![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Trevor Graham ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has been mentioned here before. In light of this legal threat, could I ask others to make sure the article is all in order. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Andrew Luster ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reads like a tabloid biopic. Minimal citations.
Later in life, he was referred to as the bored trust fund kid by neighbors. He attended college classes in Santa Barbara but dropped out before earning a degree. He spent most of his time surfing and fishing. He was known for neighborhood antics and mischief before his arrest for rape. He put Super Glue on the locks of a neighbor's house; shot a stranger's car with a paintball gun when the stranger parked in front of his home; and smeared surf wax all over the windshield of an ex-girlfriend's car.
Et cetera. causa sui ( talk) 07:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
my name is not jane and has never been!
Greg Hardy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article keeps getting rearranged to blame the victim of domestic assault. Very one-sided article. This has been noted (not by me) on the talk page since July 17th. Needs fixing and watching. Bellicist ( talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
See Alleged Clinton Controversies and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies. A lot of the discussion concerns possible BLP violations, so I think it's appropriate to notify people here about it. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the right forum, but is there any way to remove racist comments from Talk:Ice-T? User AzseicsoK, who goes by Uporządnicki, is claiming Barack Obama won the Novel Peace Prize because he is black, and then compares him to Hitler. [1]. Also, is there any way of formally warning the user not to make racist comments on talk pages? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Alan Jackson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It says hes dead, can this be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.78.251 ( talk) 19:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The below conversation was archived before any administrator had the chance to take a look at it. Righteousskills ( talk) 21:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I would appreciate extra eyes and help to settle an issue with the BLP of a president of a Venezuelan power plant construction company: Alejandro Betancourt López.
The issue is over this edition The content is referenced by an article published by the WSJ which is of course a very reliable source, El Pais, a Spanish newspaper also quoted the WSJ article as it source and reproduced its contents, but I think the information should not be included in the BLP so I posted the following reasons on the talk page of the article:
I asked for new reliable sources to reference if the BLP is under an actual investigation since the article was published almost a year ago. Since I received no answer, a few days latter I removed the content I deemed non encyclopedic for the BLP due to reasons mentioned above. In the past I have reverted several questionable contributions from righteousskills ( see summary on his talk page). One of this contributions was adding to the lead that the subject of the BLP was under a criminal investigation using that same source. The article was protected and the editor was reminded of WP:OR by an administrator (see at the end of this section) More than a month after my edit was done righteousskills added it back without any previous discussion of the matter in the talk page. He also added an unrelated reference and a phrase already covered elsewhere in the article. I reverted it twice asking him to reach a consensus first before changing the article. He has ignored my requests and added the content again. Even though this is not a very relevant article for the encyclopedia, I would appreciate it if someone could take the time to look into this in detail. I think it is worth a look because Derwick Associates's page has been edited by at least one paid editor ( see here) on behalf of the company and various sock puppets have been uncovered. On the other hand it also had various IP's proxies blocked that were doing negative contributions very similar to those of righteousskills on both the company and the BLP (this are some accounts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (see diff). Righteousskills after a year and a half of inactivity, requested an IP block exemption claiming he could be hacked ( see here). After that he created or contributed on all the pages related to the WSJ article before it was published, and then did clearly biased contributions like ( this edit) in all those articles just the moment it got published. I can't prove if this is the case, but while one civil suit for defamation with charges of bribery against the company and the BLP has been dismissed , there is another one that is still active, so there might be economical interests at play for both sides. I try to reach consensus whenever possible, but in this case we may be dealing with a conflict of interests. so I would appreciate it if other editors that want to invest their time could take care of this one. Thank you.-- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 16:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Allegations by anonymous or unnamed persons are rarely a great idea in any BLP. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Not yet resolved. Righteousskills ( talk) 21:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I want to hear whether other editors think the name of the man who killed the lion as described in the article Killing of Cecil the lion should be named in the article. Currently he is not. However, he has been named in reliable sources such as CNN [2] and the New York Times [3]. There is also little doubt that he did it as both of the sources I just linked to state that he admitted to killing the lion. Everymorning talk 19:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
There are absolutely no journalistic grounds to exclude the shooter's name — especially if attributed. "…identified by multiple news agencies, including the New York Times and AP as …" He is obviously notable, and he has issued a statement about the incident. The references on the page are filled with his name. This is silly discussion at would end in a professional newsroom in about six seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.253.219 ( talk) 02:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we should include the name. It is has high encyclopedic value to the article and most importantly it is verifiable. Because this is already published widely we are not doing damage. Chillum 04:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
With the presidential silly season now gearing up to full throttle, it seems important to ask that our policies and guidelines be respected to a minimal degree. I don't think that's happening at this BLP, and so some opinions from experienced editors would be appreciated. User:MrX thinks it would be a good idea to delete all reference to his presidential candidacy (i.e. the primary source of his current notabilty) from the lead paragraph. [5] That's contrary to how it's done at many other BLPs now (e.g. see Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker all of which put their presidential candidacies in the lead paragraph) and also contrary to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Opening_paragraph which says:
“ | [T]he opening paragraph should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context. The opening paragraph should usually have…. The notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played; Why the person is notable….[A]void overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph. | ” |
Typical format is to provide an overview in the lead paragraph, and then some more details in the rest of the lead. Thus, the Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders BLPs mention their presidential candidacy in the lead paragraph, and then provide a bit more detail at the end of the lead. Entirely removing a presidential candidacy from a lead paragraph seems very odd and improper. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Michael Dale "Mike" Huckabee (born August 24, 1955) is an American author and politician who served as the 44th Governor of Arkansas from 1996 to 2007. He was a candidate in the 2008 United States Republican presidential primaries. He won the 2008 Iowa Republican caucuses and finished second in delegate count and third in both popular vote and number of states won, behind nominee John McCain and Mitt Romney. Huckabee has announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential election, his second run for the U.S. presidency. ¶ Beginning in 2008, Huckabee hosted the Fox News Channel talk show Huckabee, ending the show in January 2015 in order to explore a potential bid for the Presidency. From April 2012 through December 2013, he hosted a daily radio program, The Mike Huckabee Show, on weekday afternoons for Cumulus Media Networks. Huckabee is the author of several best-selling books, an ordained Southern Baptist minister noted for his evangelical views, a musician, and a public speaker. He is also a political commentator on The Huckabee Report. The date of Huckabee's announcement of his presidential candidacy was May 5, 2015. It is his second run for the U.S. presidency.
Irene Zisblatt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reporting the page of Irene Zisblatt because of frequent libelous attacks by Holocaust deniers. Assaulting the integrity of Holocaust survivors will not be tolerated. I have put warning notices on the IP addresses who have attacked Ms. Zisblatt's page, and now I am reporting this to Wikipedia. Please stop Holocaust deniers from tampering with honest people's lives. Hello43r ( talk) 21:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The page appears to be in need of a serious re-write- if anyone has a lot of time on their hands and a willingness to step into a fight between two sides who both have a righteous agenda to push. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Users keep changing his birthplace from Santiago to Copiapó. References in the article support the former. A new user is now adding this as a reference - Servicio de Registro Civil e Identificación. Birth certificate, Circunscription of Copiapó, N° 824, 1990. Germán Alejandro Garmendia Aranis.. They say they can email me his birth certificate. Of course that's not how things work. I decided to bring it to the attention of this noticeboard so it can be discussed and resolved, rather than engage in an edit war over it. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 01:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please note that a photoshopped image in this essay which attacks a group of people referred to as "advocacy ducks" includes a flock of waterfowl carrying signs that clearly show the logo of the Public and Commercial Services Union. It looks to me like this image is (whether intentionally or not) associating this union with untoward activity on Wikipedia.
I started a discussion on the talkpage: Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks#Public and Commercial Services Union. It seems the main author of the essay is none too pleased with the removal of the image and doesn't see the problem, claiming " No defamation there - images are CC licensed which clears them." I don't think that this is a correct reading of how CC licensing works in terms of issues like this on Wikipedia.
Thoughts?
jps ( talk) 16:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict) This essay is already the subject of a long and ongoing discussion at ANI. It does seem inappropriate for one of the images in an essay of this type to target a specific group like that. Fyddlestix ( talk) 16:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has just placed unfounded and uncited serious personal allegations into this biography, which have no media or evidential substance. Can an admin please wipe the revisions? It's of a highly legal nature Thanks TF92 ( talk) 20:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Jeffrey Beall ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This edit does not seem BLP compliant, so I am posting here to determine what other editors think. Everymorning talk 02:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Richard Schweiker has been edited to state that he died within the past few days [8], however, this has not been reported. - Location ( talk) 05:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Arafat Nagi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor, BuffaloBob, has created a new article about this individual who was arrested by federal authorities last week in Lackawanna, New York on suspicion of "attempting to provide material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization." As I stated in my PROD of the article, "First, a presumption of innocence exists; the subject has been charged but not convicted. Second, WP:BLP1E applies. The subject is not notable for any reason other than the charges brought against him. We should not create an article for everyone the authorities arrest on suspicion of terrorism (or any other charge)." Please advise if you disagree, or if there is some other guidance that contradicts either of these points when it comes to suspected terrorists who have been charged but not convicted. General Ization Talk 23:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about some of the recent edits to this page. Is Age of Autism a reliable source in this context? What about Agriculturesociety.com? Is it fair to say that open access journals are not part of the mainstream academic press? Everymorning talk 19:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Cecil (lion) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
At this time, this article mentions the name of the hunter, the name of his practice (name of his business), his state, and his profession. The hunter has admitted to the killing, so of course his name is properly cited. But his personal business?
All this, for a person who has been convicted of no crime, and who is merely accused on the say-so of some third world NGO which has already benefited to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and of some government officials of the same country.
Zimbabwe, really, look up its Wikipedia page: its president has been the same since 1980, and, according to the Wikipedia lede, Zimbabwe has a "problematic human rights record and substantial economic decline."
Is this how Wikipedia treats BLP of an accused person convicted of no crime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm ( talk • contribs) 08:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion the name, location etc of the business is undue weight for an article about a lion. However an image of the shrine to the lion does appear to reasonable as it is directly related to the topic at hand and as others have mentioned it does not reveal sensitive information and is not particularly nasty relative to what is being said elsewhere. Chillum 15:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Related bios, of young Broadway actors, being edited by WP:SPA users. I've tried to de-fluff both of these, but suspect they'll require some vigilance, so any assistance will be appreciated. A lot more unsourced content can be cut from both. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:2CE7:9FE7:32F1:AC2A ( talk) 21:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Alexey Pajitnov ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just noticed this article was edited today and something seems off about it.
A lot of random strings of letters, and claiming that he died with no source, all from an anonymous IP in Serbia with +100 already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.29.192.185 ( talk) 03:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Arrest of Nicole Naugler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could use some help figuring out what to do with this article, and keeping an eye on it. I've already done some cleanup ( Before, After, Diff) since the article was in a pretty sad state when I found it (citations to facebook and infowars, wholly un-referenced allegations of sexual abuse, etc). I've basically stubbed it, but now I'm wondering if there should be an article on this at all - there is coverage that suggests notability ( [10] [11] [12] [13]), however the focus of that coverage seems to be the seizure of the family's children and their child-rearing philosophy rather than Nicole Naugler's arrest specifically, and most of it smacks of WP:SENSATION. I'm really not sure what airing this family's dirty laundry is supposed to provide in terms of encyclopedic value, but I'm hesitant to bring it to AFD because there's actually been quite a lot of news coverage.
Any input/advice is appreciated, and having some people watching the article would be good. Fyddlestix ( talk) 05:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Relating to page /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Liz#Oppose
I made a vote on this RfA as I thought was permitted by the specified rules. Bureaucrat WJBscribe removed my vote with this comment:
This is not true. I had been following the RfA from the beginning, I had seen no mention of it on Reddit, and my "agenda here" includes edits to Georg Simmel and Doctor Faustus. My Gamergate-related "agenda" has been confined to getting Wikipedia to remove slanderous misrepresentations of me. Unless WJBscribe is prepared to explain how this fits with the above description, I would like these remarks removed.
If you would prefer to keep my vote out of your RfA kangaroo court, I don't really care about that. It's the false remarks that matter. Auerbachkeller ( talk) 18:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
If you're smart enough to comment at RFA, you're smart enough to know this is the wrong forum for this discussion. This is not a BLP issue. Suggest someone close this. Townlake ( talk) 19:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I repeat my request, as the previous request was closed improperly by non-admin EvergreenFir. In keeping with BLP policy, WJBscribe's claim that I was part of a Reddit brigade in the RfA is categorically false, unsupported, and a violation of the BLP rule that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate" in non-article space. This is not an internal matter as WJBscribe made a claim about my activity *off* of Wikipedia, namely, joining in a Reddit brigade organized outside of Wikipedia. It is a BLP issue. The users above who say "Just forget about it" and "You're in the wrong place" should pay closer attention to the policies they supposedly know so well. Auerbachkeller ( talk) 20:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Here I repeat the original report:
Relating to page /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Liz#Oppose
I made a vote on this RfA as I thought was permitted by the specified rules. Bureaucrat WJBscribe removed my vote with this comment:
This is not true. I had been following the RfA from the beginning, I had seen no mention of it on Reddit, and my "agenda here" includes edits to Georg Simmel and Doctor Faustus. My Gamergate-related "agenda" has been confined to getting Wikipedia to remove slanderous misrepresentations of me. Unless WJBscribe is prepared to explain how this fits with the above description, I would like these remarks removed.
If you would prefer to keep my vote out of your RfA kangaroo court, I don't really care about that. It's the false remarks that matter. Auerbachkeller ( talk) 18:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Herman Jay Cohen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am removing two paragraphs by Perspicacite. They are very NPOV, making extensive use of editorializing and weasel words. The only source is one dodgy article from the defunct conservative outlet Insight on the News. The paragraphs created a "wheel war" between Perspicacite – who evidently referred to the article's subject as an "evil SOB" – and 128.220.251.100, who may also be NPOV. In the interim I will add hard biographical facts to the article only, and request that an administrator prevent hasty edits to the article. – Larry.darrell44 ( talk) 21:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Below Conversation is still not resolved. Righteousskills ( talk) 07:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I asked for new reliable sources to reference if the BLP is under an actual investigation since the article was published almost a year ago. Since I received no answer, a few days latter I removed the content I deemed non encyclopedic for the BLP due to reasons mentioned above.
In the past I have reverted several questionable contributions from righteousskills ( see summary on his talk page). One of this contributions was adding to the lead that the subject of the BLP was under a criminal investigation using that same source. The article was protected and the editor was reminded of WP:OR by an administrator (see at the end of this section)
More than a month after my edit was done righteousskills added it back without any previous discussion of the matter in the talk page. He also added an unrelated reference and a phrase already covered elsewhere in the article. I reverted it twice asking him to reach a consensus first before changing the article. He has ignored my requests and added the content again.
Even though this is not a very relevant article for the encyclopedia, I would appreciate it if someone could take the time to look into this in detail. I think it is worth a look because Derwick Associates's page has been edited by at least one paid editor ( see here) on behalf of the company and various sock puppets have been uncovered. On the other hand it also had various IP's proxies blocked that were doing negative contributions very similar to those of righteousskills on both the company and the BLP (this are some accounts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (see diff). Righteousskills after a year and a half of inactivity, requested an IP block exemption claiming he could be hacked ( see here). After that he created or contributed on all the pages related to the WSJ article before it was published, and then did clearly biased contributions like ( this edit) in all those articles just the moment it got published.
I can't prove if this is the case, but while one civil suit for defamation with charges of bribery against the company and the BLP has been dismissed , there is another one that is still active, so there might be economical interests at play for both sides. I try to reach consensus whenever possible, but in this case we may be dealing with a conflict of interests. so I would appreciate it if other editors that want to invest their time could take care of this one. Thank you.-- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 16:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Allegations by anonymous or unnamed persons are rarely a great idea in any BLP. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Bump. Righteousskills ( talk) 07:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Bill Strömberg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recommend for deleting:
This article was a puff piece; right now, it's just another poor article. But a quick look through the history reveals that a now-blocked editor did a bit of cleanup, including in this edit--note the deceptive edit summary. In short, what we need is a rewrite of the article which takes into account the two highly reliable references removed in that edit ( this and this--it's really quite juicy). Thank you in advance. Drmies ( talk) 01:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Mark Bell (journalist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clearly an autobiography written by subject as "WhoWhoOwl" which account history proves. Person is not notable in any respect and should be removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.0.45 ( talk) 01:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Ervand Abrahamian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ervand Abrahamian is not a marxist. The "references" that have been cited are hardly reputable--one of them was created simply to support the claim. This is his biography: http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/academics/history/eabrahamian.htm Please remove the word "marxist" from this post--clearly someone is trying to misrepresent him.
Ismahil Akinade ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is the addition of information concerning the right to be forgotten by this footballer concerning his conviction in a child sex case a BLP violation? Mo ainm ~Talk 15:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Joshua Kushner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article does not conform to wikipedia's guidelines for BLP because it does not strike the right tone (somewhat self-aggrandizing, possibly written by the subject), and isn't verifiable (IE doesn't cite sources for some of its descriptions). A significant amount of the information presented seemingly fails to achieve adequate notability. It reads more like a résumé than it does a wikipedia article.
Hi all,
Recently, I removed a 5 year old, spent, conviction from Jake Speight. While this received some coverage at the time, this does not appear to be long-term or particiually widespread, and assuming this was ok, I removed it from the article, as I have done in previous instances after discussion here. However, in this case I was reverted. I was wondering if this sort of action is ok, or if there is a wider policy related to this - I'd point to WP:NPF (because they are not widely known with the intention of the article). Thanks in advance for any advice. Mdann52 ( talk) 12:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Tré Cool ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can you please lock this page like his band members Mike Durnt and Billie Joe Armstrong.
True Cool's page is regularly vandalized.
/info/en/?search=Tré_Cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by An108 ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The article for Richard Rawlings is repeatedly being vandalized. I cannot revert now due to WP:3RR -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 21:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The Article says Frank Ocean started his career by ghostwriting for Damienn Jones, that's false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseriverajunior ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 August 2015
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been a disagreement regarding a BLP and a self published sources on the Roosh V article. I've removed the content in this diff [ [14]]. There has been some discussion on the talk page, but since this is a relatively obscure BLP, I am bringing it here for wider input. Pinging @ EvergreenFir:, @ PeterTheFourth:, and @ Cla68: since they were involved on the talk page.
To sum up the argument, The Anti-defamation league made a claim about Roosh V on their own blog. I removed the statement because it is only sourced to the ADL's blog, and per BLPSPS we should not use self published sources on BLP's. However, it has been restored on the basis that the ADL is a highly notable organization and is reliable for it's own opinion. My apologies in advance if I didn't sum up the arguments well. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 13:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
In 2015 the Anti-Defamation League accused Roosh of anti-Semitism. We're attributing the statement to the ADL and using their blog as the source with is permissible as WP:ABOUTSELF. And I agree with the assertion that ADL's opinion is notable. Just as we note which groups the SPLC calls "hate groups" (and attribute that assertion directly to the SPLC), it would make sense to do so here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 16:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Howdy. My own opinion is that the ADL is a reliable source for their own opinion, their opinion about whether an individual is antisemitic is highly notable, and that if that person is already notable enough for an article it's to be encouraged to include this notable opinion in that article. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 20:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Per elaboration on the meaning of
WP:BLPSPS (cannot be used as source for statements of fact, but can be used for opinion), and my belief that the answer to the question of "Is the opinion itself inherently notable enough to be included in a person's biography without having been first commented upon by an independent reliable source?
" is yes with consensus seeming to support that, I'm going to place the summary of the ADL's opinion back in the article.
PeterTheFourth (
talk)
22:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hoping an uninvolved admin will be kind enough to close those. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 03:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The entry has the following sentence in it: ""Wise has said that when he was 9 years old his Synagogue was attacked by white supremacists." I argue that the sentence should be removed based on the following:
WP:Biographies of living persons says:
Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.
(WP:BLPSELFPUB)
I argue that the sentence in question fails the criteria of "it does not involve claims about third parties;" The reference to the above sentence is Tim Wise's own website. He is accusing White supremacists of a serious crime. I would say that it involves claims about a third party (and one which Tim Wise has a long history of war with, which could, additionally, also be regarded as "unduly self-serving").
There is no evidence offered to back Tim's claim that the attack actually happened, so the claim itself, without any backing, is also insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.97.121 ( talk) 13:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, managed to Google up another newspaper article from that time. It seems to confirm that white supremacists did try to blow up that synagogue. That is good enough for me to agree to keep the sentence as it is now. (The inaccuracy I referred to above relating to only attempted attack compared to an actual attack seems to me to be rather semantic at this stage: if a bunch of white supremacists park a pick-up truck next to a synagogue, then even if the explosives packing the track fail to detonate, it is close enough for an attack for me.) I apologize if I need to, realizing that in spite of my passionate belief, it seems that this claim had merit. Humble apologies to all involved, including, I guess, to Mr Tim Wise. Regards, 1.129.96.31 ( talk) 11:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Eric Holthaus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, I'm Eric Holthaus. I have a concern that the page someone made about me isn't neutral, and is misrepresenting my work & public opinion of my work. I don't think I've attracted significant criticism. I am a meteorologist and I write opinion articles on climate change, but that doesn't make me untrustworthy, as the wikipedia article currently implies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.141.150 ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
This is Eric again, agreed, it looks much better. Thank you so much for prompt response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.141.150 ( talk) 15:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Mark Wahlberg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor and I are arguing about the legitimacy of a source on Mark Wahlberg's past homophobia. Could someone iron out?-- A21sauce ( talk) 01:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Very selective reading of my reference. Well-known within the gay community: He was a Southie for chrissakes; don't play dumb.Sorry, but we can't include potentially defamatory content simply because it was "Well-known within the gay community". BLP issues aside it's even questionable whether this belongs in the article anyway. Something Wahlberg said, or didn't say 22 years ago is noteworthy why? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Nabih Berri ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Does the Corruption allegations section violate BLP? Confirmed suck-poppet with numerous other accounts ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Philanthropist_1001/Archive continuously reverting corruption allegation section and participating in talk page via multi suck-poppet. Currently a suspected suck-poppet continually reverting edits.. 495656778774 ( talk) 17:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Do the Political Positions sections at Hillary Clinton and John McCain conform to the guidelines for WP:SUMMARY style, since they consist of an assortment of ideological ratings rather than specific political positions? CFredkin ( talk) 03:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Henry Makow ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page of Henry Makow has obviously been vandalized.
Source: His own website and confirmed by email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadrag777 ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikimedia Personnel,
I know you folks strive for accuracy and unbiased information in Wikipedia. However, some of your volunteer editors are insisting on promoting their factually incorrect information on my Wikipedia page and on pages relating to a song which I co-wrote and which was briefly nominated for an Academy Award.
I have supplied numerous references which contain the facts but they insist on repeatedly inserting their own bias which is unsubstantiated. Their incorrect statement casts aspersions on one of the most respected individuals to ever work in film music, my collaborator, Bruce Broughton. Some of your volunteers have continually reinstated the statement....
the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences found that Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had improperly contacted other branch members for support.[9]
This is completely false. I have provided documentation that shows them the facts but they insist on perpetuating their unsupported bias. Broughton never asked anyone for their vote or their support. This is a critical distinction. He was never accused of doing anything illegal because he never did anything illegal. That's just fact.
Here is the transcript and video from the nationally broadcast CBS This Morning. If you scroll down on the transcript you can see Bruce Broughton's entire e-mail to his friends. It concludes with "This is merely a request 'For Your Consideration'."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/academy-award-rescinds-nomination-for-songwriter-bruce-broughton/
These words make a difference. Broughton merely asks that people find the song and consider it. Bruce was more familiar with every Academy rule than most folks. He is also one of the most ethical people in the entertainment industry and has done more for aspiring composers than practically anyone else.
Here is the Academy's stated reason for their action..
“No matter how well-intentioned the communication, using one’s position as a former governor and current executive committee member to personally promote one’s own Oscar submission creates the appearance of an unfair advantage,” said Cheryl Boone Isaacs, president of the Academy.
Here is a link to the coverage by National Public Radio (NPR) in an interview with Scott Feinberg of The Hollywood Reporter. in it Feinberg addresses the issue of whether any rules were broken.
http://www.npr.org/2014/02/01/269925008/a-major-oscar-dust-up-over-a-song-from-a-minor-movie
Here is also a link to a piece written by Scott Feinberg in The Hollywood Reporter. It addresses the entire matter in detail.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/was-academys-disqualification-song-contender-675582
And finally here is a piece from Entertainment Weekly which lays out what was done by The Academy.
I don't want to inundate you with material but simply to establish the facts. The erroneous statement which your volunteer editors repeatedly attach to my Wikipedia page and to the pages about the song and movie "Alone Yet Not Alone" is contrary to the facts. I would appreciate the simple and accurate rephrasing of the statement to read...
the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences said that Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had contacted other branch members with a request "For Your Consideration." The Board of Governors said that that "creates the appearance of an unfair advantage". [9] Not everyone agreed with the Academy's actions. [3] [4] [5]
I appreciate your efforts to ensure unbiased material in the "people's encyclopedia". Words matter.
Respectfully, Dennis Spiegel Lyricist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:C42B:CDEC:D9C1:8E16 ( talk) 22:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Broughton’s request “For Your Consideration” is the accepted language used by every contender. Many artists who serve as volunteers for their branch in the Academy, as well as every studio, put forth their work “For Consideration”. That is the accepted language and it means please consider this work. It does not mean “vote for this work” or “support this work”. If the responder finds this distinction hard to reconcile then his issue is with the Academy.
The responder is correct on one point. Mr. Broughton is not asking for a dinner invitation or compliments.
Here’s a detailed posting which may help with an appraisal of this matter. While I do not offer it as a reference for inclusion on Wikipedia, it is perhaps the most in depth look at the issue to date. I think it is well worth reading for people who wish to understand all sides.
http://badalanews.blogspot.com/2015/02/taking-bruce-broughton-side-in-yet-not.html
Respectfully, Dennis Spiegel Lyricist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:1587:7F3A:BF69:C848 ( talk) 20:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
To say that Mr. Broughton was asking for "support" is neither factual nor neutral.
To say that Mr. Broughton was asking "For Your Consideration" is accurate.
Here is the entire e-mail Mr. Broughton shared with his friends...
Dear XXXXX,
I'm dropping you a line to boldly direct your attention to entry #57, Alone Yet Not Alone, on the Academy's Original Song Reminder List and DVD compilation for Best Original Song. Alone Yet Not Alone was composed by Dennis Spiegel and myself for the film, and was used as a dramatic centerpiece of the story. The score for the film was composed by Bill Ross, The clip includes the final scene in the film and a performance of the song as used in the beginning of the End Credits.
I'm sending this note only because it is extremely unlikely that this small, independent, faith-based film will be seen by any Music Branch member, it's the only way I can think of to have anyone be aware of the song.
This is merely a request "For Your Consideration," a hope that the song will get noticed and be remembered among the many worthy songs from more highly visible films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:6CBC:70D:A28:176F ( talk) 14:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
On Tuesday night, the Academy’s Board of Governors voted to rescind the Original Song nomination for “Alone Yet Not Alone,” music by Bruce Broughton and lyric by Dennis Spiegel. The decision was prompted by the discovery that Broughton, a former Governor and current Music Branch executive committee member, had emailed members of the branch to make them aware of his submission during the nominations voting period. [...] "No matter how well-intentioned the communication, using one’s position as a former governor and current executive committee member to personally promote one’s own Oscar submission creates the appearance of an unfair advantage,” said Cheryl Boone Isaacs, Academy President. [1]
(At Dennis Spiegel) Spiegel's song "Alone Yet Not Alone" from the 2013 film of the same name was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Song at the 86th Academy Awards, but the nomination was rescinded on January 29, 2014, after the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences found that the song's co-writer Bruce Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had improperly contacted other branch members for support. Not everyone agreed with the Academy's actions.
(At Bruce Broughton) Broughton's song "Alone Yet Not Alone," from the film with the same name, was originally nominated for an Oscar for Best Original Song at the 86th Academy Awards. But on January 29, 2014, before any voting could take place, the nomination was rescinded, when the Academy alleged that Broughton, a former Academy governor who, at the time, was an executive committee member of the Academy's music branch, had improperly contacted other branch members for support.
(At Alone Yet Not Alone (song)) In January 2014 the song was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Song at the 86th Academy Awards, but the nomination was rescinded on January 29, 2014, after the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences alleged that the song's co-writer, Bruce Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had improperly contacted other branch members for support. Not everyone agreed with the Academy's actions.
(At Alone Yet Not Alone) The title song was performed by well-known evangelical Christian author Joni Eareckson Tada and written by Bruce Broughton and Dennis Spiegel. It was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Song at the 86th Academy Awards, but the nomination was rescinded on January 29, 2014, after the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences found that Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had improperly contacted other branch members for support. [...] While not the first time in the history of the awards a nomination has been revoked, it is the first time the Academy has cited ethical grounds for doing so, and the first time it has done so to a scripted American-produced feature film. Broughton responded that there was a double standard in the industry, alleging that his actions of sending out "70 or so emails" was no different from Academy Awards president Cheryl Boone Isaacs' involvement in films such as The Artist and The King's Speech as an Academy governor. Not everyone agreed with the Academy's actions.
References
Rick Ross (consultant) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An opinion is included within my biography, put there by an editor who apparently wanted a negative POV expressed. Included is the following quote, "Ross' moral credentials 'seem shaky at best'" Many articles have been written about me and this point of view expresses a tiny minority. It reflects bias to include this quote and I request that it be removed from the bio. I have repeatedly requested for this quote to be removed at the Talk page. Rick Alan Ross 96.235.133.43 ( talk) 13:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The cost of interventions doesn't seem appropriate in the bio. It's not an advertisement for services ist it? Also, this is mentioned repeatedly, as "typically charging around $5,000 per case" and then again "at a typical cost of $5,000." Is it necessary to repeat this twice? Also, wouldn't it be better to have the bio titled Rick Alan Ross (consultant) rather than Rick Ross (consultant), to avoid confusion with the rapper Rick Ross? 96.235.133.43 ( talk) 13:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
Balendu Sharma Dadhich ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
André Marin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article currently has a run-down of how much Marin has earned, for each year, over a ten-year period. Similar content and potential BLP problems at Ontario Ombudsman. The article has been the subject of discussions here and at COIN a couple of times: see here and here. I've tried to fix these pages up in the past, as have others, but some of the editors involved seem to have an axe to grind and are very persistent. Fyddlestix ( talk) 22:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
New biography, largely unsourced. Article's creator is determined to list group of non-notable students in the infobox. Help requested. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 ( talk) 11:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, i am the author of the article Giorgio Ausiello. I inspired myself from the already existing article of the advisor of Prof. Ausiello, Corrado Bohm. Indeed, i found the link to create the paga about Giorgio Ausiello in Corrado Bohm's wikipedia entry. I put the (so called) "non-notable" students simply because they were the doctoral students of Prof. Ausiello. If you think they should not be cited fine, but in that case i think we might change the entry name into something like "notable students", otherwise it seems that he has no doctoral students. Rogatienne ( talk) 11:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Problematic biography, which appears to have begun as a copyright violation. I've removed the suspicious section, but the rest of it is a long resume, with dozens of publications and lists of academic history. All eight references are from the subject's published work. Badly needs trimming. 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 ( talk) 13:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Adding a second biography with many similar issues, created by the same, now dormant, account. 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 ( talk) 14:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Luis Alberto Villarreal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page about a politicians from the state of Guanajuato in Mexico is obviously propaganda by his own campaign team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.211.152.242 ( talk) 16:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jerry Speziale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BLP expert eyes on this one please. I don't have time to work on it in detail. Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 13:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The contents of his article were challenged a while ago regarding claims that the subject was one of the media folks that victim-blamed Leigh Leigh for her own murder. Pinging Freikorp, who originally added the material. There were originally three sources used to support the claim:
I requested and received images of the relevant pages in #1 and I can confirm they do criticize Riley as per the article's wording. I also have a copy of #2, and while it is basically about the same thing, it only mentions Riley's work in a citation. It is also written by the author of #1. #3 also cites Riley's work but does not criticize him directly. Originally I left this alone after a discussion in the talk page but today I realized that the inclusion of this admittedly serious criticism by a single author is very much a case of WP:UNDUE. The Leigh article already includes Carrington's material, which to me is a more appropriate place since she does not limit her criticism to Riley in any case and seems to be a decent source for that particular angle of the case. I am asking for consensus on whether or not the material should remain, or we should wait until more widespread criticism of the subject appears in reliable sources, by authors other than Carrington. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
An impressive vanity autobiography, both in terms of commitment, which seems to span five years, and content, which is mostly unsourced and largely promotional. Language difficulties don't help, but that's not the main problem. Half a decade is probably long enough for this to have grown to its current shape and condition. I may begin to chip away at the article, and further assistance would be appreciated. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:F51F:3422:6AAA:30D0 ( talk) 16:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Text from external Web site
|
---|
'Russell Maroon Shoatz' is a dedicated community activist, founding member of the Black Unity Council, former member of the Black Panther Party and soldier in the Black Liberation Army. He is serving multiple life sentences as a US-held political prisoner/prisoner of war. P e r s o n a l B a c k g r o u n d Russell was born in August, 1943, in Philadelphia. He was one of 12 children. At the age of 15 he became involved in a gang and was in and out of reform schools and youth institutions until the age of 18. As a young man he married and became the father of seven children. In the mid 1960s, Russell became active in the New Afrikan liberation movement. He founded the Black Unity Council, which merged with the Philadelphia chapter of the Black Panther Party in 1969. Tensions were high in Philadelphia in the summer of 1970, as Police Chief Frank Rizzo had ordered a crackdown on militant groups in the run-up to the national convention of the Black Panther Party, scheduled to be held in the city on September 5, 1970. Tensions intensified when police killed an unarmed black youth. A retaliatory attack was carried out on a police station, killing officer Frank Von Coln and injuring one other. The shooting of Von Coln prompted a 2 AM raid on the Black Panther headquarters in North Philadelphia. After the raid, police officials allowed news photographers to take humiliating photos of the Black Panthers being strip-searched on the street. Russell and four others, who became known as the “Philly Five”, were immediately charged with the attack. L e g a l C a s e In January of 1972, Russell was captured. He was convicted of the attack on the police station and sentenced to life. L i f e in P r i s o n 1977 Prison Escape Russell escaped with three others from Huntingdon State Prison in 1977. Two were recaptured and the third was killed during the escape. Russell remained at large for 27 days, leading to a massive manhunt by local, state, and federal forces, as well as citizen recruits from nearby white, rural areas. From his capture in 1977 until 1989, Russell was shipped from state, county, and federal prisons, kept in long-term solitary confinement the vast majority of that time, principally due to his work with the Pennsylvania Association of Lifers to abolish life-without-parole sentences. In 1979, he was forcibly transferred to the Fairview State Hospital for the Criminally Insane. While at Fairview he was forcibly drugged, which in one case lead to him being hospitalized when he was overdosed. 1980 Prison Escape In March of 1980, Russell escaped prison with a fellow revolutionary after a New Afrikan activist smuggled a revolver and sub-machine gun into the institution. Three days later, all three were captured after a gun battle with local, state, and county police, and FBI agents. Camp Hill Prison Riot In 1989, Pennsylvania prison Camp Hill erupted in a riot because of overcrowding and inhumane conditions. Despite being held in a Dallas prison and having nothing to do with the incident, Russell was implicated in it, and as a result, was transferred to the notorious Marion Supermax prison over 1,000 miles from family and friends. Supporters fought to have Russell removed from solitary confinement in Marion and released into general population. They were finally successful in December of 1989, when Maroon was released to the general prison population at the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. Russell Returns to Solitary Confinement Unfortunately, Russell was placed back into long-term solitary confinement in 1991, at SCI Greene in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania. He would remain in solitary confinement for over 22 years, where despite being held in 23 hours-a-day lockdown, his commitment to New Afrikan liberation never wavered. Russell seeks relief from Administrative Custody Dan Kovalik, human rights and union labor lawyer in Pittsburgh, filed for relief on May 23, 2000. The case Shoatz vs. Horne sought to relieve Russell from continued placement on AC status – administrative custody, a.k.a. solitary confinement. Unfortunately, Russell’s legal fight to relieve himself from confinement in administrative custody was unsuccessful. Read the full decision here. Russell Returns to General Population The struggle for Russell’s freedom was reignited in 2013 when his legal team brought suit on the grounds that he had been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that prison officials had deprived him of his procedural and substantive due process rights for keeping him in solitary confinement without meaningful review and on insufficient grounds. The campaign to release Russell from solitary confinement also continued to gather international attention, including the support of five Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa among them. Several U.S. civil and human rights organizations endorsed his release from isolation, as well as growing number of clergy. In March of 2013, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Juan Mendez, called on the U.S. government “to cease the prolonged isolation of Mr. Shoatz.” Finally, in February of 2014, Russell was released into the general prison population at SCI Graterford in Pennsylvania. www.russellmaroonshoatz.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.53.107 ( talk) 18:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
@ 74.109.53.107: What is the point of posting this text (apparently copied from a Web site) on this Noticeboard? We already have an article concerning Mr. Shoatz, at Russell Maroon Shoatz. However, please note that much of this information cannot be posted at all on Wikipedia without including citations of reliable, published sources. General Ization Talk 19:00, 11 August 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. |
Trevor Graham ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has been mentioned here before. In light of this legal threat, could I ask others to make sure the article is all in order. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Andrew Luster ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reads like a tabloid biopic. Minimal citations.
Later in life, he was referred to as the bored trust fund kid by neighbors. He attended college classes in Santa Barbara but dropped out before earning a degree. He spent most of his time surfing and fishing. He was known for neighborhood antics and mischief before his arrest for rape. He put Super Glue on the locks of a neighbor's house; shot a stranger's car with a paintball gun when the stranger parked in front of his home; and smeared surf wax all over the windshield of an ex-girlfriend's car.
Et cetera. causa sui ( talk) 07:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
my name is not jane and has never been!
Greg Hardy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article keeps getting rearranged to blame the victim of domestic assault. Very one-sided article. This has been noted (not by me) on the talk page since July 17th. Needs fixing and watching. Bellicist ( talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
See Alleged Clinton Controversies and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies. A lot of the discussion concerns possible BLP violations, so I think it's appropriate to notify people here about it. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the right forum, but is there any way to remove racist comments from Talk:Ice-T? User AzseicsoK, who goes by Uporządnicki, is claiming Barack Obama won the Novel Peace Prize because he is black, and then compares him to Hitler. [1]. Also, is there any way of formally warning the user not to make racist comments on talk pages? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Alan Jackson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It says hes dead, can this be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.78.251 ( talk) 19:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The below conversation was archived before any administrator had the chance to take a look at it. Righteousskills ( talk) 21:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I would appreciate extra eyes and help to settle an issue with the BLP of a president of a Venezuelan power plant construction company: Alejandro Betancourt López.
The issue is over this edition The content is referenced by an article published by the WSJ which is of course a very reliable source, El Pais, a Spanish newspaper also quoted the WSJ article as it source and reproduced its contents, but I think the information should not be included in the BLP so I posted the following reasons on the talk page of the article:
I asked for new reliable sources to reference if the BLP is under an actual investigation since the article was published almost a year ago. Since I received no answer, a few days latter I removed the content I deemed non encyclopedic for the BLP due to reasons mentioned above. In the past I have reverted several questionable contributions from righteousskills ( see summary on his talk page). One of this contributions was adding to the lead that the subject of the BLP was under a criminal investigation using that same source. The article was protected and the editor was reminded of WP:OR by an administrator (see at the end of this section) More than a month after my edit was done righteousskills added it back without any previous discussion of the matter in the talk page. He also added an unrelated reference and a phrase already covered elsewhere in the article. I reverted it twice asking him to reach a consensus first before changing the article. He has ignored my requests and added the content again. Even though this is not a very relevant article for the encyclopedia, I would appreciate it if someone could take the time to look into this in detail. I think it is worth a look because Derwick Associates's page has been edited by at least one paid editor ( see here) on behalf of the company and various sock puppets have been uncovered. On the other hand it also had various IP's proxies blocked that were doing negative contributions very similar to those of righteousskills on both the company and the BLP (this are some accounts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (see diff). Righteousskills after a year and a half of inactivity, requested an IP block exemption claiming he could be hacked ( see here). After that he created or contributed on all the pages related to the WSJ article before it was published, and then did clearly biased contributions like ( this edit) in all those articles just the moment it got published. I can't prove if this is the case, but while one civil suit for defamation with charges of bribery against the company and the BLP has been dismissed , there is another one that is still active, so there might be economical interests at play for both sides. I try to reach consensus whenever possible, but in this case we may be dealing with a conflict of interests. so I would appreciate it if other editors that want to invest their time could take care of this one. Thank you.-- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 16:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Allegations by anonymous or unnamed persons are rarely a great idea in any BLP. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Not yet resolved. Righteousskills ( talk) 21:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I want to hear whether other editors think the name of the man who killed the lion as described in the article Killing of Cecil the lion should be named in the article. Currently he is not. However, he has been named in reliable sources such as CNN [2] and the New York Times [3]. There is also little doubt that he did it as both of the sources I just linked to state that he admitted to killing the lion. Everymorning talk 19:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
There are absolutely no journalistic grounds to exclude the shooter's name — especially if attributed. "…identified by multiple news agencies, including the New York Times and AP as …" He is obviously notable, and he has issued a statement about the incident. The references on the page are filled with his name. This is silly discussion at would end in a professional newsroom in about six seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.253.219 ( talk) 02:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we should include the name. It is has high encyclopedic value to the article and most importantly it is verifiable. Because this is already published widely we are not doing damage. Chillum 04:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
With the presidential silly season now gearing up to full throttle, it seems important to ask that our policies and guidelines be respected to a minimal degree. I don't think that's happening at this BLP, and so some opinions from experienced editors would be appreciated. User:MrX thinks it would be a good idea to delete all reference to his presidential candidacy (i.e. the primary source of his current notabilty) from the lead paragraph. [5] That's contrary to how it's done at many other BLPs now (e.g. see Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker all of which put their presidential candidacies in the lead paragraph) and also contrary to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Opening_paragraph which says:
“ | [T]he opening paragraph should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context. The opening paragraph should usually have…. The notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played; Why the person is notable….[A]void overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph. | ” |
Typical format is to provide an overview in the lead paragraph, and then some more details in the rest of the lead. Thus, the Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders BLPs mention their presidential candidacy in the lead paragraph, and then provide a bit more detail at the end of the lead. Entirely removing a presidential candidacy from a lead paragraph seems very odd and improper. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Michael Dale "Mike" Huckabee (born August 24, 1955) is an American author and politician who served as the 44th Governor of Arkansas from 1996 to 2007. He was a candidate in the 2008 United States Republican presidential primaries. He won the 2008 Iowa Republican caucuses and finished second in delegate count and third in both popular vote and number of states won, behind nominee John McCain and Mitt Romney. Huckabee has announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential election, his second run for the U.S. presidency. ¶ Beginning in 2008, Huckabee hosted the Fox News Channel talk show Huckabee, ending the show in January 2015 in order to explore a potential bid for the Presidency. From April 2012 through December 2013, he hosted a daily radio program, The Mike Huckabee Show, on weekday afternoons for Cumulus Media Networks. Huckabee is the author of several best-selling books, an ordained Southern Baptist minister noted for his evangelical views, a musician, and a public speaker. He is also a political commentator on The Huckabee Report. The date of Huckabee's announcement of his presidential candidacy was May 5, 2015. It is his second run for the U.S. presidency.
Irene Zisblatt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reporting the page of Irene Zisblatt because of frequent libelous attacks by Holocaust deniers. Assaulting the integrity of Holocaust survivors will not be tolerated. I have put warning notices on the IP addresses who have attacked Ms. Zisblatt's page, and now I am reporting this to Wikipedia. Please stop Holocaust deniers from tampering with honest people's lives. Hello43r ( talk) 21:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The page appears to be in need of a serious re-write- if anyone has a lot of time on their hands and a willingness to step into a fight between two sides who both have a righteous agenda to push. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Users keep changing his birthplace from Santiago to Copiapó. References in the article support the former. A new user is now adding this as a reference - Servicio de Registro Civil e Identificación. Birth certificate, Circunscription of Copiapó, N° 824, 1990. Germán Alejandro Garmendia Aranis.. They say they can email me his birth certificate. Of course that's not how things work. I decided to bring it to the attention of this noticeboard so it can be discussed and resolved, rather than engage in an edit war over it. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 01:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please note that a photoshopped image in this essay which attacks a group of people referred to as "advocacy ducks" includes a flock of waterfowl carrying signs that clearly show the logo of the Public and Commercial Services Union. It looks to me like this image is (whether intentionally or not) associating this union with untoward activity on Wikipedia.
I started a discussion on the talkpage: Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks#Public and Commercial Services Union. It seems the main author of the essay is none too pleased with the removal of the image and doesn't see the problem, claiming " No defamation there - images are CC licensed which clears them." I don't think that this is a correct reading of how CC licensing works in terms of issues like this on Wikipedia.
Thoughts?
jps ( talk) 16:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict) This essay is already the subject of a long and ongoing discussion at ANI. It does seem inappropriate for one of the images in an essay of this type to target a specific group like that. Fyddlestix ( talk) 16:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has just placed unfounded and uncited serious personal allegations into this biography, which have no media or evidential substance. Can an admin please wipe the revisions? It's of a highly legal nature Thanks TF92 ( talk) 20:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Jeffrey Beall ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This edit does not seem BLP compliant, so I am posting here to determine what other editors think. Everymorning talk 02:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Richard Schweiker has been edited to state that he died within the past few days [8], however, this has not been reported. - Location ( talk) 05:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Arafat Nagi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor, BuffaloBob, has created a new article about this individual who was arrested by federal authorities last week in Lackawanna, New York on suspicion of "attempting to provide material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization." As I stated in my PROD of the article, "First, a presumption of innocence exists; the subject has been charged but not convicted. Second, WP:BLP1E applies. The subject is not notable for any reason other than the charges brought against him. We should not create an article for everyone the authorities arrest on suspicion of terrorism (or any other charge)." Please advise if you disagree, or if there is some other guidance that contradicts either of these points when it comes to suspected terrorists who have been charged but not convicted. General Ization Talk 23:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about some of the recent edits to this page. Is Age of Autism a reliable source in this context? What about Agriculturesociety.com? Is it fair to say that open access journals are not part of the mainstream academic press? Everymorning talk 19:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Cecil (lion) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
At this time, this article mentions the name of the hunter, the name of his practice (name of his business), his state, and his profession. The hunter has admitted to the killing, so of course his name is properly cited. But his personal business?
All this, for a person who has been convicted of no crime, and who is merely accused on the say-so of some third world NGO which has already benefited to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and of some government officials of the same country.
Zimbabwe, really, look up its Wikipedia page: its president has been the same since 1980, and, according to the Wikipedia lede, Zimbabwe has a "problematic human rights record and substantial economic decline."
Is this how Wikipedia treats BLP of an accused person convicted of no crime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm ( talk • contribs) 08:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion the name, location etc of the business is undue weight for an article about a lion. However an image of the shrine to the lion does appear to reasonable as it is directly related to the topic at hand and as others have mentioned it does not reveal sensitive information and is not particularly nasty relative to what is being said elsewhere. Chillum 15:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Related bios, of young Broadway actors, being edited by WP:SPA users. I've tried to de-fluff both of these, but suspect they'll require some vigilance, so any assistance will be appreciated. A lot more unsourced content can be cut from both. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:2CE7:9FE7:32F1:AC2A ( talk) 21:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Alexey Pajitnov ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just noticed this article was edited today and something seems off about it.
A lot of random strings of letters, and claiming that he died with no source, all from an anonymous IP in Serbia with +100 already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.29.192.185 ( talk) 03:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Arrest of Nicole Naugler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could use some help figuring out what to do with this article, and keeping an eye on it. I've already done some cleanup ( Before, After, Diff) since the article was in a pretty sad state when I found it (citations to facebook and infowars, wholly un-referenced allegations of sexual abuse, etc). I've basically stubbed it, but now I'm wondering if there should be an article on this at all - there is coverage that suggests notability ( [10] [11] [12] [13]), however the focus of that coverage seems to be the seizure of the family's children and their child-rearing philosophy rather than Nicole Naugler's arrest specifically, and most of it smacks of WP:SENSATION. I'm really not sure what airing this family's dirty laundry is supposed to provide in terms of encyclopedic value, but I'm hesitant to bring it to AFD because there's actually been quite a lot of news coverage.
Any input/advice is appreciated, and having some people watching the article would be good. Fyddlestix ( talk) 05:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Relating to page /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Liz#Oppose
I made a vote on this RfA as I thought was permitted by the specified rules. Bureaucrat WJBscribe removed my vote with this comment:
This is not true. I had been following the RfA from the beginning, I had seen no mention of it on Reddit, and my "agenda here" includes edits to Georg Simmel and Doctor Faustus. My Gamergate-related "agenda" has been confined to getting Wikipedia to remove slanderous misrepresentations of me. Unless WJBscribe is prepared to explain how this fits with the above description, I would like these remarks removed.
If you would prefer to keep my vote out of your RfA kangaroo court, I don't really care about that. It's the false remarks that matter. Auerbachkeller ( talk) 18:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
If you're smart enough to comment at RFA, you're smart enough to know this is the wrong forum for this discussion. This is not a BLP issue. Suggest someone close this. Townlake ( talk) 19:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I repeat my request, as the previous request was closed improperly by non-admin EvergreenFir. In keeping with BLP policy, WJBscribe's claim that I was part of a Reddit brigade in the RfA is categorically false, unsupported, and a violation of the BLP rule that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate" in non-article space. This is not an internal matter as WJBscribe made a claim about my activity *off* of Wikipedia, namely, joining in a Reddit brigade organized outside of Wikipedia. It is a BLP issue. The users above who say "Just forget about it" and "You're in the wrong place" should pay closer attention to the policies they supposedly know so well. Auerbachkeller ( talk) 20:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Here I repeat the original report:
Relating to page /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Liz#Oppose
I made a vote on this RfA as I thought was permitted by the specified rules. Bureaucrat WJBscribe removed my vote with this comment:
This is not true. I had been following the RfA from the beginning, I had seen no mention of it on Reddit, and my "agenda here" includes edits to Georg Simmel and Doctor Faustus. My Gamergate-related "agenda" has been confined to getting Wikipedia to remove slanderous misrepresentations of me. Unless WJBscribe is prepared to explain how this fits with the above description, I would like these remarks removed.
If you would prefer to keep my vote out of your RfA kangaroo court, I don't really care about that. It's the false remarks that matter. Auerbachkeller ( talk) 18:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Herman Jay Cohen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am removing two paragraphs by Perspicacite. They are very NPOV, making extensive use of editorializing and weasel words. The only source is one dodgy article from the defunct conservative outlet Insight on the News. The paragraphs created a "wheel war" between Perspicacite – who evidently referred to the article's subject as an "evil SOB" – and 128.220.251.100, who may also be NPOV. In the interim I will add hard biographical facts to the article only, and request that an administrator prevent hasty edits to the article. – Larry.darrell44 ( talk) 21:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Below Conversation is still not resolved. Righteousskills ( talk) 07:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I asked for new reliable sources to reference if the BLP is under an actual investigation since the article was published almost a year ago. Since I received no answer, a few days latter I removed the content I deemed non encyclopedic for the BLP due to reasons mentioned above.
In the past I have reverted several questionable contributions from righteousskills ( see summary on his talk page). One of this contributions was adding to the lead that the subject of the BLP was under a criminal investigation using that same source. The article was protected and the editor was reminded of WP:OR by an administrator (see at the end of this section)
More than a month after my edit was done righteousskills added it back without any previous discussion of the matter in the talk page. He also added an unrelated reference and a phrase already covered elsewhere in the article. I reverted it twice asking him to reach a consensus first before changing the article. He has ignored my requests and added the content again.
Even though this is not a very relevant article for the encyclopedia, I would appreciate it if someone could take the time to look into this in detail. I think it is worth a look because Derwick Associates's page has been edited by at least one paid editor ( see here) on behalf of the company and various sock puppets have been uncovered. On the other hand it also had various IP's proxies blocked that were doing negative contributions very similar to those of righteousskills on both the company and the BLP (this are some accounts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (see diff). Righteousskills after a year and a half of inactivity, requested an IP block exemption claiming he could be hacked ( see here). After that he created or contributed on all the pages related to the WSJ article before it was published, and then did clearly biased contributions like ( this edit) in all those articles just the moment it got published.
I can't prove if this is the case, but while one civil suit for defamation with charges of bribery against the company and the BLP has been dismissed , there is another one that is still active, so there might be economical interests at play for both sides. I try to reach consensus whenever possible, but in this case we may be dealing with a conflict of interests. so I would appreciate it if other editors that want to invest their time could take care of this one. Thank you.-- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 16:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Allegations by anonymous or unnamed persons are rarely a great idea in any BLP. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Bump. Righteousskills ( talk) 07:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Bill Strömberg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recommend for deleting:
This article was a puff piece; right now, it's just another poor article. But a quick look through the history reveals that a now-blocked editor did a bit of cleanup, including in this edit--note the deceptive edit summary. In short, what we need is a rewrite of the article which takes into account the two highly reliable references removed in that edit ( this and this--it's really quite juicy). Thank you in advance. Drmies ( talk) 01:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Mark Bell (journalist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clearly an autobiography written by subject as "WhoWhoOwl" which account history proves. Person is not notable in any respect and should be removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.0.45 ( talk) 01:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Ervand Abrahamian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ervand Abrahamian is not a marxist. The "references" that have been cited are hardly reputable--one of them was created simply to support the claim. This is his biography: http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/academics/history/eabrahamian.htm Please remove the word "marxist" from this post--clearly someone is trying to misrepresent him.
Ismahil Akinade ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is the addition of information concerning the right to be forgotten by this footballer concerning his conviction in a child sex case a BLP violation? Mo ainm ~Talk 15:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Joshua Kushner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article does not conform to wikipedia's guidelines for BLP because it does not strike the right tone (somewhat self-aggrandizing, possibly written by the subject), and isn't verifiable (IE doesn't cite sources for some of its descriptions). A significant amount of the information presented seemingly fails to achieve adequate notability. It reads more like a résumé than it does a wikipedia article.
Hi all,
Recently, I removed a 5 year old, spent, conviction from Jake Speight. While this received some coverage at the time, this does not appear to be long-term or particiually widespread, and assuming this was ok, I removed it from the article, as I have done in previous instances after discussion here. However, in this case I was reverted. I was wondering if this sort of action is ok, or if there is a wider policy related to this - I'd point to WP:NPF (because they are not widely known with the intention of the article). Thanks in advance for any advice. Mdann52 ( talk) 12:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Tré Cool ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can you please lock this page like his band members Mike Durnt and Billie Joe Armstrong.
True Cool's page is regularly vandalized.
/info/en/?search=Tré_Cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by An108 ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The article for Richard Rawlings is repeatedly being vandalized. I cannot revert now due to WP:3RR -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 21:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The Article says Frank Ocean started his career by ghostwriting for Damienn Jones, that's false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseriverajunior ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 August 2015
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been a disagreement regarding a BLP and a self published sources on the Roosh V article. I've removed the content in this diff [ [14]]. There has been some discussion on the talk page, but since this is a relatively obscure BLP, I am bringing it here for wider input. Pinging @ EvergreenFir:, @ PeterTheFourth:, and @ Cla68: since they were involved on the talk page.
To sum up the argument, The Anti-defamation league made a claim about Roosh V on their own blog. I removed the statement because it is only sourced to the ADL's blog, and per BLPSPS we should not use self published sources on BLP's. However, it has been restored on the basis that the ADL is a highly notable organization and is reliable for it's own opinion. My apologies in advance if I didn't sum up the arguments well. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 13:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
In 2015 the Anti-Defamation League accused Roosh of anti-Semitism. We're attributing the statement to the ADL and using their blog as the source with is permissible as WP:ABOUTSELF. And I agree with the assertion that ADL's opinion is notable. Just as we note which groups the SPLC calls "hate groups" (and attribute that assertion directly to the SPLC), it would make sense to do so here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 16:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Howdy. My own opinion is that the ADL is a reliable source for their own opinion, their opinion about whether an individual is antisemitic is highly notable, and that if that person is already notable enough for an article it's to be encouraged to include this notable opinion in that article. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 20:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Per elaboration on the meaning of
WP:BLPSPS (cannot be used as source for statements of fact, but can be used for opinion), and my belief that the answer to the question of "Is the opinion itself inherently notable enough to be included in a person's biography without having been first commented upon by an independent reliable source?
" is yes with consensus seeming to support that, I'm going to place the summary of the ADL's opinion back in the article.
PeterTheFourth (
talk)
22:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hoping an uninvolved admin will be kind enough to close those. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 03:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The entry has the following sentence in it: ""Wise has said that when he was 9 years old his Synagogue was attacked by white supremacists." I argue that the sentence should be removed based on the following:
WP:Biographies of living persons says:
Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.
(WP:BLPSELFPUB)
I argue that the sentence in question fails the criteria of "it does not involve claims about third parties;" The reference to the above sentence is Tim Wise's own website. He is accusing White supremacists of a serious crime. I would say that it involves claims about a third party (and one which Tim Wise has a long history of war with, which could, additionally, also be regarded as "unduly self-serving").
There is no evidence offered to back Tim's claim that the attack actually happened, so the claim itself, without any backing, is also insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.97.121 ( talk) 13:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, managed to Google up another newspaper article from that time. It seems to confirm that white supremacists did try to blow up that synagogue. That is good enough for me to agree to keep the sentence as it is now. (The inaccuracy I referred to above relating to only attempted attack compared to an actual attack seems to me to be rather semantic at this stage: if a bunch of white supremacists park a pick-up truck next to a synagogue, then even if the explosives packing the track fail to detonate, it is close enough for an attack for me.) I apologize if I need to, realizing that in spite of my passionate belief, it seems that this claim had merit. Humble apologies to all involved, including, I guess, to Mr Tim Wise. Regards, 1.129.96.31 ( talk) 11:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Eric Holthaus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, I'm Eric Holthaus. I have a concern that the page someone made about me isn't neutral, and is misrepresenting my work & public opinion of my work. I don't think I've attracted significant criticism. I am a meteorologist and I write opinion articles on climate change, but that doesn't make me untrustworthy, as the wikipedia article currently implies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.141.150 ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
This is Eric again, agreed, it looks much better. Thank you so much for prompt response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.141.150 ( talk) 15:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Mark Wahlberg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor and I are arguing about the legitimacy of a source on Mark Wahlberg's past homophobia. Could someone iron out?-- A21sauce ( talk) 01:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Very selective reading of my reference. Well-known within the gay community: He was a Southie for chrissakes; don't play dumb.Sorry, but we can't include potentially defamatory content simply because it was "Well-known within the gay community". BLP issues aside it's even questionable whether this belongs in the article anyway. Something Wahlberg said, or didn't say 22 years ago is noteworthy why? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Nabih Berri ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Does the Corruption allegations section violate BLP? Confirmed suck-poppet with numerous other accounts ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Philanthropist_1001/Archive continuously reverting corruption allegation section and participating in talk page via multi suck-poppet. Currently a suspected suck-poppet continually reverting edits.. 495656778774 ( talk) 17:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Do the Political Positions sections at Hillary Clinton and John McCain conform to the guidelines for WP:SUMMARY style, since they consist of an assortment of ideological ratings rather than specific political positions? CFredkin ( talk) 03:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Henry Makow ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page of Henry Makow has obviously been vandalized.
Source: His own website and confirmed by email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadrag777 ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikimedia Personnel,
I know you folks strive for accuracy and unbiased information in Wikipedia. However, some of your volunteer editors are insisting on promoting their factually incorrect information on my Wikipedia page and on pages relating to a song which I co-wrote and which was briefly nominated for an Academy Award.
I have supplied numerous references which contain the facts but they insist on repeatedly inserting their own bias which is unsubstantiated. Their incorrect statement casts aspersions on one of the most respected individuals to ever work in film music, my collaborator, Bruce Broughton. Some of your volunteers have continually reinstated the statement....
the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences found that Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had improperly contacted other branch members for support.[9]
This is completely false. I have provided documentation that shows them the facts but they insist on perpetuating their unsupported bias. Broughton never asked anyone for their vote or their support. This is a critical distinction. He was never accused of doing anything illegal because he never did anything illegal. That's just fact.
Here is the transcript and video from the nationally broadcast CBS This Morning. If you scroll down on the transcript you can see Bruce Broughton's entire e-mail to his friends. It concludes with "This is merely a request 'For Your Consideration'."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/academy-award-rescinds-nomination-for-songwriter-bruce-broughton/
These words make a difference. Broughton merely asks that people find the song and consider it. Bruce was more familiar with every Academy rule than most folks. He is also one of the most ethical people in the entertainment industry and has done more for aspiring composers than practically anyone else.
Here is the Academy's stated reason for their action..
“No matter how well-intentioned the communication, using one’s position as a former governor and current executive committee member to personally promote one’s own Oscar submission creates the appearance of an unfair advantage,” said Cheryl Boone Isaacs, president of the Academy.
Here is a link to the coverage by National Public Radio (NPR) in an interview with Scott Feinberg of The Hollywood Reporter. in it Feinberg addresses the issue of whether any rules were broken.
http://www.npr.org/2014/02/01/269925008/a-major-oscar-dust-up-over-a-song-from-a-minor-movie
Here is also a link to a piece written by Scott Feinberg in The Hollywood Reporter. It addresses the entire matter in detail.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/was-academys-disqualification-song-contender-675582
And finally here is a piece from Entertainment Weekly which lays out what was done by The Academy.
I don't want to inundate you with material but simply to establish the facts. The erroneous statement which your volunteer editors repeatedly attach to my Wikipedia page and to the pages about the song and movie "Alone Yet Not Alone" is contrary to the facts. I would appreciate the simple and accurate rephrasing of the statement to read...
the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences said that Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had contacted other branch members with a request "For Your Consideration." The Board of Governors said that that "creates the appearance of an unfair advantage". [9] Not everyone agreed with the Academy's actions. [3] [4] [5]
I appreciate your efforts to ensure unbiased material in the "people's encyclopedia". Words matter.
Respectfully, Dennis Spiegel Lyricist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:C42B:CDEC:D9C1:8E16 ( talk) 22:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Broughton’s request “For Your Consideration” is the accepted language used by every contender. Many artists who serve as volunteers for their branch in the Academy, as well as every studio, put forth their work “For Consideration”. That is the accepted language and it means please consider this work. It does not mean “vote for this work” or “support this work”. If the responder finds this distinction hard to reconcile then his issue is with the Academy.
The responder is correct on one point. Mr. Broughton is not asking for a dinner invitation or compliments.
Here’s a detailed posting which may help with an appraisal of this matter. While I do not offer it as a reference for inclusion on Wikipedia, it is perhaps the most in depth look at the issue to date. I think it is well worth reading for people who wish to understand all sides.
http://badalanews.blogspot.com/2015/02/taking-bruce-broughton-side-in-yet-not.html
Respectfully, Dennis Spiegel Lyricist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:1587:7F3A:BF69:C848 ( talk) 20:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
To say that Mr. Broughton was asking for "support" is neither factual nor neutral.
To say that Mr. Broughton was asking "For Your Consideration" is accurate.
Here is the entire e-mail Mr. Broughton shared with his friends...
Dear XXXXX,
I'm dropping you a line to boldly direct your attention to entry #57, Alone Yet Not Alone, on the Academy's Original Song Reminder List and DVD compilation for Best Original Song. Alone Yet Not Alone was composed by Dennis Spiegel and myself for the film, and was used as a dramatic centerpiece of the story. The score for the film was composed by Bill Ross, The clip includes the final scene in the film and a performance of the song as used in the beginning of the End Credits.
I'm sending this note only because it is extremely unlikely that this small, independent, faith-based film will be seen by any Music Branch member, it's the only way I can think of to have anyone be aware of the song.
This is merely a request "For Your Consideration," a hope that the song will get noticed and be remembered among the many worthy songs from more highly visible films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:6CBC:70D:A28:176F ( talk) 14:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
On Tuesday night, the Academy’s Board of Governors voted to rescind the Original Song nomination for “Alone Yet Not Alone,” music by Bruce Broughton and lyric by Dennis Spiegel. The decision was prompted by the discovery that Broughton, a former Governor and current Music Branch executive committee member, had emailed members of the branch to make them aware of his submission during the nominations voting period. [...] "No matter how well-intentioned the communication, using one’s position as a former governor and current executive committee member to personally promote one’s own Oscar submission creates the appearance of an unfair advantage,” said Cheryl Boone Isaacs, Academy President. [1]
(At Dennis Spiegel) Spiegel's song "Alone Yet Not Alone" from the 2013 film of the same name was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Song at the 86th Academy Awards, but the nomination was rescinded on January 29, 2014, after the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences found that the song's co-writer Bruce Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had improperly contacted other branch members for support. Not everyone agreed with the Academy's actions.
(At Bruce Broughton) Broughton's song "Alone Yet Not Alone," from the film with the same name, was originally nominated for an Oscar for Best Original Song at the 86th Academy Awards. But on January 29, 2014, before any voting could take place, the nomination was rescinded, when the Academy alleged that Broughton, a former Academy governor who, at the time, was an executive committee member of the Academy's music branch, had improperly contacted other branch members for support.
(At Alone Yet Not Alone (song)) In January 2014 the song was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Song at the 86th Academy Awards, but the nomination was rescinded on January 29, 2014, after the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences alleged that the song's co-writer, Bruce Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had improperly contacted other branch members for support. Not everyone agreed with the Academy's actions.
(At Alone Yet Not Alone) The title song was performed by well-known evangelical Christian author Joni Eareckson Tada and written by Bruce Broughton and Dennis Spiegel. It was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Song at the 86th Academy Awards, but the nomination was rescinded on January 29, 2014, after the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences found that Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had improperly contacted other branch members for support. [...] While not the first time in the history of the awards a nomination has been revoked, it is the first time the Academy has cited ethical grounds for doing so, and the first time it has done so to a scripted American-produced feature film. Broughton responded that there was a double standard in the industry, alleging that his actions of sending out "70 or so emails" was no different from Academy Awards president Cheryl Boone Isaacs' involvement in films such as The Artist and The King's Speech as an Academy governor. Not everyone agreed with the Academy's actions.
References
Rick Ross (consultant) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An opinion is included within my biography, put there by an editor who apparently wanted a negative POV expressed. Included is the following quote, "Ross' moral credentials 'seem shaky at best'" Many articles have been written about me and this point of view expresses a tiny minority. It reflects bias to include this quote and I request that it be removed from the bio. I have repeatedly requested for this quote to be removed at the Talk page. Rick Alan Ross 96.235.133.43 ( talk) 13:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The cost of interventions doesn't seem appropriate in the bio. It's not an advertisement for services ist it? Also, this is mentioned repeatedly, as "typically charging around $5,000 per case" and then again "at a typical cost of $5,000." Is it necessary to repeat this twice? Also, wouldn't it be better to have the bio titled Rick Alan Ross (consultant) rather than Rick Ross (consultant), to avoid confusion with the rapper Rick Ross? 96.235.133.43 ( talk) 13:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
Balendu Sharma Dadhich ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
André Marin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article currently has a run-down of how much Marin has earned, for each year, over a ten-year period. Similar content and potential BLP problems at Ontario Ombudsman. The article has been the subject of discussions here and at COIN a couple of times: see here and here. I've tried to fix these pages up in the past, as have others, but some of the editors involved seem to have an axe to grind and are very persistent. Fyddlestix ( talk) 22:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
New biography, largely unsourced. Article's creator is determined to list group of non-notable students in the infobox. Help requested. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 ( talk) 11:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, i am the author of the article Giorgio Ausiello. I inspired myself from the already existing article of the advisor of Prof. Ausiello, Corrado Bohm. Indeed, i found the link to create the paga about Giorgio Ausiello in Corrado Bohm's wikipedia entry. I put the (so called) "non-notable" students simply because they were the doctoral students of Prof. Ausiello. If you think they should not be cited fine, but in that case i think we might change the entry name into something like "notable students", otherwise it seems that he has no doctoral students. Rogatienne ( talk) 11:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Problematic biography, which appears to have begun as a copyright violation. I've removed the suspicious section, but the rest of it is a long resume, with dozens of publications and lists of academic history. All eight references are from the subject's published work. Badly needs trimming. 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 ( talk) 13:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Adding a second biography with many similar issues, created by the same, now dormant, account. 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 ( talk) 14:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Luis Alberto Villarreal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page about a politicians from the state of Guanajuato in Mexico is obviously propaganda by his own campaign team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.211.152.242 ( talk) 16:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jerry Speziale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BLP expert eyes on this one please. I don't have time to work on it in detail. Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 13:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The contents of his article were challenged a while ago regarding claims that the subject was one of the media folks that victim-blamed Leigh Leigh for her own murder. Pinging Freikorp, who originally added the material. There were originally three sources used to support the claim:
I requested and received images of the relevant pages in #1 and I can confirm they do criticize Riley as per the article's wording. I also have a copy of #2, and while it is basically about the same thing, it only mentions Riley's work in a citation. It is also written by the author of #1. #3 also cites Riley's work but does not criticize him directly. Originally I left this alone after a discussion in the talk page but today I realized that the inclusion of this admittedly serious criticism by a single author is very much a case of WP:UNDUE. The Leigh article already includes Carrington's material, which to me is a more appropriate place since she does not limit her criticism to Riley in any case and seems to be a decent source for that particular angle of the case. I am asking for consensus on whether or not the material should remain, or we should wait until more widespread criticism of the subject appears in reliable sources, by authors other than Carrington. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
An impressive vanity autobiography, both in terms of commitment, which seems to span five years, and content, which is mostly unsourced and largely promotional. Language difficulties don't help, but that's not the main problem. Half a decade is probably long enough for this to have grown to its current shape and condition. I may begin to chip away at the article, and further assistance would be appreciated. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:F51F:3422:6AAA:30D0 ( talk) 16:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Text from external Web site
|
---|
'Russell Maroon Shoatz' is a dedicated community activist, founding member of the Black Unity Council, former member of the Black Panther Party and soldier in the Black Liberation Army. He is serving multiple life sentences as a US-held political prisoner/prisoner of war. P e r s o n a l B a c k g r o u n d Russell was born in August, 1943, in Philadelphia. He was one of 12 children. At the age of 15 he became involved in a gang and was in and out of reform schools and youth institutions until the age of 18. As a young man he married and became the father of seven children. In the mid 1960s, Russell became active in the New Afrikan liberation movement. He founded the Black Unity Council, which merged with the Philadelphia chapter of the Black Panther Party in 1969. Tensions were high in Philadelphia in the summer of 1970, as Police Chief Frank Rizzo had ordered a crackdown on militant groups in the run-up to the national convention of the Black Panther Party, scheduled to be held in the city on September 5, 1970. Tensions intensified when police killed an unarmed black youth. A retaliatory attack was carried out on a police station, killing officer Frank Von Coln and injuring one other. The shooting of Von Coln prompted a 2 AM raid on the Black Panther headquarters in North Philadelphia. After the raid, police officials allowed news photographers to take humiliating photos of the Black Panthers being strip-searched on the street. Russell and four others, who became known as the “Philly Five”, were immediately charged with the attack. L e g a l C a s e In January of 1972, Russell was captured. He was convicted of the attack on the police station and sentenced to life. L i f e in P r i s o n 1977 Prison Escape Russell escaped with three others from Huntingdon State Prison in 1977. Two were recaptured and the third was killed during the escape. Russell remained at large for 27 days, leading to a massive manhunt by local, state, and federal forces, as well as citizen recruits from nearby white, rural areas. From his capture in 1977 until 1989, Russell was shipped from state, county, and federal prisons, kept in long-term solitary confinement the vast majority of that time, principally due to his work with the Pennsylvania Association of Lifers to abolish life-without-parole sentences. In 1979, he was forcibly transferred to the Fairview State Hospital for the Criminally Insane. While at Fairview he was forcibly drugged, which in one case lead to him being hospitalized when he was overdosed. 1980 Prison Escape In March of 1980, Russell escaped prison with a fellow revolutionary after a New Afrikan activist smuggled a revolver and sub-machine gun into the institution. Three days later, all three were captured after a gun battle with local, state, and county police, and FBI agents. Camp Hill Prison Riot In 1989, Pennsylvania prison Camp Hill erupted in a riot because of overcrowding and inhumane conditions. Despite being held in a Dallas prison and having nothing to do with the incident, Russell was implicated in it, and as a result, was transferred to the notorious Marion Supermax prison over 1,000 miles from family and friends. Supporters fought to have Russell removed from solitary confinement in Marion and released into general population. They were finally successful in December of 1989, when Maroon was released to the general prison population at the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. Russell Returns to Solitary Confinement Unfortunately, Russell was placed back into long-term solitary confinement in 1991, at SCI Greene in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania. He would remain in solitary confinement for over 22 years, where despite being held in 23 hours-a-day lockdown, his commitment to New Afrikan liberation never wavered. Russell seeks relief from Administrative Custody Dan Kovalik, human rights and union labor lawyer in Pittsburgh, filed for relief on May 23, 2000. The case Shoatz vs. Horne sought to relieve Russell from continued placement on AC status – administrative custody, a.k.a. solitary confinement. Unfortunately, Russell’s legal fight to relieve himself from confinement in administrative custody was unsuccessful. Read the full decision here. Russell Returns to General Population The struggle for Russell’s freedom was reignited in 2013 when his legal team brought suit on the grounds that he had been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that prison officials had deprived him of his procedural and substantive due process rights for keeping him in solitary confinement without meaningful review and on insufficient grounds. The campaign to release Russell from solitary confinement also continued to gather international attention, including the support of five Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa among them. Several U.S. civil and human rights organizations endorsed his release from isolation, as well as growing number of clergy. In March of 2013, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Juan Mendez, called on the U.S. government “to cease the prolonged isolation of Mr. Shoatz.” Finally, in February of 2014, Russell was released into the general prison population at SCI Graterford in Pennsylvania. www.russellmaroonshoatz.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.53.107 ( talk) 18:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
@ 74.109.53.107: What is the point of posting this text (apparently copied from a Web site) on this Noticeboard? We already have an article concerning Mr. Shoatz, at Russell Maroon Shoatz. However, please note that much of this information cannot be posted at all on Wikipedia without including citations of reliable, published sources. General Ization Talk 19:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)