![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Keshav Prasad Sharma ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roosh V ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A user has recently added some unsourced allegations of criminal behavior to this article, both in the article text and in edit summaries. I removed the relevant text but can't do anything about the edit summaries, it may need a rev-del. Roosh V is very much "in the news" in Canada atm, and very controversial. Please help watch the page. Fyddlestix ( talk) 13:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Update: User has been blocked by an admin, the offending revisions have been rev-del'd. Discussion & disruption is likely to continue over this article though, more eyes & opinions welcome. Fyddlestix ( talk) 21:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This professor is currently the active subject of a sexual harassment lawsuit, and his article is attracting some attention because of it. It has been heavily edited by his self-proclaimed wife, User:Annevalentino, but I believe that in the aftermath of an ANI discussion her edits likely conform to WP:COI.
It has also now been visited by three people who seem likely to be either the same or related - User:Women3001right, User:Realcampisifamily and User:FightLikeHell - who are very interested in adding content related to the lawsuit.
Some of this material has been removed as unusable under WP:BLP (including citations to a tabloid and a primary source link list), but the latest source - Gothamist - seems reliable. (I don't have a lot of time to look and would welcome correction there if I'm wrong.) I've accordingly just moved the content from its undue prominence in the lead. But I'd appreciate additional eyes. There seem to be a bunch of people with a conflict on keeping this article neutral and policy-compliant.
There's a note on the talk page with a bit more. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Sylvester Turner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lots of edit warring going on at this article. One user has removed lots of content from the article and claimed that the removed content was sourced to opinion pieces and has accused the editor who keeps restoring the removed material of "citing opinion pieces, work proven false and misinterpreting readings." See here, PrimeNotice's talk page, and my own for examples of this. As there is a question about whether this content, in a BLP, is reliably sourced enough to include, I am bringing it here. Everymorning (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Below Conversation is still not resolved. Righteousskills (talk) Righteousskills ( talk) 01:19, 12 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)
Isn't THIS the pot calling the kettle black now isn't it? Please refrain from this accusatory tone if you would like me to do the same. Any administrators viewing this should take note that the now blocked editor, FergusM1970, and the vast majority of the now blocked socks, made edits in line with Crystallizedcarbon's. I will place my same talk page comments here to reiterate my points. Here http://pubsys.miamiherald.com/2014/03/27/4023508/lawsuit-filed-in-miami-accuses.html : "The lawsuit, filed against Derwick Associates Corporation, Derwick Associates USA, and their owners, alleges that tens of millions of dollars were paid under the table to high-ranking Venezuelan officials in exchange for their acceptance of overpriced invoices from the companies." And here translated from Spanish: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/09/actualidad/1407540747_507459.html : "Perhaps the most representative bolichicos are the young owners of the utility Derwick -Peter Trebbau Alejandro Lopez and Alejandro Betancourt who have been subject to fierce scrutiny by public opinion....The newspaper The Wall Street Journal on Friday joined a new headache for them. Federal and state prosecutors in New York are investigating the company, which became one of the leading import and construction of power plants during the government of Hugo Chavez , for possible violations of banking laws of the state and the payment of bribes for advantages to doing business, prohibited by Corrupt Practices Act Abroad..... The US investigates whether excessive profit margins may have hidden reported paying bribes to foreign officials." And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelan-energy-company-derwick-investigated-in-u-s-1407516278 : "The lawsuit alleges Derwick and the company's owners, among others, obtained contracts to build power stations in return for paying multimillion-dollar bribes to senior Venezuelan officials." And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324635904578640351169881218 : "A former top U.S. diplomat filed a lawsuit against three young Venezuelan businessmen whom he accuses of bribing senior Venezuelan officials in exchange for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars." Its pretty clear that the investigation are into both the company AND its owners. And to reiterate, 11 months is not that long for investigations like this. It often takes a decade for decisions to be reached. Another important item to recognize is that Reich's civil suit was dismissed due to jurisdiction. Righteousskills (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Hello, It seems that you are deliberately trying to mix the two separate civil suits that do involve the BLP and the company with the preliminary investigations claims that involve only the company. Both those civil suits mention the company and the BLP and are included in the Controversies and legal disputes section of the article. The first dismissed and the second one is still ongoing. The alleged preliminary investigation claimed by the anonymous sources only mention the company, Never the BLP. As I just mentioned el Pais just cites the WSJ as its source and also mentions the company and not the BLP as the target of the possible investigation. You were already told this almost a year ago by an administrator that labeled your claim that the BLP was under investigation as WP:OR (see at the end of this section) you were asked to find a reference to source your claim and your answer from August of last year was that you will continue looking into it. There is no new evidence to indicate that any investigation is taking place on the company let alone the BLP. It is only this last paragraph that should be removed following WP:BLPCRIME recommendations including the last phrase you added to the paragraph trying to mix it again with the open civil suit since it is already mentioned in that section.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC) I forgot to mention that I of course encourage any user to review our respective contributions to both pages. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC) I believe you are confusing incidents. The content you removed roughly a month ago was not what was in question over a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC) It was that same information sourced from the same referece. At that time the information you and the now blocked IPs inserted was that the BLP was under criminal investigation. you were told by an admin that inferring that the BLP was under investigation by authorities using the existing sources at that time was WP:OR. Your claim when referring to the WSJ material was "...Criminal investigations are into the executives of the company! Civil suites can be into a company, but criminal means that charges would be against persons..." and a few answers latter your were told "There is no current RS that states Betancourt is under criminal investigation, yet you believe there is reason to state Betancourt is under investigation? WP:OR wants to have a word with you. I haven't read of any allegations that Betancourt personally committed bribery, corruption, banking violations or any other crimes (except by you). Huon (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)". And the paragraph was reworded eliminating the explicit mention of the BLP as the target of the claimed preliminary investigation. At the end you agreed to continue looking into it. I have restored the article to follow WP:BLPCRIME recommendations pending any new input from experienced editors or administrators. I ask you to please refrain from adding back the controversial information until it is determined here if it conforms to the recommendations of our policy, or until you can find a reliable source to establish your claim that the BLP (not the company) is under an actual investigation by federal or state prosecutors. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Again, you are confusing incidents and edits. What you removed in May of this year was not the same as what was done a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 22:03, 11 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)
Covered in The Wall Street Journal ? And these are not allegations from anonymous people; anonymous people reported the the US Justice Department is investigating. Theres a substantial difference there. Righteousskills (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC) I think the content meets our standards for inclusion. The reasons given by Crystallizedcarbon above are weak at best. A high-profile investigation of a company is relevant to the biography of that company's CEO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC) That does not seem to be the case. What the RS reported is that Anonymous sources claim that the company was a year ago under a preliminary investigation. They also said that it may or may not become an actual investigation. Those allegations were denied by the company itself, and there have not been any news in the last year to substantiate that an actual investigation did or is taking place on the company. According to WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of events, a possible future investigation denied by the company is newsworthy but it is not necessarily suitable for inclusion. Still, it is included in the company page, on top of the questionable enduring notability there is the issue that the editor that pushes for its inclusion insisted adamantly that the text infers as well a criminal investigation into the BLP himself. WP:BLPCRIME should be followed pending any new and more tangible sources. I also agree with Collect. The primary source of the article is anonymous so it is not a good idea to use it in this BLP regardless of who they claim may be investigating or which reliable source reproduces their claims.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC) WSJ is not anonymous. Please stop accusing anyone of "pushing". Your edits could be called the same thing; especially since I am arguing the page stay untouched and you are the one who wants it altered. Righteousskills (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Bump. Righteousskills (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to "bump" threads here - we can all see that this is apparently still unresolved.--ukexpat (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
No one has addressed it yet. I have argued that the content should be added back. One user agreed with me. But I am not prepared to make any changes without more support or a user making a change there self. Righteousskills ( talk) 01:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I just nominated this BLP1E for deletion, but looking it over, and looking at some of the sources, and I wonder if it shouldn't just be deleted on the spot as a violation. Your input is appreciated. Any admins, if you think it warrants deletion, go for it. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 02:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I want to do my biography i am Hip-hop artist but i am struggling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.210.83.12 ( talk) 09:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
There have been a number of recent edits to this page by a new editor (whose username may or may not be a coincidence). Most are minor but unsourced, but content about a possible relationship with John Lennon has been changed from 'she claimed' to 'she said' and does not appear to be borne out by the source (previously in the article). Thanks. Eagleash ( talk) 12:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The article on Patrick Balkany is woefully inadequate. Specifically, it doesn't mention his long record of apparent criminal activity. The French version has a good listing of his achievements in this field. The English version should be updated, as he played an important role at the highest levels of the French government. The look should be extended to his wife, Isabelle Smadja. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.50.189 ( talk) 16:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Appears his BIO has been altered and included such things as in the intro he was involved in "crack pipe walking" and list things he lettered in in high school it includes "cheese rolling and wife carrying" just in various places throughout seems like someone has hacked the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.108.253.253 ( talk) 18:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Marietta Voge ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An IP has raised an issue at WP:Help desk that probably should have better been raised here, pertaining to what the IP describes as false claims at this biographical article (though seemingly not a living person, and possibly a candidate for AfD). Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Margietta Voge. General Ization Talk 02:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
She is quite dead (1984) [4]. It is covered in several sources that she was mentioned (with code name "DAUGHTER") in the USSR archives, and that should be the fact stated. Yale University Press is considered an academic publisher of sufficient repute for use on Wikipedia. Collect ( talk) 13:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I changed my mind and moved the article to Marietta Voge (from Margietta), since the original (though disputed) source for the article mentions her only by this name, as does every other source found thus far. Redirect was left. Have modified the heading and {{la}} above to match. General Ization Talk 15:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
St Patrick's College, Goulburn (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Could someone please review the recent history of the "Notable staff" section? --
John of Reading (
talk)
07:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Mandy Santos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, I’ve been trying to make a few changes on this article somebody made about me on wikipedia /info/en/?search=Mandy_Santos cause it contains WRONG INFORMATION (age, label etc..)due to a fake bio someone leaked years ago but I can’t, and now it’s blocked ..
I would like it to be deleated or at least let me modify it..
this one is ok:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_santos
please help me
Thank you very much (unsigned)
Chic (band) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My name is Luci Martin and while collecting qualifying information for royalty issues, I notice that the biography section is correct, but the cast of players is not. I am not listed as one of the Lead Vocalist which is funny because it is my face on every album cover and not Norma Jean Wright. As bio indicates, Norma was 1st female, I was added to group prior to Alfa but was not replaced. Norma left prior to our second album C'est Chic to pursue a solo album,replaced by Alfa Anderson who joined me as the other lead vocalist until we disbanded in 1983. This information can be verified by every album cover done by chic, as well as vocal credits on sleeve and photos. Please correct the information. you may also visit Nile Rodgers web page, the founder of the group for further verification.
Thank you, Luci Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.145.183.4 ( talk) 17:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Newly created article, very much the standard press release/bio, with many unhelpful inline links and promotional tone. Creator doesn't like maintenance templates, and would rather remove them than engage in discussion or improve the article. Help appreciated. Thanks. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F ( talk) 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I am Andrew Airlie. Recently, someone brought to my attention that your page regarding me has been changed and now includes false and mischevious information. I am referring to the line... "in real life he is best known for his role as father to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation online star nerd Jonathan Ore.[2]"
I would appreciate this being removed as soon as possible.
Regards, Andrew Airlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.68.67 ( talk) 17:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Jeffrey Allen Sinclair ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The original author Hell in a Bucket consulted me about this on my talk p. discussion here My immediate reaction was to delete the entire article as an attack page and BLP violation, because the actual conviction was over a minor crime only, and brigadier generals are not usually otherwise notable. Moving a little too fast perhaps, I did that. But it is perhaps not that clear that his original version should necessarily be deleted, so I restored it and am bringing it here. There are two questions: 1/should the entire article be deleted, either speedy or at AfD, and second, whether the intermediate versions by LovinTheSunshine be revision deleted. I'm going to let other discuss it & decide. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I abhor these controversy sections--this one is sourced, but details incidents of passing note, complete with names of non-notables involved. Is there a need to retain these, per WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS? There have been discussions about these on the article's talk page going back years. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F ( talk) 22:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I have removed some primary sources, obvious press releases, Amazon sales page links and other inadmissibel sources. I am left wondering if this guy passes notability criteria. The article bears all the appearances of being written by a close associate or even the subject himself. Guy ( Help!) 22:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that the title of the bio be changed form Rick Ross (consultant) to Rick Alan Ross (consultant) to avoid confusion with the rapper Rick Ross. Also there is no need to mention fees of $5,000, let alone twice repeatedly, under the section titled "Consultant, lecturer, and deprogrammer" in the second paragraph. Moreover the number of about 350 interventions in the bio is out of date and more than a decade old. A more recent article published puts the actual number of interventions at about 500. See http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/boca-raton/fl-brf-church-0715-20150720-story.html#page=1 These issues are being ignored at the Talk page. Please make these edits. 96.235.133.43 ( talk) 12:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
The biography of this person was edited by someone who clearly dislikes him to make him apear as a dubious individual without any evidence to back it up. Nicknames, false accusations and insults where added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.181.227.104 ( talk) 14:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The biographical article Dinesh D'Souza identifies him in the opening sentence as "political commentator, convicted felon, and author". There is an inquiry about including "convicted felon" in the sentence on the article's talk page here. Editors familiar with BLPs are invited to comment. Erik II ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Maulana Karenga ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)'s lede begins, "Maulana Ndabezitha Karenga (born Ronald McKinley Everett;[2][3][4] July 14, 1941) is an African-American professor of Africana Studies, activist and author, and convicted felon" and yet does not even say in the article what his crime was. Ogress smash! 17:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Georgie Aldous ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Added needed/additional Citations, page should be Verifiable now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.65.102 ( talk) 17:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Megyn Kelly ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page about a Fox News anchor, which has been protected from Aug. 11-18 because of inappropriate, politicized edits, has a discussion going on in the talk page regarding the inclusion of what may or may not be a WP:SYNTH vio. I'd like to ask members of WikiProject Biography to weigh in. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Promotional article, tended by COI accounts. Has already been deleted several times in the last few months, once after an AFD discussion. Now re-created, with speedy and other templates repeatedly removed. Could probably use some more eyes here--if it's worth rescuing, great. Otherwise it may be time to delete and salt. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F ( talk) 00:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Jazz Jennings ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should the "real"/legal surname of Jazz Jennings be included in her article? It appears that Jennings is a pseudonym and a few sources have mentioned her legal surname. It should be noted that Jazz is (1) a minor and (2) a trans girl. I, personally, am against its inclusion due to privacy concerns. This information is not widely reported and it seems the family has made an effort to keep it hidden. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 15:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Our latest policy is to not include identifiable information where the subject wants it out (for example, in my OTRS role, I regually remove full dates of birth if they are not widely reported, truncating to just the year.Has she indicated a protectiveness of her real name anywhere? I'm only passingly familiar with her, mostly because we live in the same region (same county, AFAIK) and I have a passing interest in LGBTQ issues.
Additionally, what additional value does leaving one name out really lose out on?being able to do further research on a person, using public records or publicly available private records under their name. Before you respond, understand that I freely admit this can be used for nefarious purposes, hence my professed discomfort with voting to include the information. However, it can also be used for very legitimate purposes. Investigative reporters, background checkers and law enforcement all have good reasons to want to be able to look up her real name, and I know for a fact that all three of those groups use WP when they can (mostly for the citations, but still).
It's a key principle of Wikipedia that our articles about living people, who can be actively harmed by what's present in the article if we're not careful, have to be written conservatively and with an eye to respecting the subject's privacy rights.Okay, I hadn't been that familiar with the policies you linked to. Consider my mind changed as of this point. If indeed it is WP policy (as is explicitly stated on that policy page) that care for the safety and privacy of the individual needs to be factored in, then I'm of the opinion that the potential costs of including her real name outweigh the benefits. I've left the previous parts of my response to Mdann52 intact here, but as of right now I vote not to include the information. Honestly, I was hoping someone could provide a link like that. My earlier vote was made dispassionately, but it made me more than a little uncomfortable to do so. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Trust me, law enforcement have their own means of finding out RL identities (especially with the ability of people to insert false information, I doubt this is really going to be used)...I think you might be surprised by how mundane a lot of investigative data is gathered (I once played a drinking game where you took a shot every time google appeared on a computer monitor during a marathon of The First 48, and we all got pretty hammered, for instance), but that's beside the point. If there aren't any situations in which she gave interviews or made media appearances under her real name, then I agree that it's a safe bet she's trying to maintain some anonymity. Even if there are a few, if they all happened early in her time in the public light, then she's clearly trying to maintain the pseudonym. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
There is another person by the same name (Chris Koch) who may be worthy of being included in Wikipedia. (My first inclination after I viewed the short video below was to check Wikipedia for an article with more information about Chris.)
The information I have is as follows: CHRIS KOCH IS FROM NANTON, ALBERTA. HE SPENDS SPRING, SUMMER, AND FALL WORKING ON A FARM NEAR TORQUAY, SASKATCHEWAN.
The YouTube video below is an interview with Chris and others produced by John Chester and presented on 'OWN' (the Oprah Winfrey Network).
https://www.youtube.com/embed/H9S3n_tILKo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.93.222 ( talk) 20:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
On August 8 I placed a blp-prod template on this new article, due to the absence of any reputable published sources. The template was removed today by Ad Orientem ( talk · contribs), with edit summary stating, "Removing improperly applied BLP PROD. This only applies if there are no sources and there were. At least two were from a government website and likely pass WP:RS". The sources in question appear to be patent applications, and to my understanding these do not meet WP:RS. I rarely work on BLP articles and don't know the rules well enough to know what the next step is, so I am bringing the issue here. Looie496 ( talk) 14:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Jean-François Plante ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
While reading the article, it took me little time to realize the tone was off. The statement made by the author are extremely partisan and make multiple statement that are still up for debate in quebec. Most of the content regarding his life story are accurate, but the way they are narrated have no place in a wikipedia article.
Thanks a lot for reading, hopefully, this will be reviewed.(unsigned)
This appears to have begun as an autobiography nine years ago, and has taken on an admirably promotional and puffy format in the time since. The intro alone is a thing to behold. I don't know where to start--any assistance will be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F ( talk) 14:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Wiki lists date of birth for actor Josh Pais ( /info/en/?search=Josh_Pais) as June 21, 1958. His IMDB page (to which there is a link on the Wiki page) lists it as June 21, 1964. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0656929/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.232.161 ( talk) 20:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I noticed a couple out of date pieces on US Rep. John Sarbanes' page including committee assignments, caucus memberships etc.:
Headshot is out of date and can be updated to the most current headshot: https://sarbanes.house.gov/sites/sarbanes.house.gov/files/images/2013-high-res.jpg. Here's a link to verify that is the most current headshot: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S001168
Committee assignments need to be updated: https://sarbanes.house.gov/about/committee-assignments. No longer a member of the National Resources Committee and is on the Energy and Power Subcommittee. Link to Energy & Commerce Committee site: http://energycommerce.house.gov/about/membership. Link to Subcommittee on Energy & Power site: http://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittees/energy-and-power. Link to Subcommittee on Health site: http://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittees/health
Caucus membership needs to be updated. No longer the co-chair of the Public Service Caucus ( https://sarbanes.house.gov/issues/good-government) and he is a member of the Congressional Hellenic Israel Alliance ( http://www.greeknewsonline.com/congressional-hellenic-and-israeli-alliance-marks-second-anniversary/)
The congressman’s signature piece of legislation (the Government by the People Act) is currently not mentioned. Could devote a new section to the bill which is co-sponsored by 150 members of Congress and over 40 organizations. More info: http://ofby.us/about-the-bill/ and https://sarbanes.house.gov/bythepeople
Lastly, The “Campaign Finance” section needs updates with recent information. I would acknowledging that the congressman no longer takes PAC money. Also, since the Congressman’s signature piece of legislation is aimed at reforming the way campaigns are funded, the title “campaign finance” might lead some readers into thinking it is a section about his work on campaign finance issues. I recommend calling it “Political Fundraising”. LauraFriedy ( talk) 16:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Cleanup needed on aisle 9! Unless you think that wealthy Asians should be trashed on Wikipedia. This just came to my attention, but I must go to sleep now. Maybe an excellent editor or two can evaluate and trim this hit job. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I just did a very quick cleanup of this article, but it needs more work on eyes on it. Helped run NASA for a couple of years and was convicted of abusing that job in a couple of ways. Jytdog ( talk) 23:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a bit of a spilloff of an article that came up for AfD. Basically there are people trying to add someone to the list. However my argument is that the guy wasn't notable enough for an article and as such, shouldn't be added there. There's also the issue that people seem to be arguing for his inclusion in order to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This made me look at some of the names at Marathon_course-cutting#Publicized incidents of disputed marathon results. Many of them do not have articles and that makes me wonder: should they really be on the list at all? I'd much rather that we only include people who are notable enough for their own articles or at the very least, have been proven to have cheated (or admitted cheating). This would likely leave only Rosie Ruiz, Roberto Madrazo, and perhaps the Xiamen International Marathon (since that was a widespread thing and is enough to mention in the race's article), but I have to say... I don't think that this is a bad thing. There's a really, really bad habit of adding people/events because they're recent, without really thinking if there would be any long term notability. And not to mention, the idea of posting about something that allegedly happened (in the cases where someone was accused but it was never proven or pursued) is sort of a BLP nightmare since it's alleged but not proven. For the people who were proven or admitted it, that sort of brings up an issue: is it really a good thing to list them if this is a minor crime/event? I think that we need to think about it in these terms: would these warrant a mention in the article's page? If not, then why should they be listed here?
Here's a rundown of the names in the list currently:
Basically what I think is happening on the page is that whenever a new scandal or accusation comes about, people are adding to the page. Very few of these cases have ever really made any lasting impression to where I honestly think that they warrant inclusion. Like I said above, this runs the risk of being a potential BLP issue since some of these people are claiming that they didn't cheat, yet they're listed at this page. There is a mention of accusations, but this still brings up concerns that people are listing them here because of recentism and in an attempt to get a personal opinion across (ie, right great wrongs by highlighting the cheaters). Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the claim about King having "misled" about his race should be removed for the time being. King has stated on Twitter that "Out of LOVE for my family, I've never gone public with my racial story because it's hurtful, scandalous, and it's MY STORY" 1 and "No 2 siblings in my family have the same set of parents. We're all over the place. Some of us are not even blood relatives" 2. I think most of this will be made clear and verified by more reputable secondary sources within days. So there's no need to rush to such a claim now. "Biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." WP:LIVING - Reagle ( talk) 18:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Someone please have a look at this one. There's all kinds of unexplained and unverified changes going on, it's hard to see at first glance what's vandalism and what's not (though I'm reverting one clear-cut case of not any good), and the article could do with major improvement on many fronts. This one's for the fans. Drmies ( talk) 02:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Josh Duggar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gawker is not an acceptable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.25.64 ( talk) 04:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The material which had been re-inserted (with other celebrity gossip sourcing) is pure sensational non-encyclopedic material of the first water. Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
14:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted a badly sourced puffy essay with a long resume listing, to the last decent version. In anticipation that an interested party may return this to an unacceptable version, I'm requesting more eyes and watchlisting here. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 ( talk) 14:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
An IP user made an unreferenced change to Imran Uddin (Blogger) which I think could possibly be defaming and require revision deletion. Please check this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Imran_Uddin_(Blogger)&oldid=677019341. Thanks GoddersUK ( talk) 16:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Tonight, I received off-wiki threats of legal action on Facebook from a user claiming to represent Chris Janson, probably the same user who has been blanking content from their article. (see Thesongfan ( talk · contribs)). The user threatened legal action and demanded that any edits be made through the Bobby Roberts agency, but backed down on the threat after I linked them to WP:OWN. The main concerns were that the article had the (backed by a secondary source) names of Chris's children, and mentioned two duets that he did early in his career (also verified by a reliable source). I explained that I could remove the names until I find a compromise, as I don't know the specifics on revealing the names of a famous person's underaged child, but when I asked why the duet information was controversial, they dodged the question and recommended that I talk to their agency or label. Per their request I have also shot an e-mail to the Bobby Roberts agency asking why the Holly Williams information has been deemed controversial. I would appreciate any further help in this matter. Thank you. I will include screen caps of the facebook conversation and e-mail if needed. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Demetrios Spandidos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page was nominated for deletion earlier this year, and kept because its subject is clearly notable. At the AFD some concerns regarding BLP issues were raised, and so I am bringing this article to the watchers of this noticeboard to determine if they think this article is BLP compliant, particularly the "career" section. Everymorning (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
why could external links of an article I just moved be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erigits ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The media widely reported that Jason Scott was represented by Kendrick Moxon, a prominent Scientologist attorney. This is a very significant and pertinent fact and is prominently included in the Wikipedia entry about the Jason Scott case. See Jason Scott case Jason Scott also made statements to the media regarding Scientology after the settlement. This included Scott's interviews with "60 Minutes," The Washington Post and St. Petersburg Times.
I suggest that this fact also be included in the bio both in the account of the Jason Scott case and the lead. I suggest that the third paragraph of the lead be revised to read as follows:
Ross faced criminal charges over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott, but was found "not guilty." Subsequently Scott, represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon, filed a lawsuit that resulted in a judgement against both Ross and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) for violating his civil rights. Scott was awarded $5 million in damages, which led to CAN and Ross declaring bankruptcy.[1][5] As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary interventions without the use of force or restraint.
"Kendrick Moxon" should be linked to Kendrick Moxon
I suggest that the section "Jason Scott Deprogramming" be edited to include the following:
Ross faced criminal charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott, whose mother was referred to Ross by the Cult Awareness Network.[35] Ross was found "not guilty" by the jury at trial.[5] Scott later filed a civil suit against Ross in federal court and was represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon. In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for depriving Scott of his civil rights and awarded Scott $5 million in punitive damages .[23] Ross' share of the damages was $3.1 million, which led to him declaring personal bankruptcy.[23] Scott later reconciled with his mother and was persuaded by her to fire Moxon and settle with Ross; under the terms of the settlement, the two agreed that Ross would pay Scott $5000 and provide 200 hours of his professional services.[36] Scott later stated that he felt he had been manipulated as part of Scientology's plan to destroy CAN. See Kendrick Moxon#cite note-scientologysponsored-23
As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary exit counseling without the use of force or restraint.[6] He states that despite refinement of processes over the years, cult intervention work continues to depend on the same basic principles originated through deprogramming.[6]
Excluding the Scientology connection in the Jason Scott leaves out important historical facts and is also inconsistent with other Wikipedia entries. 96.235.133.43 ( talk) 11:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
The article for Jenny Beck may be conflating two different actresses, Jenny Beck and Jennifer Rae Beck. It is listing the movie credits for Jenny Beck, but is using Jennifer Rae Beck as the name. Per IMDB Jenny Beck has a rather lengthy career with three movies and lots of TV appearances, but Jennifer Rae Beck has only three TV credits, and from other sources seems to be known for her theater appearances.
Jennifer Rae Beck is recently deceased, Stage and TV Actress Jennifer Rae Beck Dead at 44, so someone might want to sort this out if in fact the article is mixing up two different Jenny Becks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.166.58 ( talk) 05:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
There's a bit of a situation about what the WP:COMMONNAME (and hence the correct article title) should be for an American political strategist, which I wanted to ask for some assistance in resolving. I've also posted the same request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, but I don't know how widely read that page is, as not a single thread posted to that page since 2013 has ever garnered a single response from anyone at all — so I thought I should also post it here since the situation has a WP:BLP angle to it.
The situation is that the article was created at Mari Maseng in 2010, following which just two months later a request was posted somewhere (I can't remember where, it might even have been right here) for the article to be moved to Mari Maseng Will on the grounds that she was known by her married name. Acting as an administrator I complied with the request in good faith, but then one year after that an anonymous IP posted an angry rant to my talk page demanding that the article be moved back to "Maseng" on the grounds that she wasn't known by her married name — I did a quick Google search, and indeed was unable to find any significant sources at that time in which she was known or referred to by "Will", so I complied with the request despite their impolite tone. The article then remained stable for almost four years, until a few weeks ago another editor moved it back to "Will" again on the grounds that she is known by her married name. (And even then, they didn't actually revise the entire article accordingly; the title, the top of the infobox and the first bolded mention of her name in the introduction had the "Will" added, but her WP:LASTNAME was left as Maseng everywhere else in the body text.)
So obviously there's a dispute, and a slow-motion edit war, here. Accordingly, I wanted to ask if somebody who has access to a broader range of US news sources than I do — I can only Google, while other people might have access to a much more comprehensive news database, or a range of political science journals, or some other specialized sourcing which might help — could assist in figuring out which title we should preference. I'm a Canadian citizen, so I have no knowledge of her whatsoever apart from having gotten dragged into this naming dispute — I didn't even know that she existed until seeing the original 2010 move request. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 17:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I am writing to you about this page: Lynn Walsh
The article is not about me, Lynn Walsh, an Investigative Journalist (www.twitter.com/lwalsh) yet, when you Google "Lynn Walsh" the wikipedia entry above (about a leader in the socialist party), shows up with my image (the journalist) attached to it. ( https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Lynn+Walsh)
Is there any way this photo can be removed since it is associating a photo of the wrong person with the wikipedia entry?
Thank you and feel free to contact me:
Thank you! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.178.109.82 (
talk)
17:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Stephanie Seneff ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) See also here. The article Stephanie Seneff makes some highly negative claims, some of which are sourced to blogs that may not stand up to WP:BLP. I want to know what other editors think about the "Criticism" section in particular. Everymorning (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Here I am being told that referring to Camille Paglia as a "feminist" is a WP:BLP violation. She refers to herself countless times as a feminist and sources refer to her countless times as a feminist. The article in which the disputed wording is occurring is not about Paglia. For the purposes of this article, Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), it is sufficient to identify Paglia as a feminist. In truth, even that could be omitted. The reader need not even know that she is a feminist. It would be sufficient to refer to her as an author and a professor at University of the Arts (Philadelphia). Her critique of the work of art is negative. But we don't have to characterize her as a "dissident" feminist even if there is ample support in sources for that. Even the Camille Paglia article fails to use that terminology. She has clashed with mainstream feminists on occasion over specific points. No source supports as "dissident" her position on Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). Therefore I find the characterization particularly gratuitous. In my opinion the insistence on calling her a "dissident feminist", even claiming a WP:BLP violation if we do not characterize her that way, merely blunts the criticism that this commentator has about the work of art. Ample praise of the work of art is included in the article but of course it comes in for criticism too from some prominent commentators. Is there agreement here that there cannot possibly be any shade of WP:BLP violation in just referring to Paglia as a "feminist"? Bus stop ( talk) 17:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. ... In France, Italy, Spain, Latin America and Brazil, in contrast, many ambitious professional women seem to have found a formula for asserting power and authority in the workplace while still projecting sexual allure and even glamour. This is the true feminine mystique, which cannot be taught but flows from an instinctive recognition of sexual differences. ... The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role — but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!
"a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism," "lugging around your bad memories" and "feminism should empower women, not cripple them."It would seem a violation of wp:biased to present these quotes as the opinions of a neutral third party observer, but they seem like interesting commentary, so seems appropriate if attributed to a source opposed to modern feminist movement -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 19:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Editors should consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."."Author and professor" does not address the bias. Wording that expresses Paglia is a notable critic of mainstream feminism addresses the bias. If there are other commentators quoted in the article, who reliable sources describe as biased, who you believe warrant in text-attribution per wp:biased, please add such attribution to the article, or open talk page discussion regarding attribution.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 01:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
"self-proclaimed “dissident feminist” Camille Paglia lambasted Columbia graduate Emma Sulkowicz’s mattress performance"[17]. Also, edit history shows that for the past 4 years, Camile Paglia's BLP has opened with
a self-described dissident feminist,[1][18], but since the dispute began, it has been deleted. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 18:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Camille Paglia is sufficiently well known that no description is necessary. In this case, “feminist” is probably not as useful a classifier as “Professor”, “Author”, or “Critic”. However, the contention that describing Paglia as a feminist is a BLP violation is extremely pointy -- indefensible, really -- and should not be countenanced. MarkBernstein ( talk) 18:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Editors should consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".I'm honestly not terribly familiar with Paglia, but judging from the source cited in article, comments on talk page, and her BLP, it seems Paglia may warrant this sort of qualifier discussed in wp:biased. I think User:Nblund articulated the argument on talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) page more eloquently than I have been able to: [19]. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 22:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no point in describing Paglia as either a feminist or dissident feminist in that article. I agree with SlimVirgin's comment above. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It's clear that full consensus will not be reached here. Recommend an RfC be started on Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) regarding descriptors for Camille Paglia. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 18:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
My User-page/biography has been subject to harassment and vandalism via Twitter by a Far-Left individual ( SLATUKIP) who opposes the political party I am a member of. Would the admin on Twitter be able to protect my page so only myself or site admin have the capability to alter it. It can be viewed on my User page via the end of this message. I have undone the vandalism concerned. But this individual has already been warned with banning on another website (Facebook) for photoshopping my user picture onto a racist comment and it would appear he is going to continue the same form of treatment on here and elsewhere. RoverTheBendInSussex ( talk) 00:38, 21 August 2015 (GMT)
More experienced eyes would be appreciated on this page; it was a classic WP:COATRACK created as the result of 12 hours of news-cycle stories based on inflammatory claims by a partisan writer, which have now been directly and publicly refuted by the article subject. We should try to avoid sensationalism, avoid writing "biographies" based on 12 hours' worth of news stories, and avoid leaping to conclusions. I think we can do better by our readers and our article subjects. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 23:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
After a related policy discussion on republication of photos originally published without copyright, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 122#Republication of photos I have been directed to post the privacy aspect of the issue here.
Pulitzer prize winning journalist, Richard Ben Cramer wrote “It was Donna's camera, and Donna's picture-never intended for public...well public anything! She never did let the negative out of her possession. It was always her picture, her property-which is partly what would gall her so when it made its very public debut on the front page of the National Enquirer. (The Enquirer had the nerve to claim copyright on the photo.)” (“What It Takes” (1992), pg. 437) The photo was published in 1987 by the Enquirer along with the story that Hart had asked Rice to marry him. The photo was published in support of that story as a kind of innuendo by photo that some hanky-panky had occurred between the two that both have always denied, i.e., that Hart was a womanizer, and Rice a bimbo/homewrecker. Because of that photo how many people now know that Rice first met Hart at rocker Don Henley's house with his wife present (“What It Takes”, pg. 439)? How many people know that Rice was talking to Hart about fundraising, (Alan Richman, Donna Rice: 'The Woman in Question, People Magazine (Vol. 27, No. 20, May 18, 1987), “What It Takes”, pg. 460) and that "Rock musicians represent a rich vein of financial support since, under the law, they could perform at benefit concerts for the candidates, and each ticket was treated as an individual contribution. Thus the candidate could report 20,000 contributions of $10 apiece rather than an illegal one of $200,000. And each ticket could qualify for Federal matching funds." http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/09/us/courting-danger-the-fall-of-gary-hart.html?pagewanted=all That photo created a very different public image of their official relationship. It was never intended for publication. Therefore BLP presumption of privacy should apply to deleting the photo as well as the policy to avoid prolonging the victimization. Its publication created victims. Its continued republication therefore must be presumed to continue victimization. Doctor Franklin ( talk) 20:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Deletion discussion is here: Wikipedia:Files for deletion#File:Donna Rice and Gary Hart.jpg Doctor Franklin ( talk) 21:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Per Miami Herald [21] - it is an AP file photo - and copyright belongs with the photographer, not the person being photographed. Collect ( talk) 22:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
(answered on the deletion discussion page - suffice it to say the claims above are not supported by reliable sources (the Cramer book basically says Rice says she "lent" the photos to a friend) and the idea of Getty Images, which acts as a holding company and agent for copyright images, as well as being a stock photo house, colluding with anyone is unsupported by reliable sources. Collect ( talk) 23:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it a BLP violation to mention in the Shaun King (activist) BLP that a comparison has been drawn between King and Rachel Dolezal, or alternately to include Rachel Dolezal as a "See also" link? Sources provided on talk page for comparison to Dolezal are as follows: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Additional arguments and commentary can be found at /info/en/?search=Talk:Shaun_King_%28activist%29#Rachel_Dolezal -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 03:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- So a conspiracy theory from a racist was plotted, Brietbart picked it up. Wikipedia should NOT be used to further a racist plot against a living person. Add that to FRINGE, Undue Weight and NPOV, and Wikipedia editors should hold back and see what unbiased reliable sources say, if anything, in the future. Dave Dial ( talk) 15:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)...he’s biracial...I marked him white because he’s very light complected. He was there with his white mother. My crime report there’s only two things you can check: black or white. It doesn’t say biracial…anyone from around here who knew him knew he was mixed
Per WP:BLP his "ethnicity" is something which is basically one where "self-identification" properly applies for Wikipedia to make any assertions of it as fact. The issue is not one of "actual ethnicity" then, but one of opinions from reliable sources hopefully based on fact - i.e. documents in this case. Thus opinions properly sources and ascribed as such may be used provided that they make no allegations or implications of crime. I would note that DNA seems to indicate a very large proportion of people are even of "mixed species" (as Neanderthal and at least five other direct ancestors of many people were once so described), so absolutely are of "mixed race." I seriously doubt this rises to any level of "racist plot" unless one asserts that people relying on public documents can somehow use them as part of a cabal. So - we can not ascribe "white" as his ethnicity or race, as the person self-describes as "mixed ethnicity." The assertion that his birth certificate states both parents as "white" is fact, reliably sourced, though that does not deny that one or both might actually have "mixed ethnicity" in fact. It is, moreover, opinion that he misstates his ethnicity, and such opinion must be cited and ascribed as such. I think this covers the matter sufficiently. Collect ( talk) 15:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Breitbart is not an acceptable reliable source for issues relating to living people, as per longstanding consensus here and on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I have thus removed the link. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 21:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm assuming the "Breitbart" comment was referencing this edit I made, which I foolishly thought would be non-controversial. For what it's worth, in this context, the ref is fine as the WP:SELFPUB primary source it was but I'm not going to war over it. NBSB's subsequent edits make the direction this article is going clear and I no longer have the patience these days for the sort of feigned impartially, propagandizing, and manufactured outrage which saturates these sorts of things. There doesn't seem to be any outside objection on the BLPN board to the Dolezal contextualization as a BLP issue and the remaining issues are either NPOV or general content disputes. The present issues have far surpassed the simple Dolezal BLP contention so I'd recommend a general reassessment of the entire section by an outside party. GraniteSand ( talk) 04:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a content dispute at Kellie Maloney. Please discuss at Talk:Kellie Maloney#Do we refer to a trans woman by her male birth name in Wikipedia?? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think she's dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:8E2:5B00:80A2:70AE:3830:911E ( talk) 19:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be the subject of edit warring over accusations that may or may not violate WP:BLP. More eyes would be helpful. 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 ( talk) 22:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Can someone else take a look at this obscure article, Penelope Probert Boorman? I found it by accident while I was sorting through Category:American swimmers. The article posits that the subject won three medals at the "1959 Pan American Games in Chicago." I thought that odd; I frequently work with U.S. Olympic swimmer bios, and the name (Penelope Probert, Penny Probert, Penelope Boorman, Penny Boorman, etc.) was completely unknown to me. So I checked the Swimming at the 1959 Pan American Games and Swimming at the Pan American Games articles, and there is no one of any similar name listed as a medalist. I also checked the International Swimming Hall of Fame's international medalist list, and several other Pan Am Games-related websites and books, and no luck there, either. I can find sources that substantiate that a woman of this name served on several boards of trustees, etc., but nothing about Pan Am Games medals -- which is the basis of the subject's primary claim to notability. At a minimum, it seems to be an inflated CV, at worst a case of outright fraud. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 01:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Omar Abdel-Rahman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Information on the US part of the life of Omar Abdel-Rahman is misleading and erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.129.235 ( talk) 18:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
[38] contains a strong implication that a living person operated a "pyramid scheme" using [39] as the source for stating in Wikipedia's voice: "Alleged pyramid scheme". The reference given from The Independent, alas, does not remotely support use of that phrase which has quite specific connotations of fraud and illegality. It speaks of a "get rich quick scheme" but to use the specific legal term "pyramid scheme" without strong sourcing is, IMO, contrary to WP:BLPCRIME. Other opinions? Collect ( talk) 23:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The person who made the edit is clear - so he can not blame others. But The Guardian carefully states "To be clear, we have no evidence that this amounted to a pyramid scheme" as they know allegations of criminal activity are problematic - so they specifically do not make any allegation of a criminal act. UK newspapers are careful in making such claims - and Wikipedia ought to follow that example. Neither source makes an "allegation" and we can not state that an allegation was made. Per WP:BLP. Collect ( talk) 12:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Bernard_(footballer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.130.112 ( talk) 06:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Braun Stowman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone really messed this Braun Stowman guys page up, and put a terrible joke in it about a former professional wrestler who died... The whole page is jacked up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.148.129.116 ( talk) 01:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC) \
Ashley Madison data breach ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We could use some help at Hunter Biden for the same reason. - Mr X 15:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there an experienced editor fluent in English and Hebrew, who knows how to properly add the critically important supporting document and picture links presented on the talk page, to the article page?
Ksavyadkodesh ( talk) 22:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I am the subject of above Wikipedia entry.
I recently employed a professional editor via PeoplePerHour to update this stub entry with more current information, providing him with a multitude of references and links, which he used to write a new article from scratch. Even though he provided me with a copy for factual checks (which I approved) he then disappeared, leaving me in limbo. After numerous weeks of silence I then (foolishly?) decided to take matters into my hands and upload the new version myself.
This article has now been flagged as COI, which I understand. I never considered myself an editor and indeed this upload is my first and only contribution. I have no intention of using the amazing Wikipedia (to which I have donated numerous times) as a platform for self hype. I would however like some advice as to how a very dated entry can be updated without breaking any rules. I also don't know how the warning flags (incl. a supposed lack of citations) can be taken off.
Please help
Ydnob ( talk) 17:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Do small organizations fall under BLP rules? I am thinking of a non-profit, a small think tank, that has perhaps 7-10 employees, maybee less. An opinion piece an a magazine describes them leaders in "disinformation". No other RS refs (opinions or reporting) so describes them as such although they are criticised for other things. That sparked my question, but I guess I'd like some insight. Clearly if one or two people are mentioned in an article BLP applies. If it is three, yes probably. If they then become an organization do they lose BLP protection? If this has already been addressed please point me at the old discussion. Thanks Capitalismojo ( talk) 04:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It relates to Christopher Monckton, who is as far as I am aware the only person in history who has ever had to be told by the House of Lords not to misrepresent himself as a member. He is without question a promulgator of disinformation. I doubt he is a leading promulgator any more, most people these days just ignore him. Guy ( Help!) 12:40, 24 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.
Josh Duggar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor is claiming a BLP violation for including the widely reported fact that Duggar checked himself into rehab, with edit summaries such as Do not reinsert a tabloid story into this BLP
, Do not inject tabloidish sources into a BLP
, and Adding a tabloidish story to support your position on using the word "rehab" is disruptive. Although we know it's rehab, the family did NOT say that
on the basis that the Duggar family did not use the word "rehab", using instead "long-term treatment center".
Here are some sources, most of which use "rehab" to describe it: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
References
Josh Duggar, the eldest of the Duggar children, is going into rehab, the family said in a statement Wednesday. "Yesterday Josh checked himself into a long-term treatment center," the family said in a posting on duggarfamily.com. "For him it will be a long journey toward wholeness and recovery. We pray that in this he comes to complete repentance and sincere change.
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
Josh Duggar has checked into rehab, just days after he publicly confessed to cheating on his wife Anna and having an addiction to pornography.
See also Talk:Josh_Duggar#Removal_of_sourced_content
Comments from uninvolved editors would be welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Cwobeel (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Persistent attempts by multiple IPs to turn this into a puff resume, with at least some copyright violations. I've requested a block of the most recent IP, and page protection. Pending assistance from those noticeboards, it seems like a good idea to request more eyes here, as well. I don't wish to keep playing whack-a-mole, and the latest version is a return to the copyvio/pressrelease status. 2601:188:0:ABE6:91EC:4CDC:7CD6:827C ( talk) 10:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The media widely reported that Jason Scott was represented by Kendrick Moxon, a prominent Scientologist attorney. This is a very significant and pertinent fact and is prominently included in the Wikipedia entry about the Jason Scott case. See /info/en/?search=Jason_Scott_case Jason Scott also made statements to the media regarding Scientology after the settlement.
I suggest that this highly relevant fact also be included in my bio both in the account of the Jason Scott case within the lead as follows:
Ross faced criminal charges over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott, but was found "not guilty." Subsequently Scott, represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon, filed a lawsuit that resulted in a judgement against both Ross and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) for violating his civil rights. Scott was awarded $5 million in damages, which led to CAN and Ross declaring bankruptcy.[1][5] As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary interventions without the use of force or restraint.
"Kendrick Moxon" should be linked to /info/en/?search=Kendrick_Moxon
I suggest that the section "Jason Scott Deprogramming" be edited to include the following:
Ross faced criminal charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott, whose mother was referred to Ross by the Cult Awareness Network.[35] Ross was found "not guilty" by the jury at trial.[5] Scott later filed a civil suit against Ross in federal court and was represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon. In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for depriving Scott of his civil rights and awarded Scott $5 million in punitive damages .[23] Ross' share of the damages was $3.1 million, which led to him declaring personal bankruptcy.[23] Scott later reconciled with his mother and was persuaded by her to fire Moxon and settle with Ross; under the terms of the settlement, the two agreed that Ross would pay Scott $5000 and provide 200 hours of his professional services.[36] Scott later stated that he felt he had been manipulated as part of Scientology's plan to destroy CAN. See /info/en/?search=Kendrick_Moxon#cite_note-scientologysponsored-23
Excluding the historical Scientology connection in the Jason Scott litigation leaves out a very important historical fact and is also inconsistent with other Wikipedia entries. Rick Alan Ross 96.235.133.43 ( talk) 12:32, 27 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. |
Keshav Prasad Sharma ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roosh V ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A user has recently added some unsourced allegations of criminal behavior to this article, both in the article text and in edit summaries. I removed the relevant text but can't do anything about the edit summaries, it may need a rev-del. Roosh V is very much "in the news" in Canada atm, and very controversial. Please help watch the page. Fyddlestix ( talk) 13:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Update: User has been blocked by an admin, the offending revisions have been rev-del'd. Discussion & disruption is likely to continue over this article though, more eyes & opinions welcome. Fyddlestix ( talk) 21:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This professor is currently the active subject of a sexual harassment lawsuit, and his article is attracting some attention because of it. It has been heavily edited by his self-proclaimed wife, User:Annevalentino, but I believe that in the aftermath of an ANI discussion her edits likely conform to WP:COI.
It has also now been visited by three people who seem likely to be either the same or related - User:Women3001right, User:Realcampisifamily and User:FightLikeHell - who are very interested in adding content related to the lawsuit.
Some of this material has been removed as unusable under WP:BLP (including citations to a tabloid and a primary source link list), but the latest source - Gothamist - seems reliable. (I don't have a lot of time to look and would welcome correction there if I'm wrong.) I've accordingly just moved the content from its undue prominence in the lead. But I'd appreciate additional eyes. There seem to be a bunch of people with a conflict on keeping this article neutral and policy-compliant.
There's a note on the talk page with a bit more. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Sylvester Turner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lots of edit warring going on at this article. One user has removed lots of content from the article and claimed that the removed content was sourced to opinion pieces and has accused the editor who keeps restoring the removed material of "citing opinion pieces, work proven false and misinterpreting readings." See here, PrimeNotice's talk page, and my own for examples of this. As there is a question about whether this content, in a BLP, is reliably sourced enough to include, I am bringing it here. Everymorning (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Below Conversation is still not resolved. Righteousskills (talk) Righteousskills ( talk) 01:19, 12 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)
Isn't THIS the pot calling the kettle black now isn't it? Please refrain from this accusatory tone if you would like me to do the same. Any administrators viewing this should take note that the now blocked editor, FergusM1970, and the vast majority of the now blocked socks, made edits in line with Crystallizedcarbon's. I will place my same talk page comments here to reiterate my points. Here http://pubsys.miamiherald.com/2014/03/27/4023508/lawsuit-filed-in-miami-accuses.html : "The lawsuit, filed against Derwick Associates Corporation, Derwick Associates USA, and their owners, alleges that tens of millions of dollars were paid under the table to high-ranking Venezuelan officials in exchange for their acceptance of overpriced invoices from the companies." And here translated from Spanish: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/09/actualidad/1407540747_507459.html : "Perhaps the most representative bolichicos are the young owners of the utility Derwick -Peter Trebbau Alejandro Lopez and Alejandro Betancourt who have been subject to fierce scrutiny by public opinion....The newspaper The Wall Street Journal on Friday joined a new headache for them. Federal and state prosecutors in New York are investigating the company, which became one of the leading import and construction of power plants during the government of Hugo Chavez , for possible violations of banking laws of the state and the payment of bribes for advantages to doing business, prohibited by Corrupt Practices Act Abroad..... The US investigates whether excessive profit margins may have hidden reported paying bribes to foreign officials." And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelan-energy-company-derwick-investigated-in-u-s-1407516278 : "The lawsuit alleges Derwick and the company's owners, among others, obtained contracts to build power stations in return for paying multimillion-dollar bribes to senior Venezuelan officials." And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324635904578640351169881218 : "A former top U.S. diplomat filed a lawsuit against three young Venezuelan businessmen whom he accuses of bribing senior Venezuelan officials in exchange for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars." Its pretty clear that the investigation are into both the company AND its owners. And to reiterate, 11 months is not that long for investigations like this. It often takes a decade for decisions to be reached. Another important item to recognize is that Reich's civil suit was dismissed due to jurisdiction. Righteousskills (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Hello, It seems that you are deliberately trying to mix the two separate civil suits that do involve the BLP and the company with the preliminary investigations claims that involve only the company. Both those civil suits mention the company and the BLP and are included in the Controversies and legal disputes section of the article. The first dismissed and the second one is still ongoing. The alleged preliminary investigation claimed by the anonymous sources only mention the company, Never the BLP. As I just mentioned el Pais just cites the WSJ as its source and also mentions the company and not the BLP as the target of the possible investigation. You were already told this almost a year ago by an administrator that labeled your claim that the BLP was under investigation as WP:OR (see at the end of this section) you were asked to find a reference to source your claim and your answer from August of last year was that you will continue looking into it. There is no new evidence to indicate that any investigation is taking place on the company let alone the BLP. It is only this last paragraph that should be removed following WP:BLPCRIME recommendations including the last phrase you added to the paragraph trying to mix it again with the open civil suit since it is already mentioned in that section.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC) I forgot to mention that I of course encourage any user to review our respective contributions to both pages. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC) I believe you are confusing incidents. The content you removed roughly a month ago was not what was in question over a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC) It was that same information sourced from the same referece. At that time the information you and the now blocked IPs inserted was that the BLP was under criminal investigation. you were told by an admin that inferring that the BLP was under investigation by authorities using the existing sources at that time was WP:OR. Your claim when referring to the WSJ material was "...Criminal investigations are into the executives of the company! Civil suites can be into a company, but criminal means that charges would be against persons..." and a few answers latter your were told "There is no current RS that states Betancourt is under criminal investigation, yet you believe there is reason to state Betancourt is under investigation? WP:OR wants to have a word with you. I haven't read of any allegations that Betancourt personally committed bribery, corruption, banking violations or any other crimes (except by you). Huon (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)". And the paragraph was reworded eliminating the explicit mention of the BLP as the target of the claimed preliminary investigation. At the end you agreed to continue looking into it. I have restored the article to follow WP:BLPCRIME recommendations pending any new input from experienced editors or administrators. I ask you to please refrain from adding back the controversial information until it is determined here if it conforms to the recommendations of our policy, or until you can find a reliable source to establish your claim that the BLP (not the company) is under an actual investigation by federal or state prosecutors. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Again, you are confusing incidents and edits. What you removed in May of this year was not the same as what was done a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 22:03, 11 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)
Covered in The Wall Street Journal ? And these are not allegations from anonymous people; anonymous people reported the the US Justice Department is investigating. Theres a substantial difference there. Righteousskills (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC) I think the content meets our standards for inclusion. The reasons given by Crystallizedcarbon above are weak at best. A high-profile investigation of a company is relevant to the biography of that company's CEO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC) That does not seem to be the case. What the RS reported is that Anonymous sources claim that the company was a year ago under a preliminary investigation. They also said that it may or may not become an actual investigation. Those allegations were denied by the company itself, and there have not been any news in the last year to substantiate that an actual investigation did or is taking place on the company. According to WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of events, a possible future investigation denied by the company is newsworthy but it is not necessarily suitable for inclusion. Still, it is included in the company page, on top of the questionable enduring notability there is the issue that the editor that pushes for its inclusion insisted adamantly that the text infers as well a criminal investigation into the BLP himself. WP:BLPCRIME should be followed pending any new and more tangible sources. I also agree with Collect. The primary source of the article is anonymous so it is not a good idea to use it in this BLP regardless of who they claim may be investigating or which reliable source reproduces their claims.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC) WSJ is not anonymous. Please stop accusing anyone of "pushing". Your edits could be called the same thing; especially since I am arguing the page stay untouched and you are the one who wants it altered. Righteousskills (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Bump. Righteousskills (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to "bump" threads here - we can all see that this is apparently still unresolved.--ukexpat (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
No one has addressed it yet. I have argued that the content should be added back. One user agreed with me. But I am not prepared to make any changes without more support or a user making a change there self. Righteousskills ( talk) 01:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I just nominated this BLP1E for deletion, but looking it over, and looking at some of the sources, and I wonder if it shouldn't just be deleted on the spot as a violation. Your input is appreciated. Any admins, if you think it warrants deletion, go for it. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 02:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I want to do my biography i am Hip-hop artist but i am struggling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.210.83.12 ( talk) 09:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
There have been a number of recent edits to this page by a new editor (whose username may or may not be a coincidence). Most are minor but unsourced, but content about a possible relationship with John Lennon has been changed from 'she claimed' to 'she said' and does not appear to be borne out by the source (previously in the article). Thanks. Eagleash ( talk) 12:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The article on Patrick Balkany is woefully inadequate. Specifically, it doesn't mention his long record of apparent criminal activity. The French version has a good listing of his achievements in this field. The English version should be updated, as he played an important role at the highest levels of the French government. The look should be extended to his wife, Isabelle Smadja. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.50.189 ( talk) 16:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Appears his BIO has been altered and included such things as in the intro he was involved in "crack pipe walking" and list things he lettered in in high school it includes "cheese rolling and wife carrying" just in various places throughout seems like someone has hacked the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.108.253.253 ( talk) 18:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Marietta Voge ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An IP has raised an issue at WP:Help desk that probably should have better been raised here, pertaining to what the IP describes as false claims at this biographical article (though seemingly not a living person, and possibly a candidate for AfD). Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Margietta Voge. General Ization Talk 02:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
She is quite dead (1984) [4]. It is covered in several sources that she was mentioned (with code name "DAUGHTER") in the USSR archives, and that should be the fact stated. Yale University Press is considered an academic publisher of sufficient repute for use on Wikipedia. Collect ( talk) 13:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I changed my mind and moved the article to Marietta Voge (from Margietta), since the original (though disputed) source for the article mentions her only by this name, as does every other source found thus far. Redirect was left. Have modified the heading and {{la}} above to match. General Ization Talk 15:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
St Patrick's College, Goulburn (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Could someone please review the recent history of the "Notable staff" section? --
John of Reading (
talk)
07:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Mandy Santos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, I’ve been trying to make a few changes on this article somebody made about me on wikipedia /info/en/?search=Mandy_Santos cause it contains WRONG INFORMATION (age, label etc..)due to a fake bio someone leaked years ago but I can’t, and now it’s blocked ..
I would like it to be deleated or at least let me modify it..
this one is ok:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_santos
please help me
Thank you very much (unsigned)
Chic (band) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My name is Luci Martin and while collecting qualifying information for royalty issues, I notice that the biography section is correct, but the cast of players is not. I am not listed as one of the Lead Vocalist which is funny because it is my face on every album cover and not Norma Jean Wright. As bio indicates, Norma was 1st female, I was added to group prior to Alfa but was not replaced. Norma left prior to our second album C'est Chic to pursue a solo album,replaced by Alfa Anderson who joined me as the other lead vocalist until we disbanded in 1983. This information can be verified by every album cover done by chic, as well as vocal credits on sleeve and photos. Please correct the information. you may also visit Nile Rodgers web page, the founder of the group for further verification.
Thank you, Luci Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.145.183.4 ( talk) 17:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Newly created article, very much the standard press release/bio, with many unhelpful inline links and promotional tone. Creator doesn't like maintenance templates, and would rather remove them than engage in discussion or improve the article. Help appreciated. Thanks. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F ( talk) 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I am Andrew Airlie. Recently, someone brought to my attention that your page regarding me has been changed and now includes false and mischevious information. I am referring to the line... "in real life he is best known for his role as father to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation online star nerd Jonathan Ore.[2]"
I would appreciate this being removed as soon as possible.
Regards, Andrew Airlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.68.67 ( talk) 17:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Jeffrey Allen Sinclair ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The original author Hell in a Bucket consulted me about this on my talk p. discussion here My immediate reaction was to delete the entire article as an attack page and BLP violation, because the actual conviction was over a minor crime only, and brigadier generals are not usually otherwise notable. Moving a little too fast perhaps, I did that. But it is perhaps not that clear that his original version should necessarily be deleted, so I restored it and am bringing it here. There are two questions: 1/should the entire article be deleted, either speedy or at AfD, and second, whether the intermediate versions by LovinTheSunshine be revision deleted. I'm going to let other discuss it & decide. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I abhor these controversy sections--this one is sourced, but details incidents of passing note, complete with names of non-notables involved. Is there a need to retain these, per WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS? There have been discussions about these on the article's talk page going back years. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F ( talk) 22:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I have removed some primary sources, obvious press releases, Amazon sales page links and other inadmissibel sources. I am left wondering if this guy passes notability criteria. The article bears all the appearances of being written by a close associate or even the subject himself. Guy ( Help!) 22:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that the title of the bio be changed form Rick Ross (consultant) to Rick Alan Ross (consultant) to avoid confusion with the rapper Rick Ross. Also there is no need to mention fees of $5,000, let alone twice repeatedly, under the section titled "Consultant, lecturer, and deprogrammer" in the second paragraph. Moreover the number of about 350 interventions in the bio is out of date and more than a decade old. A more recent article published puts the actual number of interventions at about 500. See http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/boca-raton/fl-brf-church-0715-20150720-story.html#page=1 These issues are being ignored at the Talk page. Please make these edits. 96.235.133.43 ( talk) 12:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
The biography of this person was edited by someone who clearly dislikes him to make him apear as a dubious individual without any evidence to back it up. Nicknames, false accusations and insults where added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.181.227.104 ( talk) 14:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The biographical article Dinesh D'Souza identifies him in the opening sentence as "political commentator, convicted felon, and author". There is an inquiry about including "convicted felon" in the sentence on the article's talk page here. Editors familiar with BLPs are invited to comment. Erik II ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Maulana Karenga ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)'s lede begins, "Maulana Ndabezitha Karenga (born Ronald McKinley Everett;[2][3][4] July 14, 1941) is an African-American professor of Africana Studies, activist and author, and convicted felon" and yet does not even say in the article what his crime was. Ogress smash! 17:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Georgie Aldous ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Added needed/additional Citations, page should be Verifiable now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.65.102 ( talk) 17:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Megyn Kelly ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page about a Fox News anchor, which has been protected from Aug. 11-18 because of inappropriate, politicized edits, has a discussion going on in the talk page regarding the inclusion of what may or may not be a WP:SYNTH vio. I'd like to ask members of WikiProject Biography to weigh in. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Promotional article, tended by COI accounts. Has already been deleted several times in the last few months, once after an AFD discussion. Now re-created, with speedy and other templates repeatedly removed. Could probably use some more eyes here--if it's worth rescuing, great. Otherwise it may be time to delete and salt. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F ( talk) 00:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Jazz Jennings ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should the "real"/legal surname of Jazz Jennings be included in her article? It appears that Jennings is a pseudonym and a few sources have mentioned her legal surname. It should be noted that Jazz is (1) a minor and (2) a trans girl. I, personally, am against its inclusion due to privacy concerns. This information is not widely reported and it seems the family has made an effort to keep it hidden. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 15:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Our latest policy is to not include identifiable information where the subject wants it out (for example, in my OTRS role, I regually remove full dates of birth if they are not widely reported, truncating to just the year.Has she indicated a protectiveness of her real name anywhere? I'm only passingly familiar with her, mostly because we live in the same region (same county, AFAIK) and I have a passing interest in LGBTQ issues.
Additionally, what additional value does leaving one name out really lose out on?being able to do further research on a person, using public records or publicly available private records under their name. Before you respond, understand that I freely admit this can be used for nefarious purposes, hence my professed discomfort with voting to include the information. However, it can also be used for very legitimate purposes. Investigative reporters, background checkers and law enforcement all have good reasons to want to be able to look up her real name, and I know for a fact that all three of those groups use WP when they can (mostly for the citations, but still).
It's a key principle of Wikipedia that our articles about living people, who can be actively harmed by what's present in the article if we're not careful, have to be written conservatively and with an eye to respecting the subject's privacy rights.Okay, I hadn't been that familiar with the policies you linked to. Consider my mind changed as of this point. If indeed it is WP policy (as is explicitly stated on that policy page) that care for the safety and privacy of the individual needs to be factored in, then I'm of the opinion that the potential costs of including her real name outweigh the benefits. I've left the previous parts of my response to Mdann52 intact here, but as of right now I vote not to include the information. Honestly, I was hoping someone could provide a link like that. My earlier vote was made dispassionately, but it made me more than a little uncomfortable to do so. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Trust me, law enforcement have their own means of finding out RL identities (especially with the ability of people to insert false information, I doubt this is really going to be used)...I think you might be surprised by how mundane a lot of investigative data is gathered (I once played a drinking game where you took a shot every time google appeared on a computer monitor during a marathon of The First 48, and we all got pretty hammered, for instance), but that's beside the point. If there aren't any situations in which she gave interviews or made media appearances under her real name, then I agree that it's a safe bet she's trying to maintain some anonymity. Even if there are a few, if they all happened early in her time in the public light, then she's clearly trying to maintain the pseudonym. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
There is another person by the same name (Chris Koch) who may be worthy of being included in Wikipedia. (My first inclination after I viewed the short video below was to check Wikipedia for an article with more information about Chris.)
The information I have is as follows: CHRIS KOCH IS FROM NANTON, ALBERTA. HE SPENDS SPRING, SUMMER, AND FALL WORKING ON A FARM NEAR TORQUAY, SASKATCHEWAN.
The YouTube video below is an interview with Chris and others produced by John Chester and presented on 'OWN' (the Oprah Winfrey Network).
https://www.youtube.com/embed/H9S3n_tILKo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.93.222 ( talk) 20:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
On August 8 I placed a blp-prod template on this new article, due to the absence of any reputable published sources. The template was removed today by Ad Orientem ( talk · contribs), with edit summary stating, "Removing improperly applied BLP PROD. This only applies if there are no sources and there were. At least two were from a government website and likely pass WP:RS". The sources in question appear to be patent applications, and to my understanding these do not meet WP:RS. I rarely work on BLP articles and don't know the rules well enough to know what the next step is, so I am bringing the issue here. Looie496 ( talk) 14:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Jean-François Plante ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
While reading the article, it took me little time to realize the tone was off. The statement made by the author are extremely partisan and make multiple statement that are still up for debate in quebec. Most of the content regarding his life story are accurate, but the way they are narrated have no place in a wikipedia article.
Thanks a lot for reading, hopefully, this will be reviewed.(unsigned)
This appears to have begun as an autobiography nine years ago, and has taken on an admirably promotional and puffy format in the time since. The intro alone is a thing to behold. I don't know where to start--any assistance will be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F ( talk) 14:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Wiki lists date of birth for actor Josh Pais ( /info/en/?search=Josh_Pais) as June 21, 1958. His IMDB page (to which there is a link on the Wiki page) lists it as June 21, 1964. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0656929/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.232.161 ( talk) 20:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I noticed a couple out of date pieces on US Rep. John Sarbanes' page including committee assignments, caucus memberships etc.:
Headshot is out of date and can be updated to the most current headshot: https://sarbanes.house.gov/sites/sarbanes.house.gov/files/images/2013-high-res.jpg. Here's a link to verify that is the most current headshot: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S001168
Committee assignments need to be updated: https://sarbanes.house.gov/about/committee-assignments. No longer a member of the National Resources Committee and is on the Energy and Power Subcommittee. Link to Energy & Commerce Committee site: http://energycommerce.house.gov/about/membership. Link to Subcommittee on Energy & Power site: http://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittees/energy-and-power. Link to Subcommittee on Health site: http://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittees/health
Caucus membership needs to be updated. No longer the co-chair of the Public Service Caucus ( https://sarbanes.house.gov/issues/good-government) and he is a member of the Congressional Hellenic Israel Alliance ( http://www.greeknewsonline.com/congressional-hellenic-and-israeli-alliance-marks-second-anniversary/)
The congressman’s signature piece of legislation (the Government by the People Act) is currently not mentioned. Could devote a new section to the bill which is co-sponsored by 150 members of Congress and over 40 organizations. More info: http://ofby.us/about-the-bill/ and https://sarbanes.house.gov/bythepeople
Lastly, The “Campaign Finance” section needs updates with recent information. I would acknowledging that the congressman no longer takes PAC money. Also, since the Congressman’s signature piece of legislation is aimed at reforming the way campaigns are funded, the title “campaign finance” might lead some readers into thinking it is a section about his work on campaign finance issues. I recommend calling it “Political Fundraising”. LauraFriedy ( talk) 16:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Cleanup needed on aisle 9! Unless you think that wealthy Asians should be trashed on Wikipedia. This just came to my attention, but I must go to sleep now. Maybe an excellent editor or two can evaluate and trim this hit job. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I just did a very quick cleanup of this article, but it needs more work on eyes on it. Helped run NASA for a couple of years and was convicted of abusing that job in a couple of ways. Jytdog ( talk) 23:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a bit of a spilloff of an article that came up for AfD. Basically there are people trying to add someone to the list. However my argument is that the guy wasn't notable enough for an article and as such, shouldn't be added there. There's also the issue that people seem to be arguing for his inclusion in order to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This made me look at some of the names at Marathon_course-cutting#Publicized incidents of disputed marathon results. Many of them do not have articles and that makes me wonder: should they really be on the list at all? I'd much rather that we only include people who are notable enough for their own articles or at the very least, have been proven to have cheated (or admitted cheating). This would likely leave only Rosie Ruiz, Roberto Madrazo, and perhaps the Xiamen International Marathon (since that was a widespread thing and is enough to mention in the race's article), but I have to say... I don't think that this is a bad thing. There's a really, really bad habit of adding people/events because they're recent, without really thinking if there would be any long term notability. And not to mention, the idea of posting about something that allegedly happened (in the cases where someone was accused but it was never proven or pursued) is sort of a BLP nightmare since it's alleged but not proven. For the people who were proven or admitted it, that sort of brings up an issue: is it really a good thing to list them if this is a minor crime/event? I think that we need to think about it in these terms: would these warrant a mention in the article's page? If not, then why should they be listed here?
Here's a rundown of the names in the list currently:
Basically what I think is happening on the page is that whenever a new scandal or accusation comes about, people are adding to the page. Very few of these cases have ever really made any lasting impression to where I honestly think that they warrant inclusion. Like I said above, this runs the risk of being a potential BLP issue since some of these people are claiming that they didn't cheat, yet they're listed at this page. There is a mention of accusations, but this still brings up concerns that people are listing them here because of recentism and in an attempt to get a personal opinion across (ie, right great wrongs by highlighting the cheaters). Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the claim about King having "misled" about his race should be removed for the time being. King has stated on Twitter that "Out of LOVE for my family, I've never gone public with my racial story because it's hurtful, scandalous, and it's MY STORY" 1 and "No 2 siblings in my family have the same set of parents. We're all over the place. Some of us are not even blood relatives" 2. I think most of this will be made clear and verified by more reputable secondary sources within days. So there's no need to rush to such a claim now. "Biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." WP:LIVING - Reagle ( talk) 18:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Someone please have a look at this one. There's all kinds of unexplained and unverified changes going on, it's hard to see at first glance what's vandalism and what's not (though I'm reverting one clear-cut case of not any good), and the article could do with major improvement on many fronts. This one's for the fans. Drmies ( talk) 02:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Josh Duggar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gawker is not an acceptable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.25.64 ( talk) 04:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The material which had been re-inserted (with other celebrity gossip sourcing) is pure sensational non-encyclopedic material of the first water. Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
14:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted a badly sourced puffy essay with a long resume listing, to the last decent version. In anticipation that an interested party may return this to an unacceptable version, I'm requesting more eyes and watchlisting here. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 ( talk) 14:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
An IP user made an unreferenced change to Imran Uddin (Blogger) which I think could possibly be defaming and require revision deletion. Please check this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Imran_Uddin_(Blogger)&oldid=677019341. Thanks GoddersUK ( talk) 16:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Tonight, I received off-wiki threats of legal action on Facebook from a user claiming to represent Chris Janson, probably the same user who has been blanking content from their article. (see Thesongfan ( talk · contribs)). The user threatened legal action and demanded that any edits be made through the Bobby Roberts agency, but backed down on the threat after I linked them to WP:OWN. The main concerns were that the article had the (backed by a secondary source) names of Chris's children, and mentioned two duets that he did early in his career (also verified by a reliable source). I explained that I could remove the names until I find a compromise, as I don't know the specifics on revealing the names of a famous person's underaged child, but when I asked why the duet information was controversial, they dodged the question and recommended that I talk to their agency or label. Per their request I have also shot an e-mail to the Bobby Roberts agency asking why the Holly Williams information has been deemed controversial. I would appreciate any further help in this matter. Thank you. I will include screen caps of the facebook conversation and e-mail if needed. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Demetrios Spandidos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page was nominated for deletion earlier this year, and kept because its subject is clearly notable. At the AFD some concerns regarding BLP issues were raised, and so I am bringing this article to the watchers of this noticeboard to determine if they think this article is BLP compliant, particularly the "career" section. Everymorning (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
why could external links of an article I just moved be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erigits ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The media widely reported that Jason Scott was represented by Kendrick Moxon, a prominent Scientologist attorney. This is a very significant and pertinent fact and is prominently included in the Wikipedia entry about the Jason Scott case. See Jason Scott case Jason Scott also made statements to the media regarding Scientology after the settlement. This included Scott's interviews with "60 Minutes," The Washington Post and St. Petersburg Times.
I suggest that this fact also be included in the bio both in the account of the Jason Scott case and the lead. I suggest that the third paragraph of the lead be revised to read as follows:
Ross faced criminal charges over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott, but was found "not guilty." Subsequently Scott, represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon, filed a lawsuit that resulted in a judgement against both Ross and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) for violating his civil rights. Scott was awarded $5 million in damages, which led to CAN and Ross declaring bankruptcy.[1][5] As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary interventions without the use of force or restraint.
"Kendrick Moxon" should be linked to Kendrick Moxon
I suggest that the section "Jason Scott Deprogramming" be edited to include the following:
Ross faced criminal charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott, whose mother was referred to Ross by the Cult Awareness Network.[35] Ross was found "not guilty" by the jury at trial.[5] Scott later filed a civil suit against Ross in federal court and was represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon. In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for depriving Scott of his civil rights and awarded Scott $5 million in punitive damages .[23] Ross' share of the damages was $3.1 million, which led to him declaring personal bankruptcy.[23] Scott later reconciled with his mother and was persuaded by her to fire Moxon and settle with Ross; under the terms of the settlement, the two agreed that Ross would pay Scott $5000 and provide 200 hours of his professional services.[36] Scott later stated that he felt he had been manipulated as part of Scientology's plan to destroy CAN. See Kendrick Moxon#cite note-scientologysponsored-23
As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary exit counseling without the use of force or restraint.[6] He states that despite refinement of processes over the years, cult intervention work continues to depend on the same basic principles originated through deprogramming.[6]
Excluding the Scientology connection in the Jason Scott leaves out important historical facts and is also inconsistent with other Wikipedia entries. 96.235.133.43 ( talk) 11:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross
The article for Jenny Beck may be conflating two different actresses, Jenny Beck and Jennifer Rae Beck. It is listing the movie credits for Jenny Beck, but is using Jennifer Rae Beck as the name. Per IMDB Jenny Beck has a rather lengthy career with three movies and lots of TV appearances, but Jennifer Rae Beck has only three TV credits, and from other sources seems to be known for her theater appearances.
Jennifer Rae Beck is recently deceased, Stage and TV Actress Jennifer Rae Beck Dead at 44, so someone might want to sort this out if in fact the article is mixing up two different Jenny Becks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.166.58 ( talk) 05:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
There's a bit of a situation about what the WP:COMMONNAME (and hence the correct article title) should be for an American political strategist, which I wanted to ask for some assistance in resolving. I've also posted the same request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, but I don't know how widely read that page is, as not a single thread posted to that page since 2013 has ever garnered a single response from anyone at all — so I thought I should also post it here since the situation has a WP:BLP angle to it.
The situation is that the article was created at Mari Maseng in 2010, following which just two months later a request was posted somewhere (I can't remember where, it might even have been right here) for the article to be moved to Mari Maseng Will on the grounds that she was known by her married name. Acting as an administrator I complied with the request in good faith, but then one year after that an anonymous IP posted an angry rant to my talk page demanding that the article be moved back to "Maseng" on the grounds that she wasn't known by her married name — I did a quick Google search, and indeed was unable to find any significant sources at that time in which she was known or referred to by "Will", so I complied with the request despite their impolite tone. The article then remained stable for almost four years, until a few weeks ago another editor moved it back to "Will" again on the grounds that she is known by her married name. (And even then, they didn't actually revise the entire article accordingly; the title, the top of the infobox and the first bolded mention of her name in the introduction had the "Will" added, but her WP:LASTNAME was left as Maseng everywhere else in the body text.)
So obviously there's a dispute, and a slow-motion edit war, here. Accordingly, I wanted to ask if somebody who has access to a broader range of US news sources than I do — I can only Google, while other people might have access to a much more comprehensive news database, or a range of political science journals, or some other specialized sourcing which might help — could assist in figuring out which title we should preference. I'm a Canadian citizen, so I have no knowledge of her whatsoever apart from having gotten dragged into this naming dispute — I didn't even know that she existed until seeing the original 2010 move request. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 17:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I am writing to you about this page: Lynn Walsh
The article is not about me, Lynn Walsh, an Investigative Journalist (www.twitter.com/lwalsh) yet, when you Google "Lynn Walsh" the wikipedia entry above (about a leader in the socialist party), shows up with my image (the journalist) attached to it. ( https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Lynn+Walsh)
Is there any way this photo can be removed since it is associating a photo of the wrong person with the wikipedia entry?
Thank you and feel free to contact me:
Thank you! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.178.109.82 (
talk)
17:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Stephanie Seneff ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) See also here. The article Stephanie Seneff makes some highly negative claims, some of which are sourced to blogs that may not stand up to WP:BLP. I want to know what other editors think about the "Criticism" section in particular. Everymorning (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Here I am being told that referring to Camille Paglia as a "feminist" is a WP:BLP violation. She refers to herself countless times as a feminist and sources refer to her countless times as a feminist. The article in which the disputed wording is occurring is not about Paglia. For the purposes of this article, Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), it is sufficient to identify Paglia as a feminist. In truth, even that could be omitted. The reader need not even know that she is a feminist. It would be sufficient to refer to her as an author and a professor at University of the Arts (Philadelphia). Her critique of the work of art is negative. But we don't have to characterize her as a "dissident" feminist even if there is ample support in sources for that. Even the Camille Paglia article fails to use that terminology. She has clashed with mainstream feminists on occasion over specific points. No source supports as "dissident" her position on Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). Therefore I find the characterization particularly gratuitous. In my opinion the insistence on calling her a "dissident feminist", even claiming a WP:BLP violation if we do not characterize her that way, merely blunts the criticism that this commentator has about the work of art. Ample praise of the work of art is included in the article but of course it comes in for criticism too from some prominent commentators. Is there agreement here that there cannot possibly be any shade of WP:BLP violation in just referring to Paglia as a "feminist"? Bus stop ( talk) 17:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. ... In France, Italy, Spain, Latin America and Brazil, in contrast, many ambitious professional women seem to have found a formula for asserting power and authority in the workplace while still projecting sexual allure and even glamour. This is the true feminine mystique, which cannot be taught but flows from an instinctive recognition of sexual differences. ... The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role — but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!
"a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism," "lugging around your bad memories" and "feminism should empower women, not cripple them."It would seem a violation of wp:biased to present these quotes as the opinions of a neutral third party observer, but they seem like interesting commentary, so seems appropriate if attributed to a source opposed to modern feminist movement -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 19:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Editors should consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."."Author and professor" does not address the bias. Wording that expresses Paglia is a notable critic of mainstream feminism addresses the bias. If there are other commentators quoted in the article, who reliable sources describe as biased, who you believe warrant in text-attribution per wp:biased, please add such attribution to the article, or open talk page discussion regarding attribution.-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 01:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
"self-proclaimed “dissident feminist” Camille Paglia lambasted Columbia graduate Emma Sulkowicz’s mattress performance"[17]. Also, edit history shows that for the past 4 years, Camile Paglia's BLP has opened with
a self-described dissident feminist,[1][18], but since the dispute began, it has been deleted. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 18:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Camille Paglia is sufficiently well known that no description is necessary. In this case, “feminist” is probably not as useful a classifier as “Professor”, “Author”, or “Critic”. However, the contention that describing Paglia as a feminist is a BLP violation is extremely pointy -- indefensible, really -- and should not be countenanced. MarkBernstein ( talk) 18:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Editors should consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".I'm honestly not terribly familiar with Paglia, but judging from the source cited in article, comments on talk page, and her BLP, it seems Paglia may warrant this sort of qualifier discussed in wp:biased. I think User:Nblund articulated the argument on talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) page more eloquently than I have been able to: [19]. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 22:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no point in describing Paglia as either a feminist or dissident feminist in that article. I agree with SlimVirgin's comment above. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It's clear that full consensus will not be reached here. Recommend an RfC be started on Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) regarding descriptors for Camille Paglia. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 18:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
My User-page/biography has been subject to harassment and vandalism via Twitter by a Far-Left individual ( SLATUKIP) who opposes the political party I am a member of. Would the admin on Twitter be able to protect my page so only myself or site admin have the capability to alter it. It can be viewed on my User page via the end of this message. I have undone the vandalism concerned. But this individual has already been warned with banning on another website (Facebook) for photoshopping my user picture onto a racist comment and it would appear he is going to continue the same form of treatment on here and elsewhere. RoverTheBendInSussex ( talk) 00:38, 21 August 2015 (GMT)
More experienced eyes would be appreciated on this page; it was a classic WP:COATRACK created as the result of 12 hours of news-cycle stories based on inflammatory claims by a partisan writer, which have now been directly and publicly refuted by the article subject. We should try to avoid sensationalism, avoid writing "biographies" based on 12 hours' worth of news stories, and avoid leaping to conclusions. I think we can do better by our readers and our article subjects. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 23:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
After a related policy discussion on republication of photos originally published without copyright, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 122#Republication of photos I have been directed to post the privacy aspect of the issue here.
Pulitzer prize winning journalist, Richard Ben Cramer wrote “It was Donna's camera, and Donna's picture-never intended for public...well public anything! She never did let the negative out of her possession. It was always her picture, her property-which is partly what would gall her so when it made its very public debut on the front page of the National Enquirer. (The Enquirer had the nerve to claim copyright on the photo.)” (“What It Takes” (1992), pg. 437) The photo was published in 1987 by the Enquirer along with the story that Hart had asked Rice to marry him. The photo was published in support of that story as a kind of innuendo by photo that some hanky-panky had occurred between the two that both have always denied, i.e., that Hart was a womanizer, and Rice a bimbo/homewrecker. Because of that photo how many people now know that Rice first met Hart at rocker Don Henley's house with his wife present (“What It Takes”, pg. 439)? How many people know that Rice was talking to Hart about fundraising, (Alan Richman, Donna Rice: 'The Woman in Question, People Magazine (Vol. 27, No. 20, May 18, 1987), “What It Takes”, pg. 460) and that "Rock musicians represent a rich vein of financial support since, under the law, they could perform at benefit concerts for the candidates, and each ticket was treated as an individual contribution. Thus the candidate could report 20,000 contributions of $10 apiece rather than an illegal one of $200,000. And each ticket could qualify for Federal matching funds." http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/09/us/courting-danger-the-fall-of-gary-hart.html?pagewanted=all That photo created a very different public image of their official relationship. It was never intended for publication. Therefore BLP presumption of privacy should apply to deleting the photo as well as the policy to avoid prolonging the victimization. Its publication created victims. Its continued republication therefore must be presumed to continue victimization. Doctor Franklin ( talk) 20:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Deletion discussion is here: Wikipedia:Files for deletion#File:Donna Rice and Gary Hart.jpg Doctor Franklin ( talk) 21:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Per Miami Herald [21] - it is an AP file photo - and copyright belongs with the photographer, not the person being photographed. Collect ( talk) 22:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
(answered on the deletion discussion page - suffice it to say the claims above are not supported by reliable sources (the Cramer book basically says Rice says she "lent" the photos to a friend) and the idea of Getty Images, which acts as a holding company and agent for copyright images, as well as being a stock photo house, colluding with anyone is unsupported by reliable sources. Collect ( talk) 23:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it a BLP violation to mention in the Shaun King (activist) BLP that a comparison has been drawn between King and Rachel Dolezal, or alternately to include Rachel Dolezal as a "See also" link? Sources provided on talk page for comparison to Dolezal are as follows: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Additional arguments and commentary can be found at /info/en/?search=Talk:Shaun_King_%28activist%29#Rachel_Dolezal -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 03:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- So a conspiracy theory from a racist was plotted, Brietbart picked it up. Wikipedia should NOT be used to further a racist plot against a living person. Add that to FRINGE, Undue Weight and NPOV, and Wikipedia editors should hold back and see what unbiased reliable sources say, if anything, in the future. Dave Dial ( talk) 15:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)...he’s biracial...I marked him white because he’s very light complected. He was there with his white mother. My crime report there’s only two things you can check: black or white. It doesn’t say biracial…anyone from around here who knew him knew he was mixed
Per WP:BLP his "ethnicity" is something which is basically one where "self-identification" properly applies for Wikipedia to make any assertions of it as fact. The issue is not one of "actual ethnicity" then, but one of opinions from reliable sources hopefully based on fact - i.e. documents in this case. Thus opinions properly sources and ascribed as such may be used provided that they make no allegations or implications of crime. I would note that DNA seems to indicate a very large proportion of people are even of "mixed species" (as Neanderthal and at least five other direct ancestors of many people were once so described), so absolutely are of "mixed race." I seriously doubt this rises to any level of "racist plot" unless one asserts that people relying on public documents can somehow use them as part of a cabal. So - we can not ascribe "white" as his ethnicity or race, as the person self-describes as "mixed ethnicity." The assertion that his birth certificate states both parents as "white" is fact, reliably sourced, though that does not deny that one or both might actually have "mixed ethnicity" in fact. It is, moreover, opinion that he misstates his ethnicity, and such opinion must be cited and ascribed as such. I think this covers the matter sufficiently. Collect ( talk) 15:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Breitbart is not an acceptable reliable source for issues relating to living people, as per longstanding consensus here and on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I have thus removed the link. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 21:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm assuming the "Breitbart" comment was referencing this edit I made, which I foolishly thought would be non-controversial. For what it's worth, in this context, the ref is fine as the WP:SELFPUB primary source it was but I'm not going to war over it. NBSB's subsequent edits make the direction this article is going clear and I no longer have the patience these days for the sort of feigned impartially, propagandizing, and manufactured outrage which saturates these sorts of things. There doesn't seem to be any outside objection on the BLPN board to the Dolezal contextualization as a BLP issue and the remaining issues are either NPOV or general content disputes. The present issues have far surpassed the simple Dolezal BLP contention so I'd recommend a general reassessment of the entire section by an outside party. GraniteSand ( talk) 04:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a content dispute at Kellie Maloney. Please discuss at Talk:Kellie Maloney#Do we refer to a trans woman by her male birth name in Wikipedia?? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think she's dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:8E2:5B00:80A2:70AE:3830:911E ( talk) 19:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be the subject of edit warring over accusations that may or may not violate WP:BLP. More eyes would be helpful. 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 ( talk) 22:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Can someone else take a look at this obscure article, Penelope Probert Boorman? I found it by accident while I was sorting through Category:American swimmers. The article posits that the subject won three medals at the "1959 Pan American Games in Chicago." I thought that odd; I frequently work with U.S. Olympic swimmer bios, and the name (Penelope Probert, Penny Probert, Penelope Boorman, Penny Boorman, etc.) was completely unknown to me. So I checked the Swimming at the 1959 Pan American Games and Swimming at the Pan American Games articles, and there is no one of any similar name listed as a medalist. I also checked the International Swimming Hall of Fame's international medalist list, and several other Pan Am Games-related websites and books, and no luck there, either. I can find sources that substantiate that a woman of this name served on several boards of trustees, etc., but nothing about Pan Am Games medals -- which is the basis of the subject's primary claim to notability. At a minimum, it seems to be an inflated CV, at worst a case of outright fraud. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 01:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Omar Abdel-Rahman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Information on the US part of the life of Omar Abdel-Rahman is misleading and erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.129.235 ( talk) 18:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
[38] contains a strong implication that a living person operated a "pyramid scheme" using [39] as the source for stating in Wikipedia's voice: "Alleged pyramid scheme". The reference given from The Independent, alas, does not remotely support use of that phrase which has quite specific connotations of fraud and illegality. It speaks of a "get rich quick scheme" but to use the specific legal term "pyramid scheme" without strong sourcing is, IMO, contrary to WP:BLPCRIME. Other opinions? Collect ( talk) 23:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The person who made the edit is clear - so he can not blame others. But The Guardian carefully states "To be clear, we have no evidence that this amounted to a pyramid scheme" as they know allegations of criminal activity are problematic - so they specifically do not make any allegation of a criminal act. UK newspapers are careful in making such claims - and Wikipedia ought to follow that example. Neither source makes an "allegation" and we can not state that an allegation was made. Per WP:BLP. Collect ( talk) 12:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Bernard_(footballer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.130.112 ( talk) 06:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Braun Stowman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone really messed this Braun Stowman guys page up, and put a terrible joke in it about a former professional wrestler who died... The whole page is jacked up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.148.129.116 ( talk) 01:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC) \
Ashley Madison data breach ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We could use some help at Hunter Biden for the same reason. - Mr X 15:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there an experienced editor fluent in English and Hebrew, who knows how to properly add the critically important supporting document and picture links presented on the talk page, to the article page?
Ksavyadkodesh ( talk) 22:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I am the subject of above Wikipedia entry.
I recently employed a professional editor via PeoplePerHour to update this stub entry with more current information, providing him with a multitude of references and links, which he used to write a new article from scratch. Even though he provided me with a copy for factual checks (which I approved) he then disappeared, leaving me in limbo. After numerous weeks of silence I then (foolishly?) decided to take matters into my hands and upload the new version myself.
This article has now been flagged as COI, which I understand. I never considered myself an editor and indeed this upload is my first and only contribution. I have no intention of using the amazing Wikipedia (to which I have donated numerous times) as a platform for self hype. I would however like some advice as to how a very dated entry can be updated without breaking any rules. I also don't know how the warning flags (incl. a supposed lack of citations) can be taken off.
Please help
Ydnob ( talk) 17:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Do small organizations fall under BLP rules? I am thinking of a non-profit, a small think tank, that has perhaps 7-10 employees, maybee less. An opinion piece an a magazine describes them leaders in "disinformation". No other RS refs (opinions or reporting) so describes them as such although they are criticised for other things. That sparked my question, but I guess I'd like some insight. Clearly if one or two people are mentioned in an article BLP applies. If it is three, yes probably. If they then become an organization do they lose BLP protection? If this has already been addressed please point me at the old discussion. Thanks Capitalismojo ( talk) 04:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It relates to Christopher Monckton, who is as far as I am aware the only person in history who has ever had to be told by the House of Lords not to misrepresent himself as a member. He is without question a promulgator of disinformation. I doubt he is a leading promulgator any more, most people these days just ignore him. Guy ( Help!) 12:40, 24 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.
Josh Duggar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor is claiming a BLP violation for including the widely reported fact that Duggar checked himself into rehab, with edit summaries such as Do not reinsert a tabloid story into this BLP
, Do not inject tabloidish sources into a BLP
, and Adding a tabloidish story to support your position on using the word "rehab" is disruptive. Although we know it's rehab, the family did NOT say that
on the basis that the Duggar family did not use the word "rehab", using instead "long-term treatment center".
Here are some sources, most of which use "rehab" to describe it: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
References
Josh Duggar, the eldest of the Duggar children, is going into rehab, the family said in a statement Wednesday. "Yesterday Josh checked himself into a long-term treatment center," the family said in a posting on duggarfamily.com. "For him it will be a long journey toward wholeness and recovery. We pray that in this he comes to complete repentance and sincere change.
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
Josh Duggar has checked into rehab, just days after he publicly confessed to cheating on his wife Anna and having an addiction to pornography.
See also Talk:Josh_Duggar#Removal_of_sourced_content
Comments from uninvolved editors would be welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Cwobeel (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Persistent attempts by multiple IPs to turn this into a puff resume, with at least some copyright violations. I've requested a block of the most recent IP, and page protection. Pending assistance from those noticeboards, it seems like a good idea to request more eyes here, as well. I don't wish to keep playing whack-a-mole, and the latest version is a return to the copyvio/pressrelease status. 2601:188:0:ABE6:91EC:4CDC:7CD6:827C ( talk) 10:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The media widely reported that Jason Scott was represented by Kendrick Moxon, a prominent Scientologist attorney. This is a very significant and pertinent fact and is prominently included in the Wikipedia entry about the Jason Scott case. See /info/en/?search=Jason_Scott_case Jason Scott also made statements to the media regarding Scientology after the settlement.
I suggest that this highly relevant fact also be included in my bio both in the account of the Jason Scott case within the lead as follows:
Ross faced criminal charges over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott, but was found "not guilty." Subsequently Scott, represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon, filed a lawsuit that resulted in a judgement against both Ross and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) for violating his civil rights. Scott was awarded $5 million in damages, which led to CAN and Ross declaring bankruptcy.[1][5] As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary interventions without the use of force or restraint.
"Kendrick Moxon" should be linked to /info/en/?search=Kendrick_Moxon
I suggest that the section "Jason Scott Deprogramming" be edited to include the following:
Ross faced criminal charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott, whose mother was referred to Ross by the Cult Awareness Network.[35] Ross was found "not guilty" by the jury at trial.[5] Scott later filed a civil suit against Ross in federal court and was represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon. In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for depriving Scott of his civil rights and awarded Scott $5 million in punitive damages .[23] Ross' share of the damages was $3.1 million, which led to him declaring personal bankruptcy.[23] Scott later reconciled with his mother and was persuaded by her to fire Moxon and settle with Ross; under the terms of the settlement, the two agreed that Ross would pay Scott $5000 and provide 200 hours of his professional services.[36] Scott later stated that he felt he had been manipulated as part of Scientology's plan to destroy CAN. See /info/en/?search=Kendrick_Moxon#cite_note-scientologysponsored-23
Excluding the historical Scientology connection in the Jason Scott litigation leaves out a very important historical fact and is also inconsistent with other Wikipedia entries. Rick Alan Ross 96.235.133.43 ( talk) 12:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)