Onaiza Mahmud
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Marco Rubio ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In February 2013, there was discussion at this board about the grandfather of this 2016 presidential candidate. The discussion centered on the question of whether the sourcing was strong enough to allow User:MastCell to write in the BLP that the grandfather had committed a crime by remaining in the U.S. illegally. [1] The discussion did not involve whether the matter was given undue weight in the grandson's BLP, or whether it violated the letter or spirit of the BLP policy which states: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association".
In June 2015, I came across this material in the grandson's BLP and removed it. Today, MastCell inserted the following material into the grandson's BLP (citations omitted):
“ | Rubio's maternal grandfather, Pedro Victor Garcia, initially immigrated legally to the U.S. in 1956, but returned to Cuba to find work in 1959. When he returned to the U.S. in 1962 without a visa, he was detained as an undocumented immigrant, and an immigration judge ordered him deported. The deportation order was not enforced, and Rubio's grandfather remained in the US illegally and re-applied for permanent resident status in 1966, following passage of the Cuban Adjustment Act, at which point his residency was approved. In 2012, The Associated Press concluded that Garcia might have been living in the U.S. illegally for four years, from 1962 to 1966. | ” |
I don't dispute that the material is reliably sourced, but I would like others to weigh in about whether it's undue weight, and whether it's guilt by association.
It seems a lot like the relentless efforts that occurred in 2008 to insert into the Mitt Romney article loads of detail about polygamous activities by Romney's great-grandparents, which happily was removed as that article approached featured status. I have no special affinity for Rubio; I've already voted in the 2016 primaries and voted for someone else. But I think basic fairness and BLP policy bars this kind of thing. MastCell said at the BLP talk page: "Given the central role that immigration policy has played in Rubio's career, I don't think even you believe that his grandfather's illegal status is truly irrelevant here." This is an obvious attempt to portray Rubio as somehow responsible for actions of a grandfather, just like claims about polygamy among Romney's ancestors was intended to somehow undermine his stance on marriage by pretending that he was responsible for what his great-grandparents did.
Make no mistake, this is guilt by association; it happens in China all the time. See Beitare, Rachel. "Guilty by Association", Foreign Policy (May 17, 2011): "The unlikely object of the Chinese state’s attention in this instance is Liu Xia, a painter, poet, and photographer — and the wife of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo. Guilty by association, she has been under house arrest, with almost no contact with the outside world, since November 2010, when her husband’s award was announced." Just as Liu Xia is held responsible for the actions of her husband, we are now insinuating that Marco Rubio and/or his policies should be judged based on what his grandfather did. A similar issue came up in the Chris Christie BLP, but I endorsed it because Chris Christie actually commented himself about it: "The brother of Christie's uncle (his aunt's second husband), Tino Fiumara, was an organized crime figure; according to Christie, the FBI presumably knew that when they conducted his background check. Later, Christie recused himself from the case and commented about what he had learned growing up with such a relative: 'It just told me that you make bad decisions in life and you wind up paying a price.'" In contrast, there is no indication AFAIK that these actions by Rubio's grandfather had any effect on him, or that he ever discussed it publicly. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant is seeking to forbid any mention of a well-documented fact, described by numerous reliable sources as a meaningful part of Rubio's biography. Let's acknowledge that his position is extreme, and fundamentally at odds with WP:WEIGHT. His position boils down to the idea that readers need to be protected from these facts, no matter what reliable sources say. That sort of extreme position needs to be justified by something more than confused ramblings about Chinese dissidents and polygamy in the Romney family. MastCell Talk 05:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm (rather weakly) inclined to let this information on Rubio's grandfather stand. Something that happened years before Rubio was born and did not effect the immigration status of his parents is not exactly compelling copy. On the other hand Rubio has made much of his Cuban roots and immigration is major presidential campaign issue. The word "illegally" after "remained" could be dropped as trying to lead the reader. It is fairly obvious that the US government at that time honored the judge's decision more in the breach than in the observance. Self-deportation?? Motsebboh ( talk) 16:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
As we all know WP articles are summaries of many, many sources and just because something is found in a source doesn't mean it needs to be included in an article. So I find claims of censorship etc. to be often misplaced in situations like this. The general point of WP:UNDUE is: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. In this case, we are discussing the personal history of a relative which is not only a minor aspect of a biography but could even be considered off topic. I think a reduction of the current content might be a good compromise.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The following WP:RS explicitly or implicitly say that Rubio's grandfather, Pedro Victor, was an "illegal" immigrant. The repeated coverage in many WP:RS gives it weight, and indicates that it is significant and belongs in the entry: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/marco-rubios-grandfather-had-difficult-transition-to-us/2012/06/17/gJQA4535jV_story.html In a way Pedro Victor’s treatment was not unlike the present-day experiences of many Mexicans and Central Americans who come to the United States legally but later run afoul of visa laws.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/04/ten-things-you-need-know-about-marco-rubio According to a Rubio biography due out in June by Washington Post reporter Manuel Roig-Franzia, Rubio's grandfather Pedro Victor Garcia was an illegal immigrant to the United States.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/26/opinion/navarrette-rubio-vp/ New report says Rubio's grandfather entered U.S. illegally from Cuba
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/07/02/nation-of-immigrants Rubio doesn’t discuss Pedro Víctor’s interlude as an illegal immigrant, however, or the police discretion that aided him; -- Nbauman ( talk) 09:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC involving a BLP at Talk:Deepak Chopra#RfC: Is the lead, among other parts of the article, reflective of the sources and a NPOV?. BlueStove ( talk) 17:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Adande Thorne ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There have been lots of edits to this page recently which change Thorne's birthday to any of multiple different years, none of which are sourced or which I could verify in a reliable source. Others' eyes would be appreciated on this page. Everymorning (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Dan Wagner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I came here from this story that recently appeared in Business Insider. The story claims that one user (User:Techtrek) has only edited Wagner's page and has done so in a whitewashing manner that downplays "the recent collapse of his business [Powa Technologies, which Wagner co-founded]". I would like other editors to look at this issue as well as the recent IP edits to this page that reduce Wagner's net worth by 4 orders of magnitude--this all seems rather fishy to me. Everymorning (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I've just templated this with the user draft template to try to keep it off Google. It's about Satanic cults and sexual abuse of children and has some really bad sourcing, eg [6] [7] and here at David Icke's Forum. It probably needs deletion at least, but I'm bringing it here first. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
We've got a person claiming to be listed under a prior name in various articles over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Help_requested_on_trans_name_change_issue. She is seeking to have the name updated or removed. We could use someone who has experience with verifying identity for Wikipedia purposes over there to help in the handling. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
At Talk:Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)#Heilman statement and Talk:Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)#Let's start afresh There is a disagreement about whether this edit [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] is a BLP violation. I would like some experienced eyes to look it over and comment about whether the statement is a BLP violation. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
James Heilman has spoke publicly about why his removal from the board and gave reasons why he was dismissed. The claim that it is somehow a BLP violation is dubious. It is not a violation of Heilman's privacy or work history record when it is documented in reliable sources. This is no privacy concerns, especially when Heilman spoke publicly about it. Heilman documented some of the events in text published in The Signpost. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-13/Op-ed. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus.
These are not my assertions, but statements backed up by reliable sources. No evidence to the contrary has been presented. It is directly related to the topic when the source indicates it is related. For example, a source stated: "What is more, this story resonates with the eviction for "default of trust", in December, James Heilman of "board of trustees", the Governing Body of the Wikimedia Foundation. In a text published on the Signpost, The Journal of Wikipedia, he claims to have repeatedly requested that these documents be made public, without success. A insistence which, he suggests, could be linked to his eviction." [21]
Heilman wanted the grant to become public and transparent without success. The Heilman content is germane to the topic, especially when the WMF is being questioned about transparency regarding the grant and KE project. The reliable sources have connected the Heilman content with the issue of transparency with the events that happened with the KE project. Since Heilman is a former "board of trustees" with the WMF his statement carries weight. There is no reason to wait for more press coverage regarding the Heilman content, especially when there are at least 5 sources discussing it. User:Jayen466 originally added the statement regarding Heilman. User:Nocturnalnow previously stated "This may belong elsewhere but not in the "development" section, imo." [22] Rather than take sides the text was rewritten to state Heilman's opinion per WP:NPOV. The same editor now maintains it is a "possible BPL violation". [23] The current wording is "Late 2015, James Heilman suggested that his internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public was a factor in his dismissal from the WMF's Board of Trustees." Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 04:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Note. Translation fixed. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Note. Translation fixed according to this comment by User:DracoEssentialis. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Note. Koebler 2016 (Vice) is being used to verify the claim that is being discussed here. Morgane 2016 (Le Monde) is being used to very another claim. There are different claims using different sources. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Note. Guy Macon is asking Heilman ( User:Doc James) about the text on his talk page. The discussion should continue because other editors may have a concern about a possible BLP violation. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLP definitely applies by definition - as the claim appears to give far more weight to a single issue than the living person gave to it directly and there are no "reliable sources" used for the claim as fact. Those who say simply "it is not a violation" are whistling in the wind - it is a claim which implies that one specific issue (KE) was the primary reason for the departure of Doc James from the board, where the sources indicate it was not a primary reason thereof. "Motherboard.vice.com" is not a reliable source for claims of fact relating to living persons, as far as I can tell. (Koebler counts, as best, as an opinion blogger, and not usable for claims of fact about a living person). The Tual cite does not make the assertion that the KE was the specific and primary reason for his boardectomy. Any use of either source should present and cite the opinions properly as opinions of those holding those opinions, and not make claims of fact based thereon. This is a common occurrence, alas, in biographical articles, which is the case at hand. Collect ( talk) 14:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Update. Heilman commented about the text on his talk page. There is no longer any doubt that this is not a BLP violation. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I did not think of looking at the Doc James BLP before now. Obviously, this disputed content about his dismissal should be/ belongs there if anywhere at all, I would think. His dismissal is discussed in the lede and body, but nothing/no connection with Knowledge Engine is mentioned, see:
LEDE:::: In June 2015, he was elected to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, a position which he held until he was removed on December 28, 2015
BODY:::In June 2015, Heilman was elected to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.[10] In December 2015, the Board removed Heilman from his position as a Trustee, a decision that generated controversy amongst members of the Wikipedia community.[11][22][23] A statement released by the board after Heilman was removed stated that he lacked the confidence of his fellow trustees. Heilman himself later said that he "was given the option of resigning [by the Board] over the last few weeks. As a community elected member I see my mandate as coming from the community which elected me and thus declined to do so. I saw such a move as letting down those who elected me.''
QuackGuru might want to put what he wants to put about James, over there, at least first, to see if it is accepted there as a non-Blp violation? Nocturnalnow ( talk) 21:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Note. User:Jayen466 and User:Everymorning added information to the James Heilman's article. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Nocturnalnow wanted the information in the article and now claims it is not notable. What is going on here? QuackGuru ( talk) 20:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
WMF Executive Director Tretikov resigned on February 25, 2016, as a result of the Wikimedia Foundation's controversial Knowledge Engine project. [1] [2]
References
Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
In early 2016 Wikipedia editors perceived the WMF's Knowledge Engine project as a conflict of interest for Wales, whose business Wikia might benefit from having the WMF spend a lot of money on research in respect to search. [1] Wikia attempted to develop a search engine but it was closed in 2009. [1]
References
Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 20:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
We recently published a book about the architecture and art of Herb Greene (the architect)- not to be confused with the other Herb Greene, a photographer. I have pasted a link to the incorrect information (on Google) below and would request that Generations (the book title) be linked to the correct Herb Greene, if that content was generated by Wikipedia:
https://www.google.com/#q=herb+greene
Thanks!
My best to you,
Julie Anglin VP Marketing & PR USA
ORO Editions / Goff Books / AR+D Publishers of Architecture, Art, Design & Photography +1 415.883 3300 x 208 San Francisco l New York l Buenos Aires | Montreal | Singapore l Hong Kong �� | Shenzhen www.oroeditions.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.247.125.61 ( talk) 18:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Help--I've started to clean this up, and am at a loss as to how to proceed, other than remove the entire resume-like body of the biography. Unsourced and interminable lists of publications, exhibitions, edited and co-edited papers, etc. If I fillet the whole thing someone's liable to take it for vandalism, but I'm unsure as to what ought actually remain. Assistance appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 21:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Last paragraph should be removed.
Ross Perot ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
He is listed as dying on Sept 11, 2001 in Tijuana Mexico and being married to Helen Mirren. [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:8701:3F00:DD0E:464F:7BF0:522 ( talk) 14:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Coy Wayne Wesbrook ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The count of 5 killed is incorrect. I've made several attempts to get this corrected. The original police report listed 5 shot but only 4 were killed. One woman survived. As well He is being executed for 3 murders. The facts are being checked against Newspaper articles that are checking facts using Wikipedia. The original report also contained 1 minor error the rifle was a .30/.06 not a 36 caliber Joebrown1958 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Martin Brunton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(OP notes the person might fail notability) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.89.67 ( talk) 21:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
2014 Youtube Abuse Scandals ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Originally unsourced, newly created article w/lots of negative claims in violation of BLP. However, these claims seem to be at least partly true. Advice requested. (Note that I added 1 source for Montoya stuff toward the bottom, but there are no other sources in article). Everymorning (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Immu 01 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User page looks like a BLP article/Advert. I mentioned this last week on their user page, here. They replied, but haven't made any changes. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can take a look and determine if any action is required or not. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 14:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
It takes some time I can't just change my userpage in a day!! I am currently working on it! IMЯAN™ 18:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immu 01 ( talk • contribs)
Fay Hartog-Levin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On December 9, 2015 a paragraph was inserted in this BLP article purporting to describe a vehicle accident and ensuing litigation involving the subject of this biography, former U.S. Ambassador Fay Hartog Levin. The description of both the accident and lawsuit are disputed, and the only cited source was the self-published blog posting of the attorney who represented the party who sued Amb. Hartog Levin. The contentious material was removed from the article shortly after it was posted (apparently by an editor unconnected to Amb. Hartog Levin), but subsequently re-inserted. I am an attorney who represents Amb. Hartog Levin, although not in connection with the lawsuit described in the text at issue. Consistent with the guidlines on biographies of living persons, on behalf of Amb. Hartog Levin I have removed the contentious and improperly sourced material.
A more detailed explanation of the basis for removal follows:
The removed text purporting to describe a traffic accident and resulting lawsuit involving Ambassador Hartog Levin is factually inaccurate and inconsistent with several Wikipedia policies, including those governing the biographies of living persons and prohibitions against the use of self-published sources.
First, the entire passage describing the incident and lawsuit cites to a single self-published source. That source is a blog entry authored by Brendan Kevenides, who was the attorney for the plaintiff in the personal injury lawsuit described in the removed text. [1]. In that promotional blog post, Mr. Kevenides inaccurately describes key facts regarding the accident (which he did not witness), gives a first-person account of the history of the lawsuit, including depositions he took in the case, makes ad hominem attacks on Ambassador Hartog Levin and her husband, and touts the settlement that he obtained for his client. The blog itself is maintained by “Bike Law,” a self-described “network of independent lawyers and law firms who share a common approach to the law and to helping cyclists.” The blog appears to serve, at least in part, as a marketing tool for attorneys, like Mr. Kevenides [2], who represent bicyclists in personal injury cases. Mr. Kevenides posts regularly on the “Bike Law” blog about his cases [3].
Mr. Kevenides authored his blog post on the accident and lawsuit on December 8, 2015. The next day, December 9, 2015, the offending text citing to that blog post was added to Ambassador Hartog Levin’s biographical Wikipedia article. Whether the December 9 revision to the biography was done by Mr. Kevenides, his client, or a third-party, there is no question that the only cited source for that text is the self-published and inherently biased blog post of the plaintiff’s attorney in the litigation described.
The sole reliance on a self-published and biased source is particularly egregious here because the article at issue comprises the biography of Ambassador Hartog Levin, a living person. Wikipedia policy on changes to such entries provides that information about living persons “adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia’s three content Policies: neutral point of view (NPOV); verifiability (V); and no original research (NOR). [4] The content purporting to describe the accident and lawsuit involving Ambassador Hartog Levin violates several of those policies. The description of the accident and lawsuit taken from Mr. Kevenides’ marketing blog is not remotely neutral, relaying the self-promotional narrative of the advocate for one of the parties to the lawsuit. Additionally, it describes disputed facts that cannot be verified independently, including the false allegation that Ambassador Hartog Levin “fled the scene,” when in fact she stopped and sought to exchange information with Mr. Kevenides’ client, who declined to provide his name and told her that he was alright and that the accident was his fault. Ambassador Hartog Levin called the police the evening of the incident to report it, but was told that no report would be taken.
The policy on “Biographies of living persons” goes on to state that any contentious material about a living person that is (1) “unsourced or poorly sourced,” (2) a conjectural interpretation of a source, (3) “relies on self-published sources,” or (4) relies on sources “that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards” should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Accordingly, the removal of this paragraph is sanctioned, and in fact mandated, by Wikipedia policy.
Dmfeeney ( talk) 22:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Unfortunate incident, but could perhaps use some further looking into by respondents to this noticeboard.
Good luck,
— Cirt ( talk) 03:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Byron Cook (politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Experienced eyes requested on this article, where new user Honest Abe2016 is edit-warring and complaining that it "has been hacked with false and libelous information". JohnCD ( talk) 13:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Timothy Parker (puzzle designer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've got an interesting one for you guys, centering around a puzzle designer. I'm going to try to describe everything as good as possible since it's mildly complicated.
Long story short, Parker was accused of plagiarizing some of his crosswords and there's been a flurry of editing with the article, some of which was to add the content and some of which was to selectively edit it in order to remove any mention of the allegations other than a denial of the claims. There were claims that Parker was editing the article, which were somewhat persuasive, although I don't think that the IP edits are by Parker offhand. The account might have been Parker, but I've warned him against making direct edits (several times) and asked him to discuss edits on the talk page. I ended up giving the editor a temporary block (for edit warring) and semi'd the page for a few days, which kept the edits down to a minimum. The protection has lapsed and the IPs have returned. They're not as bad as they were, so I'm not going to semi it again unless it gets bad.
Anywho, I've created a subsection for this since the coverage is getting heavy-ish and this sort of thing is difficult to explain as just plagiarism since it's not exactly as cut and dry as all of that. I also wanted to include a section about Parker responding to the allegations. It's a bit lengthier than I wanted, but it's been getting quite a bit of coverage so it's mildly justified. If anyone can condense it a little without swaying it one way or another, feel free. I'm in my last week of classes right now so I'm not on as much as I otherwise would be and I'd really like to prevent this from turning into a perfect storm. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Marian Kotleba ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anonymous users keep adding ( [29], [30]) dubiously-sourced statement about Kotleba's supposed reduction of the region's debt; this doesn't seem to be confirmed by any unaffiliated sources (all references I found either are on the Kotleba's party website, or refer to it). Is there anything that can be done with this, including rewriting said statement from NPOV or finding more sources for it?
Any help would be appreciated.
Andrew Shadura ( talk) 11:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Ravi Zacharias ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article Ravi Zacharias has seen BLP-violating content added by new user Zenbanjo. The content, which accuses Zacharias of lying about his academic qualifications, is sourced to a blog, and thus clearly violates WP:BLP. I have warned the user, but he continues to add the same unacceptable content, most recently here. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 23:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Are any admins monitoring this page? I've seen a few reports that appear to be actionable but no admins acting on them. (Just a question... not criticism) - theWOLFchild 09:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Scott Angelle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not a neutral point of view, and clearly unsourced comments about character. Asks readers to visit politician's facebook page and reads like a campaign ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.167.236 ( talk) 17:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Sharon Presley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I Sharon Presley recently looked at my page on Wiki and to my horror I found that the book “Think for Yourself” was listed as one of my books. But that book was the subject of an arbitration that I won and has been withdrawn from the market. At the request of my lawyer, neither Amazon nor Barnes and Noble even carry used copies. Let me explain why I totally disavow the book and do not consider it even mine. Though there was a contract that guaranteed me final approval of the book, the publisher basically rewrote the book without my knowledge or approval even though I had told her that she no longer had my permission to even publish the book, period. She went ahead and rewrote the book, introducing literally hundreds of typos, misspellings, and grammatical mistakes. I was horrified. But even worse, she rewrote passages in ways that, in my opinion, make me look psychologically disturbed. The terms of the arbitration agreement are such that I cannot comment on why I think she did this. However, if you have any doubt about what I am saying, please contact my lawyer Allan Schwartz in San Francisco [(Redacted)] I would really appreciate it if you to take down the book as soon as possible. Thank you. P.S. You can contact me at (Redacted) --just so you know this is a legitimate request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B3D6:D8E0:D852:B85D:ACE7:88CC ( talk) 01:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The political party Australians Against Further Immigration was formed by the parents of actor Jesse Spencer. According to his wikibio, Spencer has refused to comment on his parents' politics. Yet, he is mentioned in the second sentence of the lede of the article on this political party, which is anti-immigrant and was viewed as racist in Australia when it was operating. I can see how the party can be mentioned in his wikibio, but I don't see why he should be in the lede of the party's article. Could not his inclusion be seen as implying agreement with the views of the party? Is his inclusion in the party article a BLP violation? 60.242.25.92 ( talk) 14:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Yolandi Visser ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a brand new editor, User:Gene ZEF who might be close to the subject of the article. All of the edits are evidently done in good faith, but the article is becoming really heavy with WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL issues. Attempts at reversion by other editors and bots are undone, not due to the new editor engaging in an edit war or attempting to own the page, but is under the assumption that his/her 'coding' is incorrect and that his/her edits are just disappearing. Notes have been left on the users talk page, but they vanish. Just wanting to see if we can get an extra pair of eyes on the article to make sure it doesn't get out of control. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 08:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Guys Im just learning the board. I have no intention in owning the page or making a mess of it. I do need help on coding issues I am having though, I could use some guidance. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gene ZEF (
talk •
contribs)
04:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
[37] Quick comment. According to several sources, the main Wikipaedia page on Brown for example, it is stated that he flew 487 types of aircraft. Counting the entries on the subject page, there are only 486 listed. I do not have the reference handy but have seen it mentioned that his personal aircraft at the time he gave up flying was a Grumman Tiger AA5B. That aircraft is not listed at the reference page and would make up the 487. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8200:224D:4E00:1543:1910:D282:4619 ( talk) 06:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if wikipedia had some clearer guidelines as to what constitutes notability in regards to people of the United Kingdom. Some editors are of the view that anyone who features in Who's Who (UK) is by right inherently notable. Some also believe that recipients of MBE/OBE/CBE's are by right notable enough for inclusion (the UK has a far more long winded honours system than that but this is the most common Order conferred). I on the other hand take a less inclusionist view. The first reason for this is that Who's Who (UK) contains biographies of individuals who are not necessarily at the pinnacle of their profession, for example it contains biographies on the vast majority of living Circuit judge's (c. 600), District judges (c. 400) and Queen's Counsels (c. 2800), while I would argue that only the appointment of High Court judge (England and Wales) (c.110) was de facto notable in itself. Recent successful AFDs of Gordon-Saker Liza_Gordon-Saker (Circuit judge), Laurence Marshall (Circuit judge), Peter Carr (Circuit judge), Jane McIvor (District judge), Jonathan Radway (District judge), Peter Bowsher (QC), Charles Sherrard (QC) lend support my assertion. Who's Who (UK) also includes biographies on a lot of low ranking consular and embassy staff, while I would argue that only High Commissioners and Ambassadors were de facto notable, and even my bar is not unequivocally supported by the current guidelines. The publictaion also included a large number of headteachers with another successful AFD example here. In respect of MBE/OBE/CBE's again these, and similar honours, can sometimes be awarded to cleaners, teachers and other such persons who would not normally be considered for inclusion based on their career or coverage. However time and time again I see the same arguments in AFDs, here, here, here, here, here etc. For these reasons it would be useful to have some clearer notability guidelines to work with in respect of United Kingdom related biographies. Uhooep ( talk) 15:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hilary Putnam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm noting that there have been unverified reports of Putnam's death and a resultant near-constant stream of edits by anonymous and new editors. Without a reliable source, it's a BLP violation to claim that he's died. clpo13( talk) 21:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
According to WP:WEASEL, the part "some" is an unsupported attribution. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions. The part "some" cannot be used to describe the sources because editors cannot conduct their own review by combining different sources together to come to a new conclusion. The sources should make the claim, not the editor. Combining different sources together does not equal "some". It is a SYN violation when none of the sources makes the claim. The part "some" failed V and is not neutral. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 21:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Looking to get an extra pair of eyes and a outside perspective on this one.
The section included is from the "Early Political Life" section in the article.
"In 1970, he was one of six GIs who refused orders to go to Vietnam.[2] This was the largest mass refusal of orders to Vietnam during that war. Dix served two years in Leavenworth Military Penitentiary. It was during his incarceration that he became a revolutionary.[3] "
The language of it seems to be NPOV, and further, would these be considered reliable sources for the subject and its content? - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 01:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Niall Mellon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A number of IP SPA's continually attempting to skew tone. I've reverted a couple of times but don't want to get in an edit war. Additional oversight would be appreciated. 79616gr ( talk) 16:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
User:ParkH.Davis has created this article on the Peyton Manning sexual assault allegations. /info/en/?search=Peyton_Manning_sexual_assault_case. It is an absolute violation of WP:BLP. It should be deleted immediately, and ParkH.Davis should seriously reconsider continuing to edit in this area. He has been disruptive on the article, talk page, NPOV noticeboard, and WP:ANI. Mr Ernie ( talk) 19:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Sadly, ParkH.Davis is clearly unable to work cooperatively with other editors, as is evidenced by his very heavy participation on the Manning talk page over the past month. He refuses to listen to or accept the very sound explanations and proposals by other editors, and has shown no ability to reasonably compromise. It appears that his clear bias and obstructionism has been the primary reason that the matter has gone unresolved for so long. It is undisputed that the content in question relates to an allegation of misconduct, yet ParkH.Davis has chosen to ignore a complete lack of consenus to not only create a separate "sexual assualt allegation" section in the Manning article, but also, amazingly, a complete new, detailed article about the allegation. I feel his ongoing and very inappropriate actions warrant sanctions against him. I think he not only should be banned from editing the Manning article and participating in the resolution discussions, but the restrictions should also extend to similar types of "controversy" content in any other aritcles. ParkH.Davis has only been editing for five months, yet has already been blocked three times and has been very disruptive at two other noticeboards. Tracescoops ( talk) 23:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
User:ParkH.Davis has refused to provide diffs showing consensus for the new page. The new RfC does not show consensus for the new page. See Talk:Peyton_Manning#Request_For_Comment. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Could we possibly get an admin to weigh in here? We have a complete lack of AGF as seen above (this comment by Joseph A. Spadaro is a head scratcher "You're probably a millennial...") What does that even mean? How is that relevant? There is complete consensus to add the contested material to the main article. However it seems to be far easier to come to the talk page to complain about the article, accuse editors of white washing, etc than to just edit collaboratively. Who cares how long someone has been an editor? Mr Ernie ( talk) 12:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Censoring all content which discusses Manning's scandals is a violation of WP:NPOV. There is no way for the article to be neutral if it only presents arbitrarily positive information on a subject that is highly divisive and controversial. Wikipedia is not censored and reliable sources have determined that the scandals are notable enough for continued and in depth coverage. Why is there such a strong movement to whitewash this article? ParkH.Davis ( talk) 16:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The issue is the amount of undue attention that seems to have been given to the case, but which at the end of the day, that Manning was not found guilty of. It should be included, because it did happen, there's RSes that document the situation. But the level of detail that I've seen being put into this (both when it was originally part of the Manning and now on the separate accusation page) is far greater than I would expect when Manning was not charged with anything. The whole situation seems to be something that can be suitably described at the encyclopedic level within one or two paragraphs at most (barring what is happening recently about the larger situation from that school). We are not a tabloid, looking for all the juice details to shame a person. -- MASEM ( t) 22:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
ParkH.Davis, I see no point in editors continuing to discuss this matter with you because you are simply unable to listen to anyone, and have either misrepresented or misunderstood all the policies, guidelines, and issues involved. Even the few who have agreed with some of your points have demonstrated their willingness to reasonably compromise. Your overwhelming bias seems to cloud everything you think and say. Therefore, to other editors I would suggest discontinuing this discussion unless and until sanctions against Park are issued that would either ban or limit his participation in this matter (and any other disputes about "controversy" content in articles). I believe that a timely resolution can easily be achieved if Park isn't involved. Tracescoops ( talk) 00:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps now would be a good time for a straw poll to gauge consensus on the matter? Perhaps something like;
Sometimes when a discussion has hit a wall, these polls are a useful way of pushing through. - theWOLFchild 00:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Could an administrator please delete this BLP violation from the history? We are starting to stray into dangerous territory. ParkH.Davis please stop this crusade you seem to be on. Mr Ernie ( talk) 21:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [41]. All I want is for this article to give the allegations against Peyton Manning their proper due according to the amount of coverage given to them by reliable sources. This article is suffering from a systemic bias, which is actively preventing any sort of discussion of the allegations. I have not violated any Wikipedia policy in my efforts to make sure this article has a NPOV. I find it disturbing that there are so many editors seeking to whitewash this article. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 21:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It appears we have a smoking gun with regard to ParkH.Davis. Look at this addition he made today to his user page in which he proclaims, "Wikipedia must not be whitewashed. I will fight for the acknowledgement of victims of sexual violence on Wikipedia wherever and whenever is necessary." His motive for being so aggressive and disruptive is now clear. This matter should be reported to ANI. Tracescoops ( talk) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
ParkH.Davis, you have endlessly spouted your newest out-of-context mantra ("BLP policy explicity states...") for the past several hours. [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] I would suggest you take your crusade to some other website before an administrator forces you to do that. Tracescoops ( talk) 22:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
With the types of complaints, allegations and clear policy violations that are being posted here, perhaps it's time that this issue was brought to WP:ANI, so that the community at large can have a look and non-involved admins can take any necessary actions. - theWOLFchild 22:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I have brought this issue to ANI. Please find it here. Mr Ernie ( talk) 23:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Please feel free to close this discussion. It appears consensus in the straw poll is for a version of Option A. Let's work collaboratively to get it done. Mr Ernie ( talk) 00:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the redirect should be nominated for deletion. See Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy. See WP:RFD. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
See WP:RFD- See what? - theWOLFchild 06:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I nominated the redirect for deletion: == Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy listed at Redirects for discussion ==
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr Ernie ( talk) 19:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Still a member of the community- so we would expect that they be notified. Site banned editors, however, are not considered in the same way - consequently, I could countenance not notifying such editors. Hope thus helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_29587311/why-peyton-mannings-retirement-decision-can-be-made
Is a source proffered for the claim:
I think the source is a sports column basically speculating editorially about Manning's future plans, and really could only support:
Am I in error on what the editorial sports column supports - and in stating and citing it as opinion? Collect ( talk) 14:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
[67] The Denver Post only gives specific corrections for errors in "news columns". Per DP official site. I rely on what the newspaper itself states about its own policies. And your "example" is sufficiently absurd here as to warrant no reply. Collect ( talk) 20:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Mohammad Taqi al-Modarresi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) It seems there is a deliberate attempt to slander the individual concerned. By reverting to previous edits which are libelous in nature, without making any attempt to be objective and unbiased, these individuals clearly have an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.190.36.248 ( talk) 14:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Rallé (artist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Long ago tagged as an autobiography, this is a puff piece/resume that could use some attention and a lot of cutting. Resumes of commercial gallery exhibitions, and in this case, a list of every book cover ever illustrated, are usually an indicator of COI, and nearly always ripe for cutting. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 17:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Sarayu Rao ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The information on this page is being mixed up with the info about a Malayalee actress by the same name. I am mother of American Actress Sarayu Rao a.k.a. Sarayu Blue. 21:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)malathi n. Currently One piece of information in question is the following: She earned her Master of Fine Arts degree in engineering in 2005 from the MIT. This is incorrect. Sarayu Rao did not go to Engineering College but went to American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco. I corrected it but somebody else is changing it back to the misinformation. I need your help in preventing this misuse, for want of better word.
Thanks. Malathi Nidadavolu (thulikan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thulikan ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Kendrick Meek ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Congressman [Kendrick Meek] biography ( /info/en/?search=Kendrick_Meek) includes a reference to Dennis Stackhouse, a living person.
I believe the content of this section violates the living person policy for Dennis Stackhouse including "people accused of a crime", "privacy of names", the entry relies on poorly sourced, low-quality secondary sources (commentary section of an online journal is referenced, and other links do not lead to content), and considering that Dennis Stackhouse is still awaiting trial 8 years after his arrest (reference below), it seems to be victimizing him further. Overall, it reads as an attack, is not balanced, and does not contribute to the wikipage of the Congressman.
Perhaps if the Meek's entry was updated with the proper tense and with Dennis Stackhouse's name removed.
Here is my attempt:
"Real Estate Scandal" Questions about Kendrick Meek's relationship with a Miami developer came up throughout the 2010 Senate campaign as it was revealed that Meek lobbied for millions of dollars in taxpayer money to fund an ill-fated project while the developer allegedly provided Meek's mother, former Congresswoman Carrie Meek, with a free Cadillac Escalade, a rent-free office for her foundation, and tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees. The developer was ultimately arrested, charged with allegedly stealing almost $1 million in project funds. The scandal led the St. Petersburg Times to comment, "Meek owes voters an explanation". Meek has responded by saying he was simply trying to secure investment for economic development in his congressional district.[27]"
Reference: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-gardens/article50656700.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.130.225 ( talk) 00:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Gianni Nunnari ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I need some extra eyes on the article for Gianni Nunnari. Long story short, back in 2014 Nunnari tried to make his article into an extremely promotional puff piece, which you can see here. I salvaged it from a speedy and tried to find sourcing, but it looks like the guy is really best known for a lawsuit that seriously backfired on him, since he ended up getting sued for fraud and the judge ended up judging against Nunnari. This ended up being almost the only area I could get RS in, since we can include information about suits that went to court and received judgement.
There was an attempt to get the page deleted as an attack page, which it wasn't. Recently there has been a few people coming in and trying to scrub any of the lawsuit information in the article, claiming that it's either irrelevant or just not giving an explanation at all.
As far as I'm aware, we can include content on lawsuits if it went to court, received judgement, and received media coverage, all of which seems to be the case here - especially since this ended up with Nunnari losing the rights to a film he made. ( [68]) If Nunnari was to say that he wanted the page removed I'd be willing to send this to AfD, but we'd need to verify that it's him making this request. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Younes Abaaoud ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I nominated it for deletion.
No content, irrelevant and lack of notability, unknown person (other than to be the brother of a terrorist). Beside that, this article is also badly researched and poorly sourced. This boy is still a minor and has as far as we know done nothing, other than to leave home to go to a war zone. Everything that needs to be said about him is already mentioned in the main article: Abdelhamid Abaaoud. I think all these apply: WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER
What do you think? — Frieeedaaa ( talk) 07:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Lavdrim Muhaxheri ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This post concerns the Lavdrim Muhaxheri biography article, which has gained issues with libel, defamation and BLPCRIME since reformulating and adding sentences this edit, fourth column in this edit and first column in this edit which are quoted reference articles with claims, accusations from 29 July 2014 claiming that Muhaxheri is seen on photos published to a Facebook-account, the article headlines were mentioned in the Department of State - list released in September 2014 but the claim isn't based on a conviction nor supported by the warrant from the Basic Court of Ferizaj in Kosovo or the Interpol warrant for Muhaxheri that doesn't claim that he's wanted for murder; "The demand comes from the Basic Court of Ferizaj, which has issued a warrant for Muhaxheri after he is accused of terrorism and organized groups to go to Syria and Iraq." Alike with the second edit first column in this edit and the article with the expert statements about the footage and video claims that the video isn't authenticized: "With question marks hanging over the video, Kosovo police said they are working with international partners to verify the authenticity of the video and the time of its publication". Since BLPCRIME says that such material and accusations shouldn't be included unless a conviction has been secured the sentences should be formulated into more neutral, indirect statements, to also be compliant with WP:NPOV and some additional text about the accusations needs to be removed. Lavdrim Muhaxheri ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KewinRozz KewinRozz ( talk) 16:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Emily Ratajkowski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are two sections in Emily Ratajkowski where I have attempted to summarize reviews of her performance that are under fire at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3. The issue is whether a critic who reviews a performance in which she has a significant role without describing anything noteworthy about her performance is critiquing in a way that has meaning to our readers. I have presented two statements under the belief that saying that a person has a significant role that was not worth critiquing is actually a critique on the role. The FAC discussant, GRuban says "If a critic did not mention her, it does not help our article to write 'critic did not mention her'. Feel free to get a WP:3O or open a WP:RFC or whatever..." GRuban also notes that "Probably the worst offender from that paragraph is this sentence: Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, Brian Viner of Daily Mail and both Peter Bradshaw and Mark Kermode of The Guardian were also silent on Ratajkowski's performance." Basically, I need to know if when a person is described as the female lead and in her first leading role, it conveys information to the reader to say that leading critics did not mention her performance. Note that in this offending paragraph, I have gone through the list of critics at Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes who reviewed We Are Your Friends and summarized every critic who has a Wikipedia biography that did or didn't say anything about her performance in less than 1500 total characters. Is it better to note that some of these critics opted not to mention her performance in her first leading role or better not to mention all of the critics who have articles on WP who critiqued the film? Similarly, there is a less prominent role that was hard to find reviews of and I noted that "her hometown movie critic Anders Wright of The San Diego Union-Tribune remained silent on her role".-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Janet Henderson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello. I am Janet Henderson, the subject of the entry 'Janet Henderson'.
As regards my titles (box at end of article) the position of Dean of Llandaff is a Church in Wales Position - the Church in Wales is separate province of the Anglican church with its own polity and governance.
Under Church of England titles, the article should read 'Archdeacon of Richmond 2007-2012'. My predecessor was Ken Good and my successor was Nicholas Henshall (acting Archdeacon) and then Paul Slater (also Archdeacon of Craven and now Bishop of Richmond).
I hope you don't mind me pointing this out - these are purely factual corrections and you can check their veracity in Crockford's Clerical Directory.
Thank you. 86.153.8.131 ( talk) 11:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Onaiza Mahmud
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Marco Rubio ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In February 2013, there was discussion at this board about the grandfather of this 2016 presidential candidate. The discussion centered on the question of whether the sourcing was strong enough to allow User:MastCell to write in the BLP that the grandfather had committed a crime by remaining in the U.S. illegally. [1] The discussion did not involve whether the matter was given undue weight in the grandson's BLP, or whether it violated the letter or spirit of the BLP policy which states: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association".
In June 2015, I came across this material in the grandson's BLP and removed it. Today, MastCell inserted the following material into the grandson's BLP (citations omitted):
“ | Rubio's maternal grandfather, Pedro Victor Garcia, initially immigrated legally to the U.S. in 1956, but returned to Cuba to find work in 1959. When he returned to the U.S. in 1962 without a visa, he was detained as an undocumented immigrant, and an immigration judge ordered him deported. The deportation order was not enforced, and Rubio's grandfather remained in the US illegally and re-applied for permanent resident status in 1966, following passage of the Cuban Adjustment Act, at which point his residency was approved. In 2012, The Associated Press concluded that Garcia might have been living in the U.S. illegally for four years, from 1962 to 1966. | ” |
I don't dispute that the material is reliably sourced, but I would like others to weigh in about whether it's undue weight, and whether it's guilt by association.
It seems a lot like the relentless efforts that occurred in 2008 to insert into the Mitt Romney article loads of detail about polygamous activities by Romney's great-grandparents, which happily was removed as that article approached featured status. I have no special affinity for Rubio; I've already voted in the 2016 primaries and voted for someone else. But I think basic fairness and BLP policy bars this kind of thing. MastCell said at the BLP talk page: "Given the central role that immigration policy has played in Rubio's career, I don't think even you believe that his grandfather's illegal status is truly irrelevant here." This is an obvious attempt to portray Rubio as somehow responsible for actions of a grandfather, just like claims about polygamy among Romney's ancestors was intended to somehow undermine his stance on marriage by pretending that he was responsible for what his great-grandparents did.
Make no mistake, this is guilt by association; it happens in China all the time. See Beitare, Rachel. "Guilty by Association", Foreign Policy (May 17, 2011): "The unlikely object of the Chinese state’s attention in this instance is Liu Xia, a painter, poet, and photographer — and the wife of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo. Guilty by association, she has been under house arrest, with almost no contact with the outside world, since November 2010, when her husband’s award was announced." Just as Liu Xia is held responsible for the actions of her husband, we are now insinuating that Marco Rubio and/or his policies should be judged based on what his grandfather did. A similar issue came up in the Chris Christie BLP, but I endorsed it because Chris Christie actually commented himself about it: "The brother of Christie's uncle (his aunt's second husband), Tino Fiumara, was an organized crime figure; according to Christie, the FBI presumably knew that when they conducted his background check. Later, Christie recused himself from the case and commented about what he had learned growing up with such a relative: 'It just told me that you make bad decisions in life and you wind up paying a price.'" In contrast, there is no indication AFAIK that these actions by Rubio's grandfather had any effect on him, or that he ever discussed it publicly. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant is seeking to forbid any mention of a well-documented fact, described by numerous reliable sources as a meaningful part of Rubio's biography. Let's acknowledge that his position is extreme, and fundamentally at odds with WP:WEIGHT. His position boils down to the idea that readers need to be protected from these facts, no matter what reliable sources say. That sort of extreme position needs to be justified by something more than confused ramblings about Chinese dissidents and polygamy in the Romney family. MastCell Talk 05:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm (rather weakly) inclined to let this information on Rubio's grandfather stand. Something that happened years before Rubio was born and did not effect the immigration status of his parents is not exactly compelling copy. On the other hand Rubio has made much of his Cuban roots and immigration is major presidential campaign issue. The word "illegally" after "remained" could be dropped as trying to lead the reader. It is fairly obvious that the US government at that time honored the judge's decision more in the breach than in the observance. Self-deportation?? Motsebboh ( talk) 16:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
As we all know WP articles are summaries of many, many sources and just because something is found in a source doesn't mean it needs to be included in an article. So I find claims of censorship etc. to be often misplaced in situations like this. The general point of WP:UNDUE is: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. In this case, we are discussing the personal history of a relative which is not only a minor aspect of a biography but could even be considered off topic. I think a reduction of the current content might be a good compromise.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The following WP:RS explicitly or implicitly say that Rubio's grandfather, Pedro Victor, was an "illegal" immigrant. The repeated coverage in many WP:RS gives it weight, and indicates that it is significant and belongs in the entry: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/marco-rubios-grandfather-had-difficult-transition-to-us/2012/06/17/gJQA4535jV_story.html In a way Pedro Victor’s treatment was not unlike the present-day experiences of many Mexicans and Central Americans who come to the United States legally but later run afoul of visa laws.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/04/ten-things-you-need-know-about-marco-rubio According to a Rubio biography due out in June by Washington Post reporter Manuel Roig-Franzia, Rubio's grandfather Pedro Victor Garcia was an illegal immigrant to the United States.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/26/opinion/navarrette-rubio-vp/ New report says Rubio's grandfather entered U.S. illegally from Cuba
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/07/02/nation-of-immigrants Rubio doesn’t discuss Pedro Víctor’s interlude as an illegal immigrant, however, or the police discretion that aided him; -- Nbauman ( talk) 09:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC involving a BLP at Talk:Deepak Chopra#RfC: Is the lead, among other parts of the article, reflective of the sources and a NPOV?. BlueStove ( talk) 17:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Adande Thorne ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There have been lots of edits to this page recently which change Thorne's birthday to any of multiple different years, none of which are sourced or which I could verify in a reliable source. Others' eyes would be appreciated on this page. Everymorning (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Dan Wagner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I came here from this story that recently appeared in Business Insider. The story claims that one user (User:Techtrek) has only edited Wagner's page and has done so in a whitewashing manner that downplays "the recent collapse of his business [Powa Technologies, which Wagner co-founded]". I would like other editors to look at this issue as well as the recent IP edits to this page that reduce Wagner's net worth by 4 orders of magnitude--this all seems rather fishy to me. Everymorning (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I've just templated this with the user draft template to try to keep it off Google. It's about Satanic cults and sexual abuse of children and has some really bad sourcing, eg [6] [7] and here at David Icke's Forum. It probably needs deletion at least, but I'm bringing it here first. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
We've got a person claiming to be listed under a prior name in various articles over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Help_requested_on_trans_name_change_issue. She is seeking to have the name updated or removed. We could use someone who has experience with verifying identity for Wikipedia purposes over there to help in the handling. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
At Talk:Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)#Heilman statement and Talk:Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)#Let's start afresh There is a disagreement about whether this edit [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] is a BLP violation. I would like some experienced eyes to look it over and comment about whether the statement is a BLP violation. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
James Heilman has spoke publicly about why his removal from the board and gave reasons why he was dismissed. The claim that it is somehow a BLP violation is dubious. It is not a violation of Heilman's privacy or work history record when it is documented in reliable sources. This is no privacy concerns, especially when Heilman spoke publicly about it. Heilman documented some of the events in text published in The Signpost. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-13/Op-ed. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus.
These are not my assertions, but statements backed up by reliable sources. No evidence to the contrary has been presented. It is directly related to the topic when the source indicates it is related. For example, a source stated: "What is more, this story resonates with the eviction for "default of trust", in December, James Heilman of "board of trustees", the Governing Body of the Wikimedia Foundation. In a text published on the Signpost, The Journal of Wikipedia, he claims to have repeatedly requested that these documents be made public, without success. A insistence which, he suggests, could be linked to his eviction." [21]
Heilman wanted the grant to become public and transparent without success. The Heilman content is germane to the topic, especially when the WMF is being questioned about transparency regarding the grant and KE project. The reliable sources have connected the Heilman content with the issue of transparency with the events that happened with the KE project. Since Heilman is a former "board of trustees" with the WMF his statement carries weight. There is no reason to wait for more press coverage regarding the Heilman content, especially when there are at least 5 sources discussing it. User:Jayen466 originally added the statement regarding Heilman. User:Nocturnalnow previously stated "This may belong elsewhere but not in the "development" section, imo." [22] Rather than take sides the text was rewritten to state Heilman's opinion per WP:NPOV. The same editor now maintains it is a "possible BPL violation". [23] The current wording is "Late 2015, James Heilman suggested that his internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public was a factor in his dismissal from the WMF's Board of Trustees." Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 04:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Note. Translation fixed. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Note. Translation fixed according to this comment by User:DracoEssentialis. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Note. Koebler 2016 (Vice) is being used to verify the claim that is being discussed here. Morgane 2016 (Le Monde) is being used to very another claim. There are different claims using different sources. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Note. Guy Macon is asking Heilman ( User:Doc James) about the text on his talk page. The discussion should continue because other editors may have a concern about a possible BLP violation. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLP definitely applies by definition - as the claim appears to give far more weight to a single issue than the living person gave to it directly and there are no "reliable sources" used for the claim as fact. Those who say simply "it is not a violation" are whistling in the wind - it is a claim which implies that one specific issue (KE) was the primary reason for the departure of Doc James from the board, where the sources indicate it was not a primary reason thereof. "Motherboard.vice.com" is not a reliable source for claims of fact relating to living persons, as far as I can tell. (Koebler counts, as best, as an opinion blogger, and not usable for claims of fact about a living person). The Tual cite does not make the assertion that the KE was the specific and primary reason for his boardectomy. Any use of either source should present and cite the opinions properly as opinions of those holding those opinions, and not make claims of fact based thereon. This is a common occurrence, alas, in biographical articles, which is the case at hand. Collect ( talk) 14:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Update. Heilman commented about the text on his talk page. There is no longer any doubt that this is not a BLP violation. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I did not think of looking at the Doc James BLP before now. Obviously, this disputed content about his dismissal should be/ belongs there if anywhere at all, I would think. His dismissal is discussed in the lede and body, but nothing/no connection with Knowledge Engine is mentioned, see:
LEDE:::: In June 2015, he was elected to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, a position which he held until he was removed on December 28, 2015
BODY:::In June 2015, Heilman was elected to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.[10] In December 2015, the Board removed Heilman from his position as a Trustee, a decision that generated controversy amongst members of the Wikipedia community.[11][22][23] A statement released by the board after Heilman was removed stated that he lacked the confidence of his fellow trustees. Heilman himself later said that he "was given the option of resigning [by the Board] over the last few weeks. As a community elected member I see my mandate as coming from the community which elected me and thus declined to do so. I saw such a move as letting down those who elected me.''
QuackGuru might want to put what he wants to put about James, over there, at least first, to see if it is accepted there as a non-Blp violation? Nocturnalnow ( talk) 21:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Note. User:Jayen466 and User:Everymorning added information to the James Heilman's article. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Nocturnalnow wanted the information in the article and now claims it is not notable. What is going on here? QuackGuru ( talk) 20:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
WMF Executive Director Tretikov resigned on February 25, 2016, as a result of the Wikimedia Foundation's controversial Knowledge Engine project. [1] [2]
References
Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
In early 2016 Wikipedia editors perceived the WMF's Knowledge Engine project as a conflict of interest for Wales, whose business Wikia might benefit from having the WMF spend a lot of money on research in respect to search. [1] Wikia attempted to develop a search engine but it was closed in 2009. [1]
References
Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 20:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
We recently published a book about the architecture and art of Herb Greene (the architect)- not to be confused with the other Herb Greene, a photographer. I have pasted a link to the incorrect information (on Google) below and would request that Generations (the book title) be linked to the correct Herb Greene, if that content was generated by Wikipedia:
https://www.google.com/#q=herb+greene
Thanks!
My best to you,
Julie Anglin VP Marketing & PR USA
ORO Editions / Goff Books / AR+D Publishers of Architecture, Art, Design & Photography +1 415.883 3300 x 208 San Francisco l New York l Buenos Aires | Montreal | Singapore l Hong Kong �� | Shenzhen www.oroeditions.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.247.125.61 ( talk) 18:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Help--I've started to clean this up, and am at a loss as to how to proceed, other than remove the entire resume-like body of the biography. Unsourced and interminable lists of publications, exhibitions, edited and co-edited papers, etc. If I fillet the whole thing someone's liable to take it for vandalism, but I'm unsure as to what ought actually remain. Assistance appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 21:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Last paragraph should be removed.
Ross Perot ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
He is listed as dying on Sept 11, 2001 in Tijuana Mexico and being married to Helen Mirren. [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:8701:3F00:DD0E:464F:7BF0:522 ( talk) 14:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Coy Wayne Wesbrook ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The count of 5 killed is incorrect. I've made several attempts to get this corrected. The original police report listed 5 shot but only 4 were killed. One woman survived. As well He is being executed for 3 murders. The facts are being checked against Newspaper articles that are checking facts using Wikipedia. The original report also contained 1 minor error the rifle was a .30/.06 not a 36 caliber Joebrown1958 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Martin Brunton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(OP notes the person might fail notability) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.89.67 ( talk) 21:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
2014 Youtube Abuse Scandals ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Originally unsourced, newly created article w/lots of negative claims in violation of BLP. However, these claims seem to be at least partly true. Advice requested. (Note that I added 1 source for Montoya stuff toward the bottom, but there are no other sources in article). Everymorning (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Immu 01 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User page looks like a BLP article/Advert. I mentioned this last week on their user page, here. They replied, but haven't made any changes. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can take a look and determine if any action is required or not. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 14:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
It takes some time I can't just change my userpage in a day!! I am currently working on it! IMЯAN™ 18:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immu 01 ( talk • contribs)
Fay Hartog-Levin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On December 9, 2015 a paragraph was inserted in this BLP article purporting to describe a vehicle accident and ensuing litigation involving the subject of this biography, former U.S. Ambassador Fay Hartog Levin. The description of both the accident and lawsuit are disputed, and the only cited source was the self-published blog posting of the attorney who represented the party who sued Amb. Hartog Levin. The contentious material was removed from the article shortly after it was posted (apparently by an editor unconnected to Amb. Hartog Levin), but subsequently re-inserted. I am an attorney who represents Amb. Hartog Levin, although not in connection with the lawsuit described in the text at issue. Consistent with the guidlines on biographies of living persons, on behalf of Amb. Hartog Levin I have removed the contentious and improperly sourced material.
A more detailed explanation of the basis for removal follows:
The removed text purporting to describe a traffic accident and resulting lawsuit involving Ambassador Hartog Levin is factually inaccurate and inconsistent with several Wikipedia policies, including those governing the biographies of living persons and prohibitions against the use of self-published sources.
First, the entire passage describing the incident and lawsuit cites to a single self-published source. That source is a blog entry authored by Brendan Kevenides, who was the attorney for the plaintiff in the personal injury lawsuit described in the removed text. [1]. In that promotional blog post, Mr. Kevenides inaccurately describes key facts regarding the accident (which he did not witness), gives a first-person account of the history of the lawsuit, including depositions he took in the case, makes ad hominem attacks on Ambassador Hartog Levin and her husband, and touts the settlement that he obtained for his client. The blog itself is maintained by “Bike Law,” a self-described “network of independent lawyers and law firms who share a common approach to the law and to helping cyclists.” The blog appears to serve, at least in part, as a marketing tool for attorneys, like Mr. Kevenides [2], who represent bicyclists in personal injury cases. Mr. Kevenides posts regularly on the “Bike Law” blog about his cases [3].
Mr. Kevenides authored his blog post on the accident and lawsuit on December 8, 2015. The next day, December 9, 2015, the offending text citing to that blog post was added to Ambassador Hartog Levin’s biographical Wikipedia article. Whether the December 9 revision to the biography was done by Mr. Kevenides, his client, or a third-party, there is no question that the only cited source for that text is the self-published and inherently biased blog post of the plaintiff’s attorney in the litigation described.
The sole reliance on a self-published and biased source is particularly egregious here because the article at issue comprises the biography of Ambassador Hartog Levin, a living person. Wikipedia policy on changes to such entries provides that information about living persons “adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia’s three content Policies: neutral point of view (NPOV); verifiability (V); and no original research (NOR). [4] The content purporting to describe the accident and lawsuit involving Ambassador Hartog Levin violates several of those policies. The description of the accident and lawsuit taken from Mr. Kevenides’ marketing blog is not remotely neutral, relaying the self-promotional narrative of the advocate for one of the parties to the lawsuit. Additionally, it describes disputed facts that cannot be verified independently, including the false allegation that Ambassador Hartog Levin “fled the scene,” when in fact she stopped and sought to exchange information with Mr. Kevenides’ client, who declined to provide his name and told her that he was alright and that the accident was his fault. Ambassador Hartog Levin called the police the evening of the incident to report it, but was told that no report would be taken.
The policy on “Biographies of living persons” goes on to state that any contentious material about a living person that is (1) “unsourced or poorly sourced,” (2) a conjectural interpretation of a source, (3) “relies on self-published sources,” or (4) relies on sources “that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards” should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Accordingly, the removal of this paragraph is sanctioned, and in fact mandated, by Wikipedia policy.
Dmfeeney ( talk) 22:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Unfortunate incident, but could perhaps use some further looking into by respondents to this noticeboard.
Good luck,
— Cirt ( talk) 03:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Byron Cook (politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Experienced eyes requested on this article, where new user Honest Abe2016 is edit-warring and complaining that it "has been hacked with false and libelous information". JohnCD ( talk) 13:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Timothy Parker (puzzle designer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've got an interesting one for you guys, centering around a puzzle designer. I'm going to try to describe everything as good as possible since it's mildly complicated.
Long story short, Parker was accused of plagiarizing some of his crosswords and there's been a flurry of editing with the article, some of which was to add the content and some of which was to selectively edit it in order to remove any mention of the allegations other than a denial of the claims. There were claims that Parker was editing the article, which were somewhat persuasive, although I don't think that the IP edits are by Parker offhand. The account might have been Parker, but I've warned him against making direct edits (several times) and asked him to discuss edits on the talk page. I ended up giving the editor a temporary block (for edit warring) and semi'd the page for a few days, which kept the edits down to a minimum. The protection has lapsed and the IPs have returned. They're not as bad as they were, so I'm not going to semi it again unless it gets bad.
Anywho, I've created a subsection for this since the coverage is getting heavy-ish and this sort of thing is difficult to explain as just plagiarism since it's not exactly as cut and dry as all of that. I also wanted to include a section about Parker responding to the allegations. It's a bit lengthier than I wanted, but it's been getting quite a bit of coverage so it's mildly justified. If anyone can condense it a little without swaying it one way or another, feel free. I'm in my last week of classes right now so I'm not on as much as I otherwise would be and I'd really like to prevent this from turning into a perfect storm. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Marian Kotleba ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anonymous users keep adding ( [29], [30]) dubiously-sourced statement about Kotleba's supposed reduction of the region's debt; this doesn't seem to be confirmed by any unaffiliated sources (all references I found either are on the Kotleba's party website, or refer to it). Is there anything that can be done with this, including rewriting said statement from NPOV or finding more sources for it?
Any help would be appreciated.
Andrew Shadura ( talk) 11:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Ravi Zacharias ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article Ravi Zacharias has seen BLP-violating content added by new user Zenbanjo. The content, which accuses Zacharias of lying about his academic qualifications, is sourced to a blog, and thus clearly violates WP:BLP. I have warned the user, but he continues to add the same unacceptable content, most recently here. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 23:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Are any admins monitoring this page? I've seen a few reports that appear to be actionable but no admins acting on them. (Just a question... not criticism) - theWOLFchild 09:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Scott Angelle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not a neutral point of view, and clearly unsourced comments about character. Asks readers to visit politician's facebook page and reads like a campaign ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.167.236 ( talk) 17:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Sharon Presley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I Sharon Presley recently looked at my page on Wiki and to my horror I found that the book “Think for Yourself” was listed as one of my books. But that book was the subject of an arbitration that I won and has been withdrawn from the market. At the request of my lawyer, neither Amazon nor Barnes and Noble even carry used copies. Let me explain why I totally disavow the book and do not consider it even mine. Though there was a contract that guaranteed me final approval of the book, the publisher basically rewrote the book without my knowledge or approval even though I had told her that she no longer had my permission to even publish the book, period. She went ahead and rewrote the book, introducing literally hundreds of typos, misspellings, and grammatical mistakes. I was horrified. But even worse, she rewrote passages in ways that, in my opinion, make me look psychologically disturbed. The terms of the arbitration agreement are such that I cannot comment on why I think she did this. However, if you have any doubt about what I am saying, please contact my lawyer Allan Schwartz in San Francisco [(Redacted)] I would really appreciate it if you to take down the book as soon as possible. Thank you. P.S. You can contact me at (Redacted) --just so you know this is a legitimate request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B3D6:D8E0:D852:B85D:ACE7:88CC ( talk) 01:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The political party Australians Against Further Immigration was formed by the parents of actor Jesse Spencer. According to his wikibio, Spencer has refused to comment on his parents' politics. Yet, he is mentioned in the second sentence of the lede of the article on this political party, which is anti-immigrant and was viewed as racist in Australia when it was operating. I can see how the party can be mentioned in his wikibio, but I don't see why he should be in the lede of the party's article. Could not his inclusion be seen as implying agreement with the views of the party? Is his inclusion in the party article a BLP violation? 60.242.25.92 ( talk) 14:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Yolandi Visser ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a brand new editor, User:Gene ZEF who might be close to the subject of the article. All of the edits are evidently done in good faith, but the article is becoming really heavy with WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL issues. Attempts at reversion by other editors and bots are undone, not due to the new editor engaging in an edit war or attempting to own the page, but is under the assumption that his/her 'coding' is incorrect and that his/her edits are just disappearing. Notes have been left on the users talk page, but they vanish. Just wanting to see if we can get an extra pair of eyes on the article to make sure it doesn't get out of control. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 08:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Guys Im just learning the board. I have no intention in owning the page or making a mess of it. I do need help on coding issues I am having though, I could use some guidance. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gene ZEF (
talk •
contribs)
04:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
[37] Quick comment. According to several sources, the main Wikipaedia page on Brown for example, it is stated that he flew 487 types of aircraft. Counting the entries on the subject page, there are only 486 listed. I do not have the reference handy but have seen it mentioned that his personal aircraft at the time he gave up flying was a Grumman Tiger AA5B. That aircraft is not listed at the reference page and would make up the 487. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8200:224D:4E00:1543:1910:D282:4619 ( talk) 06:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if wikipedia had some clearer guidelines as to what constitutes notability in regards to people of the United Kingdom. Some editors are of the view that anyone who features in Who's Who (UK) is by right inherently notable. Some also believe that recipients of MBE/OBE/CBE's are by right notable enough for inclusion (the UK has a far more long winded honours system than that but this is the most common Order conferred). I on the other hand take a less inclusionist view. The first reason for this is that Who's Who (UK) contains biographies of individuals who are not necessarily at the pinnacle of their profession, for example it contains biographies on the vast majority of living Circuit judge's (c. 600), District judges (c. 400) and Queen's Counsels (c. 2800), while I would argue that only the appointment of High Court judge (England and Wales) (c.110) was de facto notable in itself. Recent successful AFDs of Gordon-Saker Liza_Gordon-Saker (Circuit judge), Laurence Marshall (Circuit judge), Peter Carr (Circuit judge), Jane McIvor (District judge), Jonathan Radway (District judge), Peter Bowsher (QC), Charles Sherrard (QC) lend support my assertion. Who's Who (UK) also includes biographies on a lot of low ranking consular and embassy staff, while I would argue that only High Commissioners and Ambassadors were de facto notable, and even my bar is not unequivocally supported by the current guidelines. The publictaion also included a large number of headteachers with another successful AFD example here. In respect of MBE/OBE/CBE's again these, and similar honours, can sometimes be awarded to cleaners, teachers and other such persons who would not normally be considered for inclusion based on their career or coverage. However time and time again I see the same arguments in AFDs, here, here, here, here, here etc. For these reasons it would be useful to have some clearer notability guidelines to work with in respect of United Kingdom related biographies. Uhooep ( talk) 15:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hilary Putnam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm noting that there have been unverified reports of Putnam's death and a resultant near-constant stream of edits by anonymous and new editors. Without a reliable source, it's a BLP violation to claim that he's died. clpo13( talk) 21:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
According to WP:WEASEL, the part "some" is an unsupported attribution. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions. The part "some" cannot be used to describe the sources because editors cannot conduct their own review by combining different sources together to come to a new conclusion. The sources should make the claim, not the editor. Combining different sources together does not equal "some". It is a SYN violation when none of the sources makes the claim. The part "some" failed V and is not neutral. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 21:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Looking to get an extra pair of eyes and a outside perspective on this one.
The section included is from the "Early Political Life" section in the article.
"In 1970, he was one of six GIs who refused orders to go to Vietnam.[2] This was the largest mass refusal of orders to Vietnam during that war. Dix served two years in Leavenworth Military Penitentiary. It was during his incarceration that he became a revolutionary.[3] "
The language of it seems to be NPOV, and further, would these be considered reliable sources for the subject and its content? - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 01:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Niall Mellon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A number of IP SPA's continually attempting to skew tone. I've reverted a couple of times but don't want to get in an edit war. Additional oversight would be appreciated. 79616gr ( talk) 16:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
User:ParkH.Davis has created this article on the Peyton Manning sexual assault allegations. /info/en/?search=Peyton_Manning_sexual_assault_case. It is an absolute violation of WP:BLP. It should be deleted immediately, and ParkH.Davis should seriously reconsider continuing to edit in this area. He has been disruptive on the article, talk page, NPOV noticeboard, and WP:ANI. Mr Ernie ( talk) 19:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Sadly, ParkH.Davis is clearly unable to work cooperatively with other editors, as is evidenced by his very heavy participation on the Manning talk page over the past month. He refuses to listen to or accept the very sound explanations and proposals by other editors, and has shown no ability to reasonably compromise. It appears that his clear bias and obstructionism has been the primary reason that the matter has gone unresolved for so long. It is undisputed that the content in question relates to an allegation of misconduct, yet ParkH.Davis has chosen to ignore a complete lack of consenus to not only create a separate "sexual assualt allegation" section in the Manning article, but also, amazingly, a complete new, detailed article about the allegation. I feel his ongoing and very inappropriate actions warrant sanctions against him. I think he not only should be banned from editing the Manning article and participating in the resolution discussions, but the restrictions should also extend to similar types of "controversy" content in any other aritcles. ParkH.Davis has only been editing for five months, yet has already been blocked three times and has been very disruptive at two other noticeboards. Tracescoops ( talk) 23:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
User:ParkH.Davis has refused to provide diffs showing consensus for the new page. The new RfC does not show consensus for the new page. See Talk:Peyton_Manning#Request_For_Comment. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Could we possibly get an admin to weigh in here? We have a complete lack of AGF as seen above (this comment by Joseph A. Spadaro is a head scratcher "You're probably a millennial...") What does that even mean? How is that relevant? There is complete consensus to add the contested material to the main article. However it seems to be far easier to come to the talk page to complain about the article, accuse editors of white washing, etc than to just edit collaboratively. Who cares how long someone has been an editor? Mr Ernie ( talk) 12:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Censoring all content which discusses Manning's scandals is a violation of WP:NPOV. There is no way for the article to be neutral if it only presents arbitrarily positive information on a subject that is highly divisive and controversial. Wikipedia is not censored and reliable sources have determined that the scandals are notable enough for continued and in depth coverage. Why is there such a strong movement to whitewash this article? ParkH.Davis ( talk) 16:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The issue is the amount of undue attention that seems to have been given to the case, but which at the end of the day, that Manning was not found guilty of. It should be included, because it did happen, there's RSes that document the situation. But the level of detail that I've seen being put into this (both when it was originally part of the Manning and now on the separate accusation page) is far greater than I would expect when Manning was not charged with anything. The whole situation seems to be something that can be suitably described at the encyclopedic level within one or two paragraphs at most (barring what is happening recently about the larger situation from that school). We are not a tabloid, looking for all the juice details to shame a person. -- MASEM ( t) 22:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
ParkH.Davis, I see no point in editors continuing to discuss this matter with you because you are simply unable to listen to anyone, and have either misrepresented or misunderstood all the policies, guidelines, and issues involved. Even the few who have agreed with some of your points have demonstrated their willingness to reasonably compromise. Your overwhelming bias seems to cloud everything you think and say. Therefore, to other editors I would suggest discontinuing this discussion unless and until sanctions against Park are issued that would either ban or limit his participation in this matter (and any other disputes about "controversy" content in articles). I believe that a timely resolution can easily be achieved if Park isn't involved. Tracescoops ( talk) 00:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps now would be a good time for a straw poll to gauge consensus on the matter? Perhaps something like;
Sometimes when a discussion has hit a wall, these polls are a useful way of pushing through. - theWOLFchild 00:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Could an administrator please delete this BLP violation from the history? We are starting to stray into dangerous territory. ParkH.Davis please stop this crusade you seem to be on. Mr Ernie ( talk) 21:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [41]. All I want is for this article to give the allegations against Peyton Manning their proper due according to the amount of coverage given to them by reliable sources. This article is suffering from a systemic bias, which is actively preventing any sort of discussion of the allegations. I have not violated any Wikipedia policy in my efforts to make sure this article has a NPOV. I find it disturbing that there are so many editors seeking to whitewash this article. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 21:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It appears we have a smoking gun with regard to ParkH.Davis. Look at this addition he made today to his user page in which he proclaims, "Wikipedia must not be whitewashed. I will fight for the acknowledgement of victims of sexual violence on Wikipedia wherever and whenever is necessary." His motive for being so aggressive and disruptive is now clear. This matter should be reported to ANI. Tracescoops ( talk) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
ParkH.Davis, you have endlessly spouted your newest out-of-context mantra ("BLP policy explicity states...") for the past several hours. [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] I would suggest you take your crusade to some other website before an administrator forces you to do that. Tracescoops ( talk) 22:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
With the types of complaints, allegations and clear policy violations that are being posted here, perhaps it's time that this issue was brought to WP:ANI, so that the community at large can have a look and non-involved admins can take any necessary actions. - theWOLFchild 22:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I have brought this issue to ANI. Please find it here. Mr Ernie ( talk) 23:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Please feel free to close this discussion. It appears consensus in the straw poll is for a version of Option A. Let's work collaboratively to get it done. Mr Ernie ( talk) 00:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the redirect should be nominated for deletion. See Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy. See WP:RFD. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
See WP:RFD- See what? - theWOLFchild 06:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I nominated the redirect for deletion: == Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy listed at Redirects for discussion ==
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr Ernie ( talk) 19:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Still a member of the community- so we would expect that they be notified. Site banned editors, however, are not considered in the same way - consequently, I could countenance not notifying such editors. Hope thus helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_29587311/why-peyton-mannings-retirement-decision-can-be-made
Is a source proffered for the claim:
I think the source is a sports column basically speculating editorially about Manning's future plans, and really could only support:
Am I in error on what the editorial sports column supports - and in stating and citing it as opinion? Collect ( talk) 14:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
[67] The Denver Post only gives specific corrections for errors in "news columns". Per DP official site. I rely on what the newspaper itself states about its own policies. And your "example" is sufficiently absurd here as to warrant no reply. Collect ( talk) 20:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Mohammad Taqi al-Modarresi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) It seems there is a deliberate attempt to slander the individual concerned. By reverting to previous edits which are libelous in nature, without making any attempt to be objective and unbiased, these individuals clearly have an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.190.36.248 ( talk) 14:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Rallé (artist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Long ago tagged as an autobiography, this is a puff piece/resume that could use some attention and a lot of cutting. Resumes of commercial gallery exhibitions, and in this case, a list of every book cover ever illustrated, are usually an indicator of COI, and nearly always ripe for cutting. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 17:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Sarayu Rao ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The information on this page is being mixed up with the info about a Malayalee actress by the same name. I am mother of American Actress Sarayu Rao a.k.a. Sarayu Blue. 21:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)malathi n. Currently One piece of information in question is the following: She earned her Master of Fine Arts degree in engineering in 2005 from the MIT. This is incorrect. Sarayu Rao did not go to Engineering College but went to American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco. I corrected it but somebody else is changing it back to the misinformation. I need your help in preventing this misuse, for want of better word.
Thanks. Malathi Nidadavolu (thulikan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thulikan ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Kendrick Meek ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Congressman [Kendrick Meek] biography ( /info/en/?search=Kendrick_Meek) includes a reference to Dennis Stackhouse, a living person.
I believe the content of this section violates the living person policy for Dennis Stackhouse including "people accused of a crime", "privacy of names", the entry relies on poorly sourced, low-quality secondary sources (commentary section of an online journal is referenced, and other links do not lead to content), and considering that Dennis Stackhouse is still awaiting trial 8 years after his arrest (reference below), it seems to be victimizing him further. Overall, it reads as an attack, is not balanced, and does not contribute to the wikipage of the Congressman.
Perhaps if the Meek's entry was updated with the proper tense and with Dennis Stackhouse's name removed.
Here is my attempt:
"Real Estate Scandal" Questions about Kendrick Meek's relationship with a Miami developer came up throughout the 2010 Senate campaign as it was revealed that Meek lobbied for millions of dollars in taxpayer money to fund an ill-fated project while the developer allegedly provided Meek's mother, former Congresswoman Carrie Meek, with a free Cadillac Escalade, a rent-free office for her foundation, and tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees. The developer was ultimately arrested, charged with allegedly stealing almost $1 million in project funds. The scandal led the St. Petersburg Times to comment, "Meek owes voters an explanation". Meek has responded by saying he was simply trying to secure investment for economic development in his congressional district.[27]"
Reference: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-gardens/article50656700.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.130.225 ( talk) 00:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Gianni Nunnari ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I need some extra eyes on the article for Gianni Nunnari. Long story short, back in 2014 Nunnari tried to make his article into an extremely promotional puff piece, which you can see here. I salvaged it from a speedy and tried to find sourcing, but it looks like the guy is really best known for a lawsuit that seriously backfired on him, since he ended up getting sued for fraud and the judge ended up judging against Nunnari. This ended up being almost the only area I could get RS in, since we can include information about suits that went to court and received judgement.
There was an attempt to get the page deleted as an attack page, which it wasn't. Recently there has been a few people coming in and trying to scrub any of the lawsuit information in the article, claiming that it's either irrelevant or just not giving an explanation at all.
As far as I'm aware, we can include content on lawsuits if it went to court, received judgement, and received media coverage, all of which seems to be the case here - especially since this ended up with Nunnari losing the rights to a film he made. ( [68]) If Nunnari was to say that he wanted the page removed I'd be willing to send this to AfD, but we'd need to verify that it's him making this request. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Younes Abaaoud ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I nominated it for deletion.
No content, irrelevant and lack of notability, unknown person (other than to be the brother of a terrorist). Beside that, this article is also badly researched and poorly sourced. This boy is still a minor and has as far as we know done nothing, other than to leave home to go to a war zone. Everything that needs to be said about him is already mentioned in the main article: Abdelhamid Abaaoud. I think all these apply: WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER
What do you think? — Frieeedaaa ( talk) 07:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Lavdrim Muhaxheri ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This post concerns the Lavdrim Muhaxheri biography article, which has gained issues with libel, defamation and BLPCRIME since reformulating and adding sentences this edit, fourth column in this edit and first column in this edit which are quoted reference articles with claims, accusations from 29 July 2014 claiming that Muhaxheri is seen on photos published to a Facebook-account, the article headlines were mentioned in the Department of State - list released in September 2014 but the claim isn't based on a conviction nor supported by the warrant from the Basic Court of Ferizaj in Kosovo or the Interpol warrant for Muhaxheri that doesn't claim that he's wanted for murder; "The demand comes from the Basic Court of Ferizaj, which has issued a warrant for Muhaxheri after he is accused of terrorism and organized groups to go to Syria and Iraq." Alike with the second edit first column in this edit and the article with the expert statements about the footage and video claims that the video isn't authenticized: "With question marks hanging over the video, Kosovo police said they are working with international partners to verify the authenticity of the video and the time of its publication". Since BLPCRIME says that such material and accusations shouldn't be included unless a conviction has been secured the sentences should be formulated into more neutral, indirect statements, to also be compliant with WP:NPOV and some additional text about the accusations needs to be removed. Lavdrim Muhaxheri ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KewinRozz KewinRozz ( talk) 16:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Emily Ratajkowski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are two sections in Emily Ratajkowski where I have attempted to summarize reviews of her performance that are under fire at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3. The issue is whether a critic who reviews a performance in which she has a significant role without describing anything noteworthy about her performance is critiquing in a way that has meaning to our readers. I have presented two statements under the belief that saying that a person has a significant role that was not worth critiquing is actually a critique on the role. The FAC discussant, GRuban says "If a critic did not mention her, it does not help our article to write 'critic did not mention her'. Feel free to get a WP:3O or open a WP:RFC or whatever..." GRuban also notes that "Probably the worst offender from that paragraph is this sentence: Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, Brian Viner of Daily Mail and both Peter Bradshaw and Mark Kermode of The Guardian were also silent on Ratajkowski's performance." Basically, I need to know if when a person is described as the female lead and in her first leading role, it conveys information to the reader to say that leading critics did not mention her performance. Note that in this offending paragraph, I have gone through the list of critics at Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes who reviewed We Are Your Friends and summarized every critic who has a Wikipedia biography that did or didn't say anything about her performance in less than 1500 total characters. Is it better to note that some of these critics opted not to mention her performance in her first leading role or better not to mention all of the critics who have articles on WP who critiqued the film? Similarly, there is a less prominent role that was hard to find reviews of and I noted that "her hometown movie critic Anders Wright of The San Diego Union-Tribune remained silent on her role".-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Janet Henderson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello. I am Janet Henderson, the subject of the entry 'Janet Henderson'.
As regards my titles (box at end of article) the position of Dean of Llandaff is a Church in Wales Position - the Church in Wales is separate province of the Anglican church with its own polity and governance.
Under Church of England titles, the article should read 'Archdeacon of Richmond 2007-2012'. My predecessor was Ken Good and my successor was Nicholas Henshall (acting Archdeacon) and then Paul Slater (also Archdeacon of Craven and now Bishop of Richmond).
I hope you don't mind me pointing this out - these are purely factual corrections and you can check their veracity in Crockford's Clerical Directory.
Thank you. 86.153.8.131 ( talk) 11:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)