, but there's nothing about conversations. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Zoe Sugg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would like to have Zoe Sugg removed please.I am Zoe Elizabeth Sugg and I do not wish to have a wiki page on me please.I did not give permission to have it up and some of the articles are rather false.Please remove me from Wikipedia as I am stopping all vlogging and blogging and wish to remove my "fame" off here.I hope I can type zoe sugg in and not see a link to wikipedia.Thank you,Zoe Elizabeth Sugg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoella17 ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"Fun Facts About Mekenna Melvin From Chuck". Girl2Watch.com. Retrieved November 2, 2010.
This is listed as a source in the article... however the link leads to a malicious phishing site... please ensure its removal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.183.130 ( talk)
You will see the comment on the Talk:Nigel Thrift page relating to Nigel Thrift which is basically a gratuitous insult and a threat to kill. As you will see I am connected to the subject so I do not wish to alter it myself but could I ask for someone to look at it and remove it please. Equally it may be the case that this poster could be involved in the recent additions to the page which could be seen to as part of a campaign against the individual rather than furthering the objectives of Wikipedia. Therefore could I ask someone more neutral in these matters to look at that content and see if it should be altered in any way in terms of tone, content and context and to keep an eye out any gratuitous reverts to any amendments that are then made if they are thought appropriate. Peter J Dunn ( talk) 10:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Peter J Dunn ( talk) 11:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Thank you Nomoskedasticity
Looking here, most of the people in this category are not reliably sourced as "anti-vaccination activists" in reliable sources -- one person got in there for a single TV assignment as a correspondent , another in there for questioning the famous "swine flu vaccine" affair, etc. In short -- this category is riddled with bad entries, and all entries there should be vetted, as categories intrinsically make claims of fact in Wikipedia's voice that the people fall into that "contentious claim" area. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh and one is in there for questioning the use of smallpox vaccines (because of complications observed) in his articles in peer-reviewed journals after smallpox was basically defunct in Europe in the 1970s. Collect ( talk) 13:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
There certainly seems to be truth in the case that this category is being misused and several editors have been reinserting it on Robert Sears who supports vaccinations. Apparently "Anti-vaccination activists" applies to vaccination supporters who disagree with CDC vaccination scheduling. Certainly seems like an improper label without context. I find NeilN's comparison to holocaust deniers to be horrifying. NeilN then restored the contentious label during the talk page discussion. This is a BLP issue and I believe the tag should be removed given the additional and now separate BLPN issue. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 19:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that it would be helpful to have a proper consensus building discussion (as in well defined parameters for weighing the opinions about policy) either at Cfd and/or a RFC on the article talk page. Right now there seems to be a rush to revert changes right away instead of working toward a true consensus that can stand the test of time. In my experience, most people can live with a decision, even if they disagree with it, if the points of view are examined and weighed and an impartial person closes the discussion. I will suggest this on the article talk page, too. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 00:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no current CfD, so this is the only discussion venue right now. I would suggest,moreover:
Being opposed to specific vaccines (one entry in the category was apparently placed there because he doubted the need to continue the smallpox vaccine in the 1970's in Europe - Gerhard Buchwald now deceased) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is there without any rational basis in sources. Jenny McCarthy who specifically denies the label. David Icke unsourced. And so on. Collect ( talk) 13:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Has a paragraph on the release of his emails.
Is
UNDUE in that section? (It has been removed as UNDUE and "redundant")? Is it reliably sourced? Is it a POV edit? (latest assertion)? Collect ( talk) 00:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
References
Can we depersonalize this and get back to the main issue? As I understand the original query, there are three points:
Taking them in turn: (1) I agree that this is something to be hashed out on the article talk page. In the broad sweep of things it may not be that important to Mr. Bush's biography. But I'm not an expert on Mr. Bush. (2) Clearly yes. The CSM is a highly respected news venue. The reporter is an intern and as such is likely under more editorial scrutiny that the average reporter. (3) It seems like a simple fact, and is not inherently POV.
I haven't looked at the talk page but this doesn't seem like such a big a deal. It's not like Mr. Bush is being accused of doing anything unethical or his record is being distorted. It's simply a WEIGHT issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the sources, and am I right that you would only see the disclaimer if you first got an e-mail from Bush? If so, then someone sending his Social Security number saying 'Mr. Bush help me get my SS check' would not have seen the disclaimer, and so the proposed addition seems misleading (given the issue is disclosure of sensitive personal info), so under a strict reading of BLP that particular proposal should not go in. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 00:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: The editor insists the statement is not neutral and tagged the entire section as POV - so had to post at WP:NPOV/N as well to cover the cavils. Cheers and apologies. Collect ( talk) 01:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
This is about living people in images, not in text. At age disparity in sexual relationships an anonymous IP address keeps adding public domain images of couples. They were previously banned for a few days over the issue of ignoring consensus of the page imagery. I have reversed them, but the page needs to be monitored. The images are tagged for personality rights and by adding them to the article for decoration we are violating their personality rights by imputing that they have a sexual relationship and guessing at their age and suggesting that there is a substantial age difference between them. The consensus has been to stick to public domain art which avoids violating personality rights in a sexual article. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I seem to have stumbled across a possible BLP issue while going through recent changes, in the article on Asaduddin Owaisi. I initially noticed this edit [21], and reverted it after looking through the sources and finding no support for what sees to be quite a contentious claim. Since then, the claim has been re-added and removed several times. I was hoping for some extra eyes on the claim, or on the page. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ( TALK) 19:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
All her notability seems to stem from an alleged relationship with Michael Phelps. Candidate for WP:BLP1E? -- NeilN talk to me 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
From 12/23/2014 till 2/10/2015 I have been researching and adding information to the "Gail Harris'/Gail Thackray page.Knowing it's a biography I was especially careful to fully cite all with references and links. All statements are cited. On 2/11/2015 User Wdbsami revised article, removing all pertinent biographical information and all of the many referenced links to her involvement in Adult Entertainment and Porn and then inserted what I believe reads as a sales advertisement promoting Gail Thackray's personal business (spiritual healing???). The new revised post is written in the first person, by I assume Gail Thackray. I was going to just revise the article back to remove that nonsense. But, I did not want to deal with this person who will probably start an edit war. Can someone please look into this and relate what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Dos ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Rebel Wilson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wilson's birth year has long been the subject of edit wars, and previous discussions on the talk page led to the omission of a date until better sources were found. However, the issue has just picked up again. A source from The Sydney Morning Herald was recently added to the article that implies she was around 22 in 2002, making her birth year 1980. Recent SMH articles, [22] and [23], have contradicted that and placed her age at 28 in Feb 2014/Jan 2015, making her birth year 1986. I'm posting here to ask for more views on the matter. My thought is that we either say that sources exist for both years (similar to Clare Bowen perhaps), or omit the date altogether for now. - JuneGloom07 Talk 03:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | There is no right or wrong answer here so far as I can tell. Neither position seems to have a definitive advantage in either policy or consensus here. However, given that this is a BLP issue, if we are going to err it should be on the side of caution. So, I find there is no consensus here and therefore the name should be absent from the article until such time as there is a firm, clear consensus to include it. Perhaps when some time has passed the case one way or the other will be more obvious. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC) |
Should Wikipedia publish the name of the man who Emma Sulkowicz alleges raped her? He has not been convicted, nor charged with any crime and a university tribunal found him “not responsible”. He has given two public interviews, which appear to be an effort to clear his name after the Columbia Spectator (university newspaper) controversially published his name online as Sulkowicz’s alleged rapist in connection with Sulkowicz’s high profile performance art project, Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight. Talk page discussion of the issue can be found here -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 02:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose adding the name of a low-profile individual unofficially accused of rape, but neither indicted nor convicted. The name is not necessary in the article about the accuser, and we have far higher BLP standards (thankfully) than newspapers do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Support. Well sourced: NY Daily News 9 news Australia Washington Post. Subject has chosen to go public to counter the allegations; by refusing to say his name, and only categorizing him as "the accused" Wikipedia demeans his humanity. It makes Sulkowicz a person with a face and him so irrelevant his name isn't important. NE Ent 11:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
" there won't be any trial because no charges were or will be pressed"makes abbsolutly no sense. If he has not been charged then all we do is perpetuate what is essentially a wild, legally unsubstantiated accusation that has failed to clear even the minimal bar of a college tribunal not just once but on appeal as well. If later he seeks significant coverage I would reconsider. JBH ( talk) 16:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
This kid does not even rate his own article and even if he did including a rape allegation would not be supportable as things now stand. To put his name in this article would punitively and permanently identify him as an alleged rapist and is just beyond the pale of responsible editing. If there is not even enough evidence for a prosecution and adding his name does not significantly enhance the article then naming and shaming (because that is all this would be) is both WP:UNDUE and ethical wrong. JBH ( talk) 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The infobox for the Patricia Neal article lists Gary Cooper as her "partner." Cooper and Neal had an affair over a period of a year or more, while Cooper remained married. Neal and Cooper never maintained a household, and their affair was not publicly disclosed at the time. Is this an appropriate use of the "partner" infobox parameter? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Done Thank you for your input, gentlemen, and thanks for the corrective edits, Collect.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
03:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Almost one-third of this article is currently dedicated to a contemporary controversy. At present it is the epitome of recentism; a decades-long career has been reduced to a few sentences while nearly every quote and minor controversy from the past week is discussed.
The most contentious example of this is the repeated addition of a paragraph referring to Williams recalling that his hotel was overrun by gangs, and a random eyewitness saying he disagreed with the word choice. While perhaps relevant to the controversy itself, it is not nearly significant enough to be included in a biographical entry.
My personal suggestion would be the creation of an additional page dedicated solely to the controversy. This page could at least temporarily serve to include all relevant information for that current event. Then later, once the issue is no longer hot-button or immediately recent, only the most important elements could summarized and inserted into the BLP, and the controversy-dedicated page could either be deleted or kept up.
Right now the Wikipedia article reads more as a compilation of all the evidence "against" the subject than as a biographical encyclopedic entry. Wikipedia, as I understand it, is not supposed to be a debate forum nor a live-stream of controversial topics. (Baseball Pie - not signed)
Nicholas Edward Alahverdian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've never filed one of these before so my apologies if this is being over-cautions. So, with recent page protection actions in mind, please check out the recent addition to the talk page here talk:Nicholas Edward Alahverdian. I also have a question which is: what is the correct venue to resolve this recent flurry of edits regarding Mr. Alahverdian's controversial past? If those edits are backed up by reliable sources and are not libelous then should we keep removing them? — Noah 06:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Tarc ( talk) 03:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
John Anderson, 3rd Viscount Waverley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
[28] has been repeatedly added to the BLP, sourced to a primary source http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-lords-faqs/lords-leave-of-absence/ .
[29] tried adding this as a footnote:
No secondary reliable source has been furnished, and the relevance of taking a leave of absence has not been furnished. Sans a secondary source saying this of any importance I had removed it. Any other opinions? Collect ( talk) 19:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
'Leave of Absence, 1958 An attempt was made in 1958 to overcome the criticism that on major occasions 'backwoodsmen' or infrequent attenders suddenly appeared in the House and determined the result of divisions. Standing Orders were therefore amended to enable those Peers who did not wish, or were not able, to attend the House regularly to apply for leave of absence. (A Lord on leave of absence is expected not to attend sittings of the House until the leave has expired or been terminated except to take the Oath of Allegiance. At least a month's notice of intended termination is expected).' Rodolph ( talk) 22:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you please delete this article per G4? EricJ1074 ( talk) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
At the article for Sean Danielsen, his date of birth was injected with only the year coming from a student newspaper, and the day of the month coming from a primary source. Can the two edits be permanently deleted from Wikipedia? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 23:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
is it necessary to reference Joe Biden's current gaff about Neil smith being an old Butt buddy (maybe he said something else) on Neil Smiths bio. wouldn't it be more appropriate, if at all on Joe Biden's page??????????/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.2.172 ( talk) 04:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
There's an RfC on the Brian Williams talk page you might be interested in Here. Thanks, SW3 5DL ( talk) 05:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Heather Bresch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page has come up on this board a few times. I wanted to solicit for broader (and hopefully more specific) feedback here. There are some contentious topics I have or plan to add content to, but this particular section I have not seen any criticisms, controversies or debates to add and it seems to be one of the primary things she is notable for. CorporateM ( Talk) 15:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I trimmed this article down today, removing unreliable sources (including the sourcing of the subject's birth name to IMDb, no less), but my edits have been reverted with the familiar "that's OK, I know I can override BLP and OR because I put effort into this article" argument. I am honestly finding it hard to care about the bio of a retired pornstar at this point (as I do of fringe topics, barely known rappers and reality TV shows), and I'm afraid I'll overreact and use a button I shouldn't. So here it is, if someone feels they can take it on, that would be great. I'm taking it off my watchlist. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Has a lengthy list of persons with "associations to the Bush administration". Unfortunately I doubt the relevance of such a list where other organizations are not treated similarly, and the seeming aim of listing such people twice in the same article is an implication that membership and being a Bush Republican officeholder were intimately connected (i.e. making a connection in this article that the person is connected to both the Bush administration in some manner, and to PNAC is some manner but not using any source making that actual connection), which I find to be SYNTH by listing, and a violation of the WP:BLP requirements on sourcing, but my judgment has been questioned in the past and I leave it to fully uninvolved editors to comment. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 19:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
does not appear to have a basis in policy.I doubt the relevance of such a list where other organizations are not treated similarly
If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. Collect ( talk) 14:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You mention you are concerned with listing the names twice. This can be addresses by coming up with a way to present the initial member list and note the individual's position within the Administration. This might require some reformatting but it would do a couple of things to reduce the UNDUE:
JBH ( talk) 15:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Problems: "Sourcewatch" is a Wiki. Wikis are not reliable sources. "History Commons" (presented as a source on the talk page) is a Wiki. Wikis are not reliable sources. The last source on the talk page presented is a book issued by
Lulu.com. Lulu.com is a SPS press, and is not recognized as a publisher of reliable sources. With no reliable sources being presented, how do you propose we allow the SYNTH table? Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
15:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@
Jbhunley: I think that the following two quotes from the essayspolicies you linked to should suffice to refute the claim of SYNTH. In fact, the tapoic of the table itself is probably
notable enough for an independent article.
Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia. For example, multiple secondary sources are usually required before the notability of a subject is established.
If your understanding of SYNTH includes all instances of reading a table, because reading a table requires "synthesizing" the entry in the table with the label of what the table is, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong.
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Earlier I asked you - "Are you saying that none of these:... were PNAC signatories or they were not members of the Bush administration? Or are you saying that no source says they were both in the same source? Or are you [saying] no source says that it was important that a lot of PNAC Signatories were members of the Administration."
. You did not respond. Please give me a concrete example of what it is you consider SYNTH here. I really want to understand your position. What are A, B and C in this dispute?
If the only issue you have is no source that mentions these people by name, their association with PNAC and their influence on policy, here is one:
If either of can not access it you can email me and I will send it to you. Cheers. JBH ( talk) 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Mistaking hegemony for empire:Neoconservatives, the Bush doctrine, and the Democratic empire., David Grodin - International Journal, Vol. 61, No. 1 Turkey: Myths and Realties (Winter, 2005/2006) pp. 227-241 JSTOR stable link.
I asked you for what you specifically think is SYNTH. Fine Sourcewatch is a wiki. So we do not use it. What, precisely, do you consider to be SYNTH in this situation? What information do you want the sources to include so it will not, in your opinion be SYNTH? This is the locus of the dispute if it is not addressed then we are merely spinning our wheels. JBH ( talk) 23:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Myself and @ GoldenBoy25: have added a direct in-line citation to this NBA player's career stats table, which have been removed by @ Bagumba: and @ Bossanoven:. For me the fact he is an NBA player is irrelevant; first and foremost he is a WP:BLP and so the info should be directly cited wherever possible per WP:V. Thoughts? Giant Snowman 10:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
BLP is policy (inline citations blah blah), wikiprojects preferences are at best, vague guidelines. However sticking an inline citation in a stats table does look odd, is there any reason the table itself cant have a citation/ref/note elsewhere in the article? I doubt the material is contentious enough to require inline citations. Otherwise following that route we should cite every single stat on sports article tables. And that would make us all look stupid. If the material itself is not a BLP violation, arguing over how its displayed is really not a matter for this board. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a couple BLP issues here I'd like to raise with Playmate articles like this one.
1) For statistical information about Playboy Playmates, Wikipedia articles largely rely on a website called wekinglypigs.com (NSFW). That site appears to be a private individual's copy-and-paste mirror of Playmate data originally published by Playboy (NSFW). I raised an issue with wekinglypigs.com at WP:RSN, and received a response that wekinglypigs.com fails WP:BLPSPS and should not be used in BLPs. I agree, but would like others to verify this before any changes are made.
2) Playmate data reported by Playboy -- in fact any statements about these models from Playboy itself -- has its own host of problems. As a primary issue, all human bodies change over time, so Wikipedia's reporting living Playmates' measurements as current seems problematic. Looking "bigger picture," Playmates are essentially models / entertainers hired by Playboy to play a certain role, and to have a certain appearance. Playboy is well known for airbrushing photos, and Playmates sometimes use fictional names in the magazine. In the magazine and in their public appearances related to being Playmates, they're basically on the job. Yet for most of these models, their Playboy personas -- and the data Playboy has chosen to report about them -- form the primary basis for their Wikipedia biographies. This practice is a bit like basing Jerry Seinfeld's biography on the alternate version of himself that he played on his television show -- something we thankfully don't normally do.
I have ideas on how to address these issues in mind, but before I suggest those, I want to make sure these are actually issues. If these actually aren't problems, obviously there is no need to suggest solutions. What say you? Townlake ( talk) 18:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Dengyan San was created today and has already had scurrilous material added. [30] I'm not sure of the subject's notability or whether any policies on young people apply (according to the article, she is aged 16 or 17, and so has reached the UK age of majority). Can someone familiar with BLP policy take a look? NebY ( talk) 22:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Anwar Ibrahim is a prominent Malaysian politician currently linked from the Main Page. His biography contains a lengthy section Anwar Ibrahim#Hidden sex tape allegation. I consider it inappropriate. Another editor has twice reverted my removal on it. Other opinions would be appreciated at Talk:Anwar Ibrahim. Thank you. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 04:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Victor Krylov ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am having a hard time with IPs failing to assume good faith and now turning to nasty comments over contentious edits at Victor Krylov. This article (which was previously featured here) does not see much activity. Could additional editors please keep an eye on what happens there and weigh in occasionally? Thank you. Ariadacapo ( talk) 18:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The picture that was used for him is not actually him. When you go onto the actual page there is no longer a picture of him. It needs to be updated and added to this page.
Roland Williams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.190.170 ( talk) 21:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
A significant number of edits seem intent on connecting Harris to Jewish "tribalism" (noting that he has not self-identified as Jewish or of belonging to a "tribe") and including lengthy quotes thereon. Once we establish that he rather does not like religions, we have said what there is to say. When we add quotes from strongly opinionated people, we turn the BLP into a debating society match and not into a biography worthy of an encyclopedia, and where the opinions verge on unacceptable levels about a person, I rather suggest WP:BLPCAT and WP:BLP are being abused. I ask others to examine the nature of the quotes and tenor of the BLP please. Collect ( talk) 05:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
and it followed a quote by HarrisTheodore Sayeed also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state." [31]
The Mondoweiss article is from 2012, while Harris' "tribalism" remark dates to 2006. Sayeed's tribalism remark was likely made partially in response to Harris' tribalism remark. There is no rule on Wikipedia against referring to Jews as tribal, incidentally, as Collect asserted in his edit summary. The only assertion that this thread has to make is related to whether Wikipedia can categorize Harris as a Jew. Harris had been categorized as a Jew four times over before Collect removed those with this edit earlier today. This thread seems to be based upon a rationale that since Harris is not categorized as a Jew, nobody else quoted in the article can refer to him as a Jew. That seems like pretty flimsy logic to me, but it may work on Wikipedia. I think that the quote by Sayeed is not tantamount to Wikipedia categorizing Harris, and it is mentioned in the article that Harris' mother is Jewish, etc.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism.
Where an editor has edit warred to describe a person as "Jewish" who has not so self-identified, and edit warred to include an accusation that he is Jewish with "tribal" sympathies, then it seems that WP:BLPCAT is being deliberately violated.
Seems pretty clear. And, by the way, it is up to those who wish to label folks to find a source - not up to others to prove that there is no source. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I do, however, agree with Collect that this quote should not be in the article. Theodore Sayeed's opinion is UNDUE. Harris is known for his criticism of religion whether he has some 'hidden Jewishness' or something as Sayeed implies seems irrelevant to the discussion of Harris's work and views. JBH ( talk) 19:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
One possible reason that no one has latched on to this issue is that tribalism, both religious and ethnic, is a massive problem when dealing with the Islamic world, (Not to say tribalism is not an issue for others as well just that it is a recognized and large problem in the Islamic world.) in reform, nation building or even having a common basis for discussion amongst the parties. This is not to say I agree with what Harris says or how he says it in general. I only point out that stripped of its bigotry the issue he raises is one that is not adequately addressed simply by someone saying essentially 'yes, but he is a Jew and supports other Jews' and that is possibly why others have not addressed it. If other authors bring up the tribalism issue specifically and centrally in their critique of Harris it might be worth putting in. Right now it seems to just be piling on. If you think there is some particular reason the tribalism quote is of special note that I missed please let me know though.
PS Pretty much the whole world has issues with tribalism. The Islamic world is in a particular mess because of the effects of the break-up of the Ottoman Empire and decolonization. When you combine that with the obligations of ethnicity, tribe, clan, family and the religious differences/obligations of denomination/sect/fiqh/tariqah and the possible combinations thereof you end up with a nightmare of social conflicts impossible for an external actor to manage. The most that can be said is that Jewish tribalism is also a problem in the protracted social conflict in the Muslim world but that would be for an article on Tribalism in Relation to Middle East PSCs. There are much better sources on that than Harris and Sayeed if you want to write about that. Note this is OR/personal knowledge but it is what informs my editorial judgement in this situation. JBH ( talk) 21:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the final sentence of this article referring to Stefan's sisters allegations: It seems irrelevant to the actor's actual career points include this speculative information, regardless of validity, and carries the implication that the article's writer may have a vendetta of sorts against him. As such, the printed view is inappropriate, damages Wikipedia's credibility and reminds of me why I choose not to support the site monetarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.109.18 ( talk) 19:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia editors,
I made some additions to the biography entry on Nat Shapiro about a week ago. I checked the entry today and all of my additions were removed.
My wish was to expand on the information currently provided to aid researchers into the history of American popular music in the 20th century. Everything I wrote was documented in papers I donated to the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts about a year and a half ago, or in one case only was based on meetings at which I was present.
If there is some problem with the edits I made that I can correct so that this information can once again be available to Wikipedia readers, please let me know.
Thank you,
Amy Louise Pommier (formerly Amy Louise Shapiro) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.218.206 ( talk) 20:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The Peter Ruckman article is about a living person. User:John Foxe has repeatedly added libelous and fringe material (after being warned it was in violation of BLP on his page and the article 2X) from a web blog whose intention is to flame Peter Ruckman. It is in clear violation of reliable sourcing yet it seems John Foxe has demonstrated ownership WP:OWN of the article with the purpose of flaming the living person with ridiculous claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Peter_Ruckman&diff=647449198&oldid=647448247 John Foxe has been arguing with other editors for since 2006 on the articles talk page in his attempt to add sordid unreliable claims about this BLP and has been warned about edit warring and adding unreliable information since then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Ruckman#Please_follow_Wikipedia_rules 208.54.39.193 editor John Foxe clearly has an axe to grind with Peter Ruckman and should be banned from further editing concerning this article and possibly a few others from a review of his contributions. ( talk) 21:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
For context I add that Foxe is a patient and consistent editor. For example, in 2012 he agreed to a WP:1RR (link to his agreement) in order to end a 1 month block. Then 1 year and 2 weeks later he requested a of the ban. He has a consistent history of being reported on the 3RR noticeboard, and even recently reverted a benign edit demonstrating that he still has trouble with WP:OWNership of articles. By patient and consistent, I mean that he has been here a long time, has consistently advocated for specific positions, and is patient, willing to wait out other editors and occasional blocks in order to promote his POV into the articles he's edited. Vertrag ( talk) 00:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (PS account used for legitimate sock purposes (privacy))
Need help/ advice how to edit page Sex Scandal Sizemore.
The correct page title should read "The Tom Sizemore Sex Scandal" which is the title of the sex tape/video. Don't know how to change. Also...listed references need to be brought under correct heading. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Dos ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Just a few more eyes on this one, only has four watchers. Systemic vandalism and BLP vios dating from last year by an SPA, reported to OTRS. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Lana Tisdel has been changed from a redirect to an article. I'm not sure that she is notable per WP:BLP1E, but my larger concern is the addition of poorly sourced private content such as a birth date sourced from mylife.com. A few more eyes would be appreciated.- Mr X 20:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a follow-up to the prior unresolved discussion but there's still more discussions about the listing of "unverified" supercentenarians. See also the 2014 deaths page (which with the 2015 page moves into problematic BLP issues as these people may in fact be alive). These are people in which no reliable source has actually verified their listing. The reliable source that is offered (GRG) has explicitly not verified their listing, only listing them as "pending" verification. The only purpose I can see to including them is so that people can copy the entire GRG table in case someone later becomes verified. This is pure WP:CRYSTAL speculation, there is no end time when these people would be removed. I find List of supercentenarians who died before 1980 to be the worst example of this: this includes people who may have died at 110 years old over 35 years ago. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Fiona Graham ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'd like to request that user DAJF be banned from editing the Fiona Graham page as I noticed he has a personal agenda. In August 2011 it was decided that Fiona's age would be removed and he was part of the discussion on the archived talk page therefore it should never have been brought up again in 2015 unless the 400 year old Geisha association decides it's acceptable to display a Geisha's age.
Upon further review I noticed he has made 102 edits in the past 5 years and almost all of his edits have been negative while reverting any positive content posted on the page. These 102 edits make him by far the top contributor accounting for 34.7% of the total text on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris514 ( talk • contribs) 13:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If it's already been discussed on the talk page in 2011 and removed in 2011, on what basis should it be added again now, in 2015? Nothing has changed since then and the user was part of the discussion in 2011 therefore he cannot claim he didn't know. Boris514 ( talk) 13:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I hate to be the spoilsport here but given the history of the article in question any visit it makes to BLP/N requires extra scrutiny. And indeed I see that User:Boris514 has a very strange contribution history: a bunch of ext links to the same website nine months back, and then an article created out of nowhere, and then finally a dive headlong into the Graham article, with an edit remark which seems to indicate that he has a longstanding interest in the matter. Whatever problem there is with User:DAJF's edits in this case, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that B514 is an account created and held in reserve for such an eventuality as this. Mangoe ( talk) 03:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
So "Category:Year of birth missing (living people)" is the correct one. What source has an approximation of her age? Is this a standing "Category:Age controversies". The year of her birth should be in the article, and if reliable sources disagree we have wording for that. There is a rule about not publishing a "date of birth" for non notable people because it used for identity theft. If she isn't notable, she doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Actresses don't like their year of birth published either, but this is a reference work, not their press agent propaganda. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 07:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
There are incorrect, potentially damaging and libelous, entries in the Concetta Antico Wiki regarding the scientists and scientific details and findings quoted. Content of the Wiki has been modified to reflect the corrections (also shown in the script pasted below).
If these changes are not approved and retained the university will likely request the page be purged from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.70.129 ( talk • contribs)
Good day,
Been trying to get to speak to a human at Wikipedia. The reason why I removed the content of that wiki page is because (all my attempts) of deleting the page (even editing), have proven impossible. This page was created by me and it is my wife (Jade [married name]). Her prior modelling past upon searching in Google for her new name links to this Wikipedia page (Jade Fairbrother)? How can we remove the 'jade [married name]' reference to this page? I can't see how or where its referenced for google to point it to 'jade fairbrother' article. There is no text of Jade [married name] included in the article, yet if you search Google for 'Jade [married name]' in google, first search hit is the wikipedia page. At one stage in previous reiterations of the page, she included her new full name, but the page no longer does. So this has impacted her professional finance career (as she's retired from modelling and has changed her maiden surname).
Please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benigma55416 ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear all,
I am new to wikipedia and having problems editing the biography page for this new individual. I am reaching out in an attempt to seek help adhering to wikipedia's guidelines as well as to be able to clean up the current page and have it correctly filled out. The referencing links I previously inserted have been removed and I would like to see if I could get some help inserting them correctly so as to not leave the page without sources.
Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reader65 ( talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
This pages keeps being vandalised with references to Warwick's LGBT lifestyle repeatedly being deleted and references deleted.
Warwick is a prominent member of the Sydney LGBT community and he appears in many other LGBT lists on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.54.11 ( talk) 09:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Article Ajay Goyal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) includes subjective information, including opinions seemingly provided by the subject of the article.
2nd citation at bottom of 'article'/page is a link to some obit from Ocoee, FL. Not sure if some joker kid was having a bit of fun. Othersie, don't see the relevancy.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.35.207 ( talk) 01:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Repeated blanking and deletion of content by multiple users which appear to be same editor User:Wikidirt and User:PageOneEditor. Have previously posted to talk page about blanking and deletions by this and apparently same anon IP editors (all appear to be the same person. CinagroErunam ( talk) 05:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
via arbitration enforcement-- Ymblanter ( talk) 16:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Two different dates of birth on the article. Main text says August 2, 1991 and right-hand fact box says February 8, 1991. Am led to believe the February date is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.59.1 ( talk) 05:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Howard Stableford Two libelous revision were made on February 17th. I would like them removed please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlstable ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
104.237.54.139 and 180.150.134.149, probably the same person, posted on the village pump their concerns that the article is strongly biased against the person named. Here is the original post:
"Somaly Mam is a former child prostitute from Cambodia. Until 2013 she was heralded internationally as a heroine and advocate, saving thousands of children. Then there was a Newsweek article The Holy Saint (and Sinner) of Sex Trafficking claiming to find holes in her original story [4]. For a normal politician such articles are part of the cut and thrust, but Somaly Mam quietly resigned from all her positions, she said to protect the organisation she founded from ongoing attention. Marie Claire magazine published a piece Somaly Mam's Story: "I didn't lie" , strongly challenging the evidence provided by Newsweek. [5]. The US State Department reports, sex trafficking and underage prostitution is rife across Cambodia. Believe what you like about the details, it is highly unlikely that Somaly Mam's original story is a total and/or proven fabrication.
"Nevertheless, the wikipedia article on Somaly Mam is strongly biased against Somaly Mam. It's conclusions are far more definitive and condemning than Newsweek, saying "sex trafficking and abuse claims were disproved" and "she pretended to be a nurse". It provides details of a internal report which sofar has not been publicly disclosed. Her success in advocacy is underplayed. Each section of this article is entirely biased against Somaly Mam. Marie Claire is mentioned, but not the independent investigation that alleged Newsweek undertook poor journalistic practices and false claims.
"Although it is possible that editors are following Newsweek's lead, is there is a chance that sex tourists who visit Cambodia go on to edit this page? Yes, we deal with biases and lobbying everyday, but pedophilia is not just an opinion. It's not about one person's reputation. Pedophilia networks use the internet to lure children and hide their tracks. Wikipedia cannot be used as part of this. Not only should the article be cleaned up, we should follow the edits of those who put the page in this state. There may be other damage being done. How can we afford to not check this out? 104.237.54.139 (talk) 12:12 am, Today (UTC−8)"
I'm posting on this editor's behalf, I have no opinion on this subject. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 15:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute over on the Laura Poitras article over the inclusion of an account of her filming an ambush on the ONG. The material in question comes from John Bruning's The Devil's Sandbox: With the 2nd Battalion, 162nd Infantry at War in Iraq and details the incident in which Poitras was involved in while filming her documentary "My Countr, my country". This material has been reported on in other WP:RS with additional material (interviews with all the involved parties sans Poitras) in the Weekly Standard. Additionally, Potras has had additional DHS scrutiny when she travels into and out of the US and George Packer fingers this incident as the reason for the additional scrutiny. [38]. It has been argued that any inclusion of this material is a BLP violation. Any outside opinions are welcomed. WeldNeck ( talk) 01:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Should the "hidden sex tape" section in this permalink be retained? Please see Talk:Anwar Ibrahim#RfC. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I am tired of this, but currently at least two users are edit-warring to add information that Erdogan is of Georgian origin and add the article to the corresponding category. In fact, Erdogan once said that he is of Georgian origin, and once more said he is not. (This info is in the article and has been there for ages). There is no independent confirmation of the fact. I would appreciate if someone else takes a look.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 13:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
To Whom this may concern,
My son Sgt. Jerome C. Bell Jr. USMC was KIA 8/19/2008 Afghanistan
We have learned his name is not listed under the State of NEW YORK.
I checked the list it is not under New York
His information is listed under "Auburn" as his state. New York is listed as his city. **It is reversed.**
His family has missed out on a lot. Due to this error. I finally found out. By a special run that is being set up For June. In New York Honor run for our heroes. I heard about from another Gold Star Mother. When I checked it out my son was not listed. They had told me he is not listed in This Casualties.org Which he is listed but not under New York
Can someone please correct the error. Thank you, Mother of a Fallen Hero Tammy Bell — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGSM2008 ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
How on earth did this and this slip unnoticed in a BLP article for seven weeks? — George8211 / T 22:08, 21 February 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. |
Joe Klein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May well be Jewish, but is nndb.com a reliable source for labelling and categorizing him as one? [1], [2] are the edits at issue. Collect ( talk) 12:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Listen, people can vote whichever way they want, for whatever reason they want. I just don't want to see policy makers who make decisions on the basis of whether American policy will benefit Israel or not. In some cases, you want to provide protection for Israel certainly, but you don't want to go to war with Iran. When Jennifer Rubin or Abe Foxman calls me antisemitic, they're wrong. I am anti-neoconservative. I think these people are following very perversely extremist policies and I really did believe that it was time for mainstream Jews to stand up and say, "They don't represent us, they don't represent Israel." [3]
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Same problem:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-postel/israelpolitik-the-neocons_b_6585506.html now added to the
http://www.nndb.com/people/408/000044276/ "source.
Is the HuffPo sentence:
Sufficient here to state in Wikipedia's voice that Klein is Jewish? If not - will someone tell the editor not to continuously and repeatedly re-add such claims into BLPs. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 13:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@ MrX: I don't know whether the characterization belongs in the lead or whatnot as I don't work on BLPs very often, but it isn't even mentioned in the article despite the high-profile he's received in media coverage of the debate. I don't have time to sort out a text for the article.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Note:
[5] is not even remotely acceptable under
WP:BLPCAT and I find the continued insistence to label a person a JEW in Wikipedia's voice without clear self-identification is distasteful.
Collect (
talk)
14:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLPCAT:Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. is Wikipedia policy.
Collect (
talk)
14:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
For the record, here is another quote from the Atlantic interview
JG: You seem very angry at people who you specifically identify as Jewish neocons. And you're using the word "Jewish" in ways that we haven't seen Jewish reporters and Jewish columnists use.
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
This piece, the underlined statement in particular, includes another candidate for "specific and non-ambiguous self-identification"
I have now been called antisemitic and intellectually unstable and a whole bunch of other silly things by the folks over at the Commentary blog. They want Time Magazine to fire or silence me. This is happening because I said something that is palpably true, but unspoken in polite society: There is a small group of Jewish neoconservatives who...Happily, these people represent a very small sliver of the Jewish population in this country...I remain proud of my Jewish heritage, a strong supporter of Israel and a realist about the slim chance of finding some common ground with the Iranians. But I am not willing to grant these ideologues the anonymity they seek. When Extremists Attack
Note that it is also quoted in the HP article linked to above On Joe Klein and the Jewish Neoconservatives. (Ubikwit unsigned)
Nope. Klein does not say he follows the Jewish religion and the edits which do not have self-identification behind them are a direct violation of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
"Over 5000 years of history, we Jews have demonstrated a remarkable talent for survival, the promulgation of morality and justice, tolerance of others, terrible cuisine and an almost protozoan genius for subdividing ourselves."
— Joe Kein - Time (emphasis added)
"Where I come from–the outer boroughs of New York City–Jews were known for, and entertained ourselves by, arguing about everything. Nothing was ever off the table.""
— Joe Kein - Time (emphasis added)
Per the Austrian article referenced (#5), Heimo resigned, a mutual agreement, not a sacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.25.29 ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Poorly sourced article (only one publication by a religious organisation is listed). Other for being "recognized" as a tulku (re-incarnate lama), which hundreds of people are, I don't see how this person meets notability criteria. Should it be deleted? Chris Fynn ( talk) 10:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
This article states that the first time Sobraj was jailed was in 1993 in Paris. This is clearly inaccurate; if I remember Thomas Thompson's book 'Serpentine' correctly, his first arrest and imprisonment in Poissy Prison was 1963. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.94.36 ( talk) 02:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
IP address 171.99.139.55 is adding personal life material that is only sourced to a tabloid newspaper. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 09:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd really like some help with this issue. Thanks -- Dweller ( talk) 13:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
An editor is removing a cited claim that this person is the great grandnephew of a former President on the basis that VVS Laxman told him he's not the grandson of any President. Ignoring the error (nephew/son) to what extent does a purported conversation between a BLP subject and a Wikipedian trump WP:V? I looked in our self-published guidelines, but there's nothing about conversations. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Zoe Sugg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would like to have Zoe Sugg removed please.I am Zoe Elizabeth Sugg and I do not wish to have a wiki page on me please.I did not give permission to have it up and some of the articles are rather false.Please remove me from Wikipedia as I am stopping all vlogging and blogging and wish to remove my "fame" off here.I hope I can type zoe sugg in and not see a link to wikipedia.Thank you,Zoe Elizabeth Sugg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoella17 ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"Fun Facts About Mekenna Melvin From Chuck". Girl2Watch.com. Retrieved November 2, 2010.
This is listed as a source in the article... however the link leads to a malicious phishing site... please ensure its removal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.183.130 ( talk)
You will see the comment on the Talk:Nigel Thrift page relating to Nigel Thrift which is basically a gratuitous insult and a threat to kill. As you will see I am connected to the subject so I do not wish to alter it myself but could I ask for someone to look at it and remove it please. Equally it may be the case that this poster could be involved in the recent additions to the page which could be seen to as part of a campaign against the individual rather than furthering the objectives of Wikipedia. Therefore could I ask someone more neutral in these matters to look at that content and see if it should be altered in any way in terms of tone, content and context and to keep an eye out any gratuitous reverts to any amendments that are then made if they are thought appropriate. Peter J Dunn ( talk) 10:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Peter J Dunn ( talk) 11:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Thank you Nomoskedasticity
Looking here, most of the people in this category are not reliably sourced as "anti-vaccination activists" in reliable sources -- one person got in there for a single TV assignment as a correspondent , another in there for questioning the famous "swine flu vaccine" affair, etc. In short -- this category is riddled with bad entries, and all entries there should be vetted, as categories intrinsically make claims of fact in Wikipedia's voice that the people fall into that "contentious claim" area. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh and one is in there for questioning the use of smallpox vaccines (because of complications observed) in his articles in peer-reviewed journals after smallpox was basically defunct in Europe in the 1970s. Collect ( talk) 13:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
There certainly seems to be truth in the case that this category is being misused and several editors have been reinserting it on Robert Sears who supports vaccinations. Apparently "Anti-vaccination activists" applies to vaccination supporters who disagree with CDC vaccination scheduling. Certainly seems like an improper label without context. I find NeilN's comparison to holocaust deniers to be horrifying. NeilN then restored the contentious label during the talk page discussion. This is a BLP issue and I believe the tag should be removed given the additional and now separate BLPN issue. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 19:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that it would be helpful to have a proper consensus building discussion (as in well defined parameters for weighing the opinions about policy) either at Cfd and/or a RFC on the article talk page. Right now there seems to be a rush to revert changes right away instead of working toward a true consensus that can stand the test of time. In my experience, most people can live with a decision, even if they disagree with it, if the points of view are examined and weighed and an impartial person closes the discussion. I will suggest this on the article talk page, too. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 00:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no current CfD, so this is the only discussion venue right now. I would suggest,moreover:
Being opposed to specific vaccines (one entry in the category was apparently placed there because he doubted the need to continue the smallpox vaccine in the 1970's in Europe - Gerhard Buchwald now deceased) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is there without any rational basis in sources. Jenny McCarthy who specifically denies the label. David Icke unsourced. And so on. Collect ( talk) 13:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Has a paragraph on the release of his emails.
Is
UNDUE in that section? (It has been removed as UNDUE and "redundant")? Is it reliably sourced? Is it a POV edit? (latest assertion)? Collect ( talk) 00:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
References
Can we depersonalize this and get back to the main issue? As I understand the original query, there are three points:
Taking them in turn: (1) I agree that this is something to be hashed out on the article talk page. In the broad sweep of things it may not be that important to Mr. Bush's biography. But I'm not an expert on Mr. Bush. (2) Clearly yes. The CSM is a highly respected news venue. The reporter is an intern and as such is likely under more editorial scrutiny that the average reporter. (3) It seems like a simple fact, and is not inherently POV.
I haven't looked at the talk page but this doesn't seem like such a big a deal. It's not like Mr. Bush is being accused of doing anything unethical or his record is being distorted. It's simply a WEIGHT issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the sources, and am I right that you would only see the disclaimer if you first got an e-mail from Bush? If so, then someone sending his Social Security number saying 'Mr. Bush help me get my SS check' would not have seen the disclaimer, and so the proposed addition seems misleading (given the issue is disclosure of sensitive personal info), so under a strict reading of BLP that particular proposal should not go in. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 00:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: The editor insists the statement is not neutral and tagged the entire section as POV - so had to post at WP:NPOV/N as well to cover the cavils. Cheers and apologies. Collect ( talk) 01:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
This is about living people in images, not in text. At age disparity in sexual relationships an anonymous IP address keeps adding public domain images of couples. They were previously banned for a few days over the issue of ignoring consensus of the page imagery. I have reversed them, but the page needs to be monitored. The images are tagged for personality rights and by adding them to the article for decoration we are violating their personality rights by imputing that they have a sexual relationship and guessing at their age and suggesting that there is a substantial age difference between them. The consensus has been to stick to public domain art which avoids violating personality rights in a sexual article. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I seem to have stumbled across a possible BLP issue while going through recent changes, in the article on Asaduddin Owaisi. I initially noticed this edit [21], and reverted it after looking through the sources and finding no support for what sees to be quite a contentious claim. Since then, the claim has been re-added and removed several times. I was hoping for some extra eyes on the claim, or on the page. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ( TALK) 19:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
All her notability seems to stem from an alleged relationship with Michael Phelps. Candidate for WP:BLP1E? -- NeilN talk to me 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
From 12/23/2014 till 2/10/2015 I have been researching and adding information to the "Gail Harris'/Gail Thackray page.Knowing it's a biography I was especially careful to fully cite all with references and links. All statements are cited. On 2/11/2015 User Wdbsami revised article, removing all pertinent biographical information and all of the many referenced links to her involvement in Adult Entertainment and Porn and then inserted what I believe reads as a sales advertisement promoting Gail Thackray's personal business (spiritual healing???). The new revised post is written in the first person, by I assume Gail Thackray. I was going to just revise the article back to remove that nonsense. But, I did not want to deal with this person who will probably start an edit war. Can someone please look into this and relate what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Dos ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Rebel Wilson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wilson's birth year has long been the subject of edit wars, and previous discussions on the talk page led to the omission of a date until better sources were found. However, the issue has just picked up again. A source from The Sydney Morning Herald was recently added to the article that implies she was around 22 in 2002, making her birth year 1980. Recent SMH articles, [22] and [23], have contradicted that and placed her age at 28 in Feb 2014/Jan 2015, making her birth year 1986. I'm posting here to ask for more views on the matter. My thought is that we either say that sources exist for both years (similar to Clare Bowen perhaps), or omit the date altogether for now. - JuneGloom07 Talk 03:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | There is no right or wrong answer here so far as I can tell. Neither position seems to have a definitive advantage in either policy or consensus here. However, given that this is a BLP issue, if we are going to err it should be on the side of caution. So, I find there is no consensus here and therefore the name should be absent from the article until such time as there is a firm, clear consensus to include it. Perhaps when some time has passed the case one way or the other will be more obvious. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC) |
Should Wikipedia publish the name of the man who Emma Sulkowicz alleges raped her? He has not been convicted, nor charged with any crime and a university tribunal found him “not responsible”. He has given two public interviews, which appear to be an effort to clear his name after the Columbia Spectator (university newspaper) controversially published his name online as Sulkowicz’s alleged rapist in connection with Sulkowicz’s high profile performance art project, Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight. Talk page discussion of the issue can be found here -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 02:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose adding the name of a low-profile individual unofficially accused of rape, but neither indicted nor convicted. The name is not necessary in the article about the accuser, and we have far higher BLP standards (thankfully) than newspapers do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Support. Well sourced: NY Daily News 9 news Australia Washington Post. Subject has chosen to go public to counter the allegations; by refusing to say his name, and only categorizing him as "the accused" Wikipedia demeans his humanity. It makes Sulkowicz a person with a face and him so irrelevant his name isn't important. NE Ent 11:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
" there won't be any trial because no charges were or will be pressed"makes abbsolutly no sense. If he has not been charged then all we do is perpetuate what is essentially a wild, legally unsubstantiated accusation that has failed to clear even the minimal bar of a college tribunal not just once but on appeal as well. If later he seeks significant coverage I would reconsider. JBH ( talk) 16:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
This kid does not even rate his own article and even if he did including a rape allegation would not be supportable as things now stand. To put his name in this article would punitively and permanently identify him as an alleged rapist and is just beyond the pale of responsible editing. If there is not even enough evidence for a prosecution and adding his name does not significantly enhance the article then naming and shaming (because that is all this would be) is both WP:UNDUE and ethical wrong. JBH ( talk) 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The infobox for the Patricia Neal article lists Gary Cooper as her "partner." Cooper and Neal had an affair over a period of a year or more, while Cooper remained married. Neal and Cooper never maintained a household, and their affair was not publicly disclosed at the time. Is this an appropriate use of the "partner" infobox parameter? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Done Thank you for your input, gentlemen, and thanks for the corrective edits, Collect.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
03:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Almost one-third of this article is currently dedicated to a contemporary controversy. At present it is the epitome of recentism; a decades-long career has been reduced to a few sentences while nearly every quote and minor controversy from the past week is discussed.
The most contentious example of this is the repeated addition of a paragraph referring to Williams recalling that his hotel was overrun by gangs, and a random eyewitness saying he disagreed with the word choice. While perhaps relevant to the controversy itself, it is not nearly significant enough to be included in a biographical entry.
My personal suggestion would be the creation of an additional page dedicated solely to the controversy. This page could at least temporarily serve to include all relevant information for that current event. Then later, once the issue is no longer hot-button or immediately recent, only the most important elements could summarized and inserted into the BLP, and the controversy-dedicated page could either be deleted or kept up.
Right now the Wikipedia article reads more as a compilation of all the evidence "against" the subject than as a biographical encyclopedic entry. Wikipedia, as I understand it, is not supposed to be a debate forum nor a live-stream of controversial topics. (Baseball Pie - not signed)
Nicholas Edward Alahverdian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've never filed one of these before so my apologies if this is being over-cautions. So, with recent page protection actions in mind, please check out the recent addition to the talk page here talk:Nicholas Edward Alahverdian. I also have a question which is: what is the correct venue to resolve this recent flurry of edits regarding Mr. Alahverdian's controversial past? If those edits are backed up by reliable sources and are not libelous then should we keep removing them? — Noah 06:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Tarc ( talk) 03:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
John Anderson, 3rd Viscount Waverley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
[28] has been repeatedly added to the BLP, sourced to a primary source http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-lords-faqs/lords-leave-of-absence/ .
[29] tried adding this as a footnote:
No secondary reliable source has been furnished, and the relevance of taking a leave of absence has not been furnished. Sans a secondary source saying this of any importance I had removed it. Any other opinions? Collect ( talk) 19:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
'Leave of Absence, 1958 An attempt was made in 1958 to overcome the criticism that on major occasions 'backwoodsmen' or infrequent attenders suddenly appeared in the House and determined the result of divisions. Standing Orders were therefore amended to enable those Peers who did not wish, or were not able, to attend the House regularly to apply for leave of absence. (A Lord on leave of absence is expected not to attend sittings of the House until the leave has expired or been terminated except to take the Oath of Allegiance. At least a month's notice of intended termination is expected).' Rodolph ( talk) 22:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you please delete this article per G4? EricJ1074 ( talk) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
At the article for Sean Danielsen, his date of birth was injected with only the year coming from a student newspaper, and the day of the month coming from a primary source. Can the two edits be permanently deleted from Wikipedia? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 23:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
is it necessary to reference Joe Biden's current gaff about Neil smith being an old Butt buddy (maybe he said something else) on Neil Smiths bio. wouldn't it be more appropriate, if at all on Joe Biden's page??????????/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.2.172 ( talk) 04:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
There's an RfC on the Brian Williams talk page you might be interested in Here. Thanks, SW3 5DL ( talk) 05:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Heather Bresch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page has come up on this board a few times. I wanted to solicit for broader (and hopefully more specific) feedback here. There are some contentious topics I have or plan to add content to, but this particular section I have not seen any criticisms, controversies or debates to add and it seems to be one of the primary things she is notable for. CorporateM ( Talk) 15:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I trimmed this article down today, removing unreliable sources (including the sourcing of the subject's birth name to IMDb, no less), but my edits have been reverted with the familiar "that's OK, I know I can override BLP and OR because I put effort into this article" argument. I am honestly finding it hard to care about the bio of a retired pornstar at this point (as I do of fringe topics, barely known rappers and reality TV shows), and I'm afraid I'll overreact and use a button I shouldn't. So here it is, if someone feels they can take it on, that would be great. I'm taking it off my watchlist. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Has a lengthy list of persons with "associations to the Bush administration". Unfortunately I doubt the relevance of such a list where other organizations are not treated similarly, and the seeming aim of listing such people twice in the same article is an implication that membership and being a Bush Republican officeholder were intimately connected (i.e. making a connection in this article that the person is connected to both the Bush administration in some manner, and to PNAC is some manner but not using any source making that actual connection), which I find to be SYNTH by listing, and a violation of the WP:BLP requirements on sourcing, but my judgment has been questioned in the past and I leave it to fully uninvolved editors to comment. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 19:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
does not appear to have a basis in policy.I doubt the relevance of such a list where other organizations are not treated similarly
If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. Collect ( talk) 14:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You mention you are concerned with listing the names twice. This can be addresses by coming up with a way to present the initial member list and note the individual's position within the Administration. This might require some reformatting but it would do a couple of things to reduce the UNDUE:
JBH ( talk) 15:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Problems: "Sourcewatch" is a Wiki. Wikis are not reliable sources. "History Commons" (presented as a source on the talk page) is a Wiki. Wikis are not reliable sources. The last source on the talk page presented is a book issued by
Lulu.com. Lulu.com is a SPS press, and is not recognized as a publisher of reliable sources. With no reliable sources being presented, how do you propose we allow the SYNTH table? Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
15:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@
Jbhunley: I think that the following two quotes from the essayspolicies you linked to should suffice to refute the claim of SYNTH. In fact, the tapoic of the table itself is probably
notable enough for an independent article.
Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia. For example, multiple secondary sources are usually required before the notability of a subject is established.
If your understanding of SYNTH includes all instances of reading a table, because reading a table requires "synthesizing" the entry in the table with the label of what the table is, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong.
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Earlier I asked you - "Are you saying that none of these:... were PNAC signatories or they were not members of the Bush administration? Or are you saying that no source says they were both in the same source? Or are you [saying] no source says that it was important that a lot of PNAC Signatories were members of the Administration."
. You did not respond. Please give me a concrete example of what it is you consider SYNTH here. I really want to understand your position. What are A, B and C in this dispute?
If the only issue you have is no source that mentions these people by name, their association with PNAC and their influence on policy, here is one:
If either of can not access it you can email me and I will send it to you. Cheers. JBH ( talk) 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Mistaking hegemony for empire:Neoconservatives, the Bush doctrine, and the Democratic empire., David Grodin - International Journal, Vol. 61, No. 1 Turkey: Myths and Realties (Winter, 2005/2006) pp. 227-241 JSTOR stable link.
I asked you for what you specifically think is SYNTH. Fine Sourcewatch is a wiki. So we do not use it. What, precisely, do you consider to be SYNTH in this situation? What information do you want the sources to include so it will not, in your opinion be SYNTH? This is the locus of the dispute if it is not addressed then we are merely spinning our wheels. JBH ( talk) 23:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Myself and @ GoldenBoy25: have added a direct in-line citation to this NBA player's career stats table, which have been removed by @ Bagumba: and @ Bossanoven:. For me the fact he is an NBA player is irrelevant; first and foremost he is a WP:BLP and so the info should be directly cited wherever possible per WP:V. Thoughts? Giant Snowman 10:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
BLP is policy (inline citations blah blah), wikiprojects preferences are at best, vague guidelines. However sticking an inline citation in a stats table does look odd, is there any reason the table itself cant have a citation/ref/note elsewhere in the article? I doubt the material is contentious enough to require inline citations. Otherwise following that route we should cite every single stat on sports article tables. And that would make us all look stupid. If the material itself is not a BLP violation, arguing over how its displayed is really not a matter for this board. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a couple BLP issues here I'd like to raise with Playmate articles like this one.
1) For statistical information about Playboy Playmates, Wikipedia articles largely rely on a website called wekinglypigs.com (NSFW). That site appears to be a private individual's copy-and-paste mirror of Playmate data originally published by Playboy (NSFW). I raised an issue with wekinglypigs.com at WP:RSN, and received a response that wekinglypigs.com fails WP:BLPSPS and should not be used in BLPs. I agree, but would like others to verify this before any changes are made.
2) Playmate data reported by Playboy -- in fact any statements about these models from Playboy itself -- has its own host of problems. As a primary issue, all human bodies change over time, so Wikipedia's reporting living Playmates' measurements as current seems problematic. Looking "bigger picture," Playmates are essentially models / entertainers hired by Playboy to play a certain role, and to have a certain appearance. Playboy is well known for airbrushing photos, and Playmates sometimes use fictional names in the magazine. In the magazine and in their public appearances related to being Playmates, they're basically on the job. Yet for most of these models, their Playboy personas -- and the data Playboy has chosen to report about them -- form the primary basis for their Wikipedia biographies. This practice is a bit like basing Jerry Seinfeld's biography on the alternate version of himself that he played on his television show -- something we thankfully don't normally do.
I have ideas on how to address these issues in mind, but before I suggest those, I want to make sure these are actually issues. If these actually aren't problems, obviously there is no need to suggest solutions. What say you? Townlake ( talk) 18:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Dengyan San was created today and has already had scurrilous material added. [30] I'm not sure of the subject's notability or whether any policies on young people apply (according to the article, she is aged 16 or 17, and so has reached the UK age of majority). Can someone familiar with BLP policy take a look? NebY ( talk) 22:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Anwar Ibrahim is a prominent Malaysian politician currently linked from the Main Page. His biography contains a lengthy section Anwar Ibrahim#Hidden sex tape allegation. I consider it inappropriate. Another editor has twice reverted my removal on it. Other opinions would be appreciated at Talk:Anwar Ibrahim. Thank you. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 04:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Victor Krylov ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am having a hard time with IPs failing to assume good faith and now turning to nasty comments over contentious edits at Victor Krylov. This article (which was previously featured here) does not see much activity. Could additional editors please keep an eye on what happens there and weigh in occasionally? Thank you. Ariadacapo ( talk) 18:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The picture that was used for him is not actually him. When you go onto the actual page there is no longer a picture of him. It needs to be updated and added to this page.
Roland Williams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.190.170 ( talk) 21:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
A significant number of edits seem intent on connecting Harris to Jewish "tribalism" (noting that he has not self-identified as Jewish or of belonging to a "tribe") and including lengthy quotes thereon. Once we establish that he rather does not like religions, we have said what there is to say. When we add quotes from strongly opinionated people, we turn the BLP into a debating society match and not into a biography worthy of an encyclopedia, and where the opinions verge on unacceptable levels about a person, I rather suggest WP:BLPCAT and WP:BLP are being abused. I ask others to examine the nature of the quotes and tenor of the BLP please. Collect ( talk) 05:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
and it followed a quote by HarrisTheodore Sayeed also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state." [31]
The Mondoweiss article is from 2012, while Harris' "tribalism" remark dates to 2006. Sayeed's tribalism remark was likely made partially in response to Harris' tribalism remark. There is no rule on Wikipedia against referring to Jews as tribal, incidentally, as Collect asserted in his edit summary. The only assertion that this thread has to make is related to whether Wikipedia can categorize Harris as a Jew. Harris had been categorized as a Jew four times over before Collect removed those with this edit earlier today. This thread seems to be based upon a rationale that since Harris is not categorized as a Jew, nobody else quoted in the article can refer to him as a Jew. That seems like pretty flimsy logic to me, but it may work on Wikipedia. I think that the quote by Sayeed is not tantamount to Wikipedia categorizing Harris, and it is mentioned in the article that Harris' mother is Jewish, etc.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism.
Where an editor has edit warred to describe a person as "Jewish" who has not so self-identified, and edit warred to include an accusation that he is Jewish with "tribal" sympathies, then it seems that WP:BLPCAT is being deliberately violated.
Seems pretty clear. And, by the way, it is up to those who wish to label folks to find a source - not up to others to prove that there is no source. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I do, however, agree with Collect that this quote should not be in the article. Theodore Sayeed's opinion is UNDUE. Harris is known for his criticism of religion whether he has some 'hidden Jewishness' or something as Sayeed implies seems irrelevant to the discussion of Harris's work and views. JBH ( talk) 19:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
One possible reason that no one has latched on to this issue is that tribalism, both religious and ethnic, is a massive problem when dealing with the Islamic world, (Not to say tribalism is not an issue for others as well just that it is a recognized and large problem in the Islamic world.) in reform, nation building or even having a common basis for discussion amongst the parties. This is not to say I agree with what Harris says or how he says it in general. I only point out that stripped of its bigotry the issue he raises is one that is not adequately addressed simply by someone saying essentially 'yes, but he is a Jew and supports other Jews' and that is possibly why others have not addressed it. If other authors bring up the tribalism issue specifically and centrally in their critique of Harris it might be worth putting in. Right now it seems to just be piling on. If you think there is some particular reason the tribalism quote is of special note that I missed please let me know though.
PS Pretty much the whole world has issues with tribalism. The Islamic world is in a particular mess because of the effects of the break-up of the Ottoman Empire and decolonization. When you combine that with the obligations of ethnicity, tribe, clan, family and the religious differences/obligations of denomination/sect/fiqh/tariqah and the possible combinations thereof you end up with a nightmare of social conflicts impossible for an external actor to manage. The most that can be said is that Jewish tribalism is also a problem in the protracted social conflict in the Muslim world but that would be for an article on Tribalism in Relation to Middle East PSCs. There are much better sources on that than Harris and Sayeed if you want to write about that. Note this is OR/personal knowledge but it is what informs my editorial judgement in this situation. JBH ( talk) 21:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the final sentence of this article referring to Stefan's sisters allegations: It seems irrelevant to the actor's actual career points include this speculative information, regardless of validity, and carries the implication that the article's writer may have a vendetta of sorts against him. As such, the printed view is inappropriate, damages Wikipedia's credibility and reminds of me why I choose not to support the site monetarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.109.18 ( talk) 19:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia editors,
I made some additions to the biography entry on Nat Shapiro about a week ago. I checked the entry today and all of my additions were removed.
My wish was to expand on the information currently provided to aid researchers into the history of American popular music in the 20th century. Everything I wrote was documented in papers I donated to the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts about a year and a half ago, or in one case only was based on meetings at which I was present.
If there is some problem with the edits I made that I can correct so that this information can once again be available to Wikipedia readers, please let me know.
Thank you,
Amy Louise Pommier (formerly Amy Louise Shapiro) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.218.206 ( talk) 20:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The Peter Ruckman article is about a living person. User:John Foxe has repeatedly added libelous and fringe material (after being warned it was in violation of BLP on his page and the article 2X) from a web blog whose intention is to flame Peter Ruckman. It is in clear violation of reliable sourcing yet it seems John Foxe has demonstrated ownership WP:OWN of the article with the purpose of flaming the living person with ridiculous claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Peter_Ruckman&diff=647449198&oldid=647448247 John Foxe has been arguing with other editors for since 2006 on the articles talk page in his attempt to add sordid unreliable claims about this BLP and has been warned about edit warring and adding unreliable information since then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Ruckman#Please_follow_Wikipedia_rules 208.54.39.193 editor John Foxe clearly has an axe to grind with Peter Ruckman and should be banned from further editing concerning this article and possibly a few others from a review of his contributions. ( talk) 21:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
For context I add that Foxe is a patient and consistent editor. For example, in 2012 he agreed to a WP:1RR (link to his agreement) in order to end a 1 month block. Then 1 year and 2 weeks later he requested a of the ban. He has a consistent history of being reported on the 3RR noticeboard, and even recently reverted a benign edit demonstrating that he still has trouble with WP:OWNership of articles. By patient and consistent, I mean that he has been here a long time, has consistently advocated for specific positions, and is patient, willing to wait out other editors and occasional blocks in order to promote his POV into the articles he's edited. Vertrag ( talk) 00:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (PS account used for legitimate sock purposes (privacy))
Need help/ advice how to edit page Sex Scandal Sizemore.
The correct page title should read "The Tom Sizemore Sex Scandal" which is the title of the sex tape/video. Don't know how to change. Also...listed references need to be brought under correct heading. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Dos ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Just a few more eyes on this one, only has four watchers. Systemic vandalism and BLP vios dating from last year by an SPA, reported to OTRS. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Lana Tisdel has been changed from a redirect to an article. I'm not sure that she is notable per WP:BLP1E, but my larger concern is the addition of poorly sourced private content such as a birth date sourced from mylife.com. A few more eyes would be appreciated.- Mr X 20:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a follow-up to the prior unresolved discussion but there's still more discussions about the listing of "unverified" supercentenarians. See also the 2014 deaths page (which with the 2015 page moves into problematic BLP issues as these people may in fact be alive). These are people in which no reliable source has actually verified their listing. The reliable source that is offered (GRG) has explicitly not verified their listing, only listing them as "pending" verification. The only purpose I can see to including them is so that people can copy the entire GRG table in case someone later becomes verified. This is pure WP:CRYSTAL speculation, there is no end time when these people would be removed. I find List of supercentenarians who died before 1980 to be the worst example of this: this includes people who may have died at 110 years old over 35 years ago. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Fiona Graham ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'd like to request that user DAJF be banned from editing the Fiona Graham page as I noticed he has a personal agenda. In August 2011 it was decided that Fiona's age would be removed and he was part of the discussion on the archived talk page therefore it should never have been brought up again in 2015 unless the 400 year old Geisha association decides it's acceptable to display a Geisha's age.
Upon further review I noticed he has made 102 edits in the past 5 years and almost all of his edits have been negative while reverting any positive content posted on the page. These 102 edits make him by far the top contributor accounting for 34.7% of the total text on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris514 ( talk • contribs) 13:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If it's already been discussed on the talk page in 2011 and removed in 2011, on what basis should it be added again now, in 2015? Nothing has changed since then and the user was part of the discussion in 2011 therefore he cannot claim he didn't know. Boris514 ( talk) 13:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I hate to be the spoilsport here but given the history of the article in question any visit it makes to BLP/N requires extra scrutiny. And indeed I see that User:Boris514 has a very strange contribution history: a bunch of ext links to the same website nine months back, and then an article created out of nowhere, and then finally a dive headlong into the Graham article, with an edit remark which seems to indicate that he has a longstanding interest in the matter. Whatever problem there is with User:DAJF's edits in this case, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that B514 is an account created and held in reserve for such an eventuality as this. Mangoe ( talk) 03:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
So "Category:Year of birth missing (living people)" is the correct one. What source has an approximation of her age? Is this a standing "Category:Age controversies". The year of her birth should be in the article, and if reliable sources disagree we have wording for that. There is a rule about not publishing a "date of birth" for non notable people because it used for identity theft. If she isn't notable, she doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Actresses don't like their year of birth published either, but this is a reference work, not their press agent propaganda. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 07:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
There are incorrect, potentially damaging and libelous, entries in the Concetta Antico Wiki regarding the scientists and scientific details and findings quoted. Content of the Wiki has been modified to reflect the corrections (also shown in the script pasted below).
If these changes are not approved and retained the university will likely request the page be purged from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.70.129 ( talk • contribs)
Good day,
Been trying to get to speak to a human at Wikipedia. The reason why I removed the content of that wiki page is because (all my attempts) of deleting the page (even editing), have proven impossible. This page was created by me and it is my wife (Jade [married name]). Her prior modelling past upon searching in Google for her new name links to this Wikipedia page (Jade Fairbrother)? How can we remove the 'jade [married name]' reference to this page? I can't see how or where its referenced for google to point it to 'jade fairbrother' article. There is no text of Jade [married name] included in the article, yet if you search Google for 'Jade [married name]' in google, first search hit is the wikipedia page. At one stage in previous reiterations of the page, she included her new full name, but the page no longer does. So this has impacted her professional finance career (as she's retired from modelling and has changed her maiden surname).
Please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benigma55416 ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear all,
I am new to wikipedia and having problems editing the biography page for this new individual. I am reaching out in an attempt to seek help adhering to wikipedia's guidelines as well as to be able to clean up the current page and have it correctly filled out. The referencing links I previously inserted have been removed and I would like to see if I could get some help inserting them correctly so as to not leave the page without sources.
Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reader65 ( talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
This pages keeps being vandalised with references to Warwick's LGBT lifestyle repeatedly being deleted and references deleted.
Warwick is a prominent member of the Sydney LGBT community and he appears in many other LGBT lists on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.54.11 ( talk) 09:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Article Ajay Goyal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) includes subjective information, including opinions seemingly provided by the subject of the article.
2nd citation at bottom of 'article'/page is a link to some obit from Ocoee, FL. Not sure if some joker kid was having a bit of fun. Othersie, don't see the relevancy.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.35.207 ( talk) 01:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Repeated blanking and deletion of content by multiple users which appear to be same editor User:Wikidirt and User:PageOneEditor. Have previously posted to talk page about blanking and deletions by this and apparently same anon IP editors (all appear to be the same person. CinagroErunam ( talk) 05:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
via arbitration enforcement-- Ymblanter ( talk) 16:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Two different dates of birth on the article. Main text says August 2, 1991 and right-hand fact box says February 8, 1991. Am led to believe the February date is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.59.1 ( talk) 05:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Howard Stableford Two libelous revision were made on February 17th. I would like them removed please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlstable ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
104.237.54.139 and 180.150.134.149, probably the same person, posted on the village pump their concerns that the article is strongly biased against the person named. Here is the original post:
"Somaly Mam is a former child prostitute from Cambodia. Until 2013 she was heralded internationally as a heroine and advocate, saving thousands of children. Then there was a Newsweek article The Holy Saint (and Sinner) of Sex Trafficking claiming to find holes in her original story [4]. For a normal politician such articles are part of the cut and thrust, but Somaly Mam quietly resigned from all her positions, she said to protect the organisation she founded from ongoing attention. Marie Claire magazine published a piece Somaly Mam's Story: "I didn't lie" , strongly challenging the evidence provided by Newsweek. [5]. The US State Department reports, sex trafficking and underage prostitution is rife across Cambodia. Believe what you like about the details, it is highly unlikely that Somaly Mam's original story is a total and/or proven fabrication.
"Nevertheless, the wikipedia article on Somaly Mam is strongly biased against Somaly Mam. It's conclusions are far more definitive and condemning than Newsweek, saying "sex trafficking and abuse claims were disproved" and "she pretended to be a nurse". It provides details of a internal report which sofar has not been publicly disclosed. Her success in advocacy is underplayed. Each section of this article is entirely biased against Somaly Mam. Marie Claire is mentioned, but not the independent investigation that alleged Newsweek undertook poor journalistic practices and false claims.
"Although it is possible that editors are following Newsweek's lead, is there is a chance that sex tourists who visit Cambodia go on to edit this page? Yes, we deal with biases and lobbying everyday, but pedophilia is not just an opinion. It's not about one person's reputation. Pedophilia networks use the internet to lure children and hide their tracks. Wikipedia cannot be used as part of this. Not only should the article be cleaned up, we should follow the edits of those who put the page in this state. There may be other damage being done. How can we afford to not check this out? 104.237.54.139 (talk) 12:12 am, Today (UTC−8)"
I'm posting on this editor's behalf, I have no opinion on this subject. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 15:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute over on the Laura Poitras article over the inclusion of an account of her filming an ambush on the ONG. The material in question comes from John Bruning's The Devil's Sandbox: With the 2nd Battalion, 162nd Infantry at War in Iraq and details the incident in which Poitras was involved in while filming her documentary "My Countr, my country". This material has been reported on in other WP:RS with additional material (interviews with all the involved parties sans Poitras) in the Weekly Standard. Additionally, Potras has had additional DHS scrutiny when she travels into and out of the US and George Packer fingers this incident as the reason for the additional scrutiny. [38]. It has been argued that any inclusion of this material is a BLP violation. Any outside opinions are welcomed. WeldNeck ( talk) 01:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Should the "hidden sex tape" section in this permalink be retained? Please see Talk:Anwar Ibrahim#RfC. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I am tired of this, but currently at least two users are edit-warring to add information that Erdogan is of Georgian origin and add the article to the corresponding category. In fact, Erdogan once said that he is of Georgian origin, and once more said he is not. (This info is in the article and has been there for ages). There is no independent confirmation of the fact. I would appreciate if someone else takes a look.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 13:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
To Whom this may concern,
My son Sgt. Jerome C. Bell Jr. USMC was KIA 8/19/2008 Afghanistan
We have learned his name is not listed under the State of NEW YORK.
I checked the list it is not under New York
His information is listed under "Auburn" as his state. New York is listed as his city. **It is reversed.**
His family has missed out on a lot. Due to this error. I finally found out. By a special run that is being set up For June. In New York Honor run for our heroes. I heard about from another Gold Star Mother. When I checked it out my son was not listed. They had told me he is not listed in This Casualties.org Which he is listed but not under New York
Can someone please correct the error. Thank you, Mother of a Fallen Hero Tammy Bell — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGSM2008 ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
How on earth did this and this slip unnoticed in a BLP article for seven weeks? — George8211 / T 22:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)