![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Grace_Randolph&oldid=710418988
This is OLD version of my current Wikipedia page. And incorrect birthdate was entered here - I believe by someone who was harassing me online at that time - and again, because it was incorrect with no source to verify it, it was deleted.
However, it is now showing up on iPhones under "Siri Knowledge" when someone begins to search for name on a web browser, i.e. Safari, citing Wikipedia as the source.
Wikipedia is NOT the source though as that info is not on my page anymore because it was incorrect.
Can someone please help me permanently delete this page...? THANKS SO MUCH if you can!
Again, here is the OLD version of the page with the INCORRECT info: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Grace_Randolph&oldid=710418988
Bonnar212 ( talk) 07:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
For some reason, this page with incorrect info is coming up for "Siri Knowledge" and giving out incorrect info.
Is there a way to remove this page from the "archive board" for my page?
Thank you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Grace_Randolph&oldid=710418988
Bonnar212 ( talk) 17:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Giulio Meotti ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Accusations of plagiarism against journalist based on WP:OR diff, as well as Marc Tracy (presently a college sports writer) writing in a Tablet (magazine)'s WP:NEWSBLOG The Scroll. In addition we have Max Blumenthal writing in 2 blogs/opinion pieces atributing part of his writing to Tracy, and a piece in iMediaEthics which is attributed in whole to Tracy in the Tablet, with the exception of a response by Meotti which they received themselves. No subsequent followup reporting since 2012. Icewhiz ( talk) 22:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
but did carelessly fail to attribute a few isolated sentences in my own articles. I will not do so in future. Many others journalists and writers...[3]. Max Blumenthal (who is a diametrically opposed polemicist) to Meotti's writing in opEdNews and in his blog in pro-Hezbollah Al Akhbar (Lebanon) - is not a RS. None of alleged people from whom isolated sentences and fragments are alleged to have been lifted from have commented. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process
Interested editors may wish to participate in the RfC at
Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row#RfC: Police Investigation and Bullying/abuse allegations
, which was relisted on
11 February 2018. This is a contentious, multi-part issue that sorely needs attention from cooler heads who are well-versed in BLP questions. Any input is welcome. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
11:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Y&R ANZ ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New editor now blocked for major edit warring over content they object to strenuously as, let's say, "misleading". I'm sometimes blind in these matters, but due diligence requires that I ask for a review of the now removed contentious material. dif is here. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 05:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Delyan Peevski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This complaint I am referring to you is in relation to the English version of Wikipedia, which contains information about Delyan Peevski. The article is available at [1] The article contains many untrue circumstances and manipulative statements, which are not supported by reliable sources (or they refer to sources – Bulgarian media, which constantly generate “fake news”). I will briefly address some of the false statements in the article 1. At the very beginning of the article he is defined as an “oligarch” – as per the definition of the word in Wikipedia this is „a person, who is part of a small group of people holding power in a state“. The reference to the source that is being archived presently neither justifies such a statement nor the statement is credible. 2. False statements are made for his possession of media and property. According to the Bulgarian Commercial registry [2] and the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria [3] where the Bulgarian government publish the list of newspapers and their owners in Bulgaria he doesn’t own 20 newspapers or magazines. This information is published twice with the same source which is false according to the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria [4] Furthermore his mother doesn't own the company cited in this article. This information is old and needs to be updated. 3. The statements in the entire paragraph "Privatization controversies" are also absurd and not supported by any facts. Formally there is no source of information to which this paragraph to refer to and it is marked as “citation needed”, however the contents still stays, not redacted.
4. The next paragraph, "Media and business empire", is again full of false facts and allegations for criminal activity. There are suggestions for large properties associated with him, described as a huge number of media, expressed as figures, without mentioning media names, without reference to an official company register, without citing reliable sources. The citation used is again by contributor, identified only with initials: “Sep 20th 2013 by V.v.B. | SOFIA”.
He is currently a Bulgarian MP in the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria and a living person. The whole article makes suggestions based on untrue facts and circumstances (fake news) and damages his good name. It creates a false, negative image of his personality and at the same time suggests that he is a part of criminal activities. The content described is defamatory and untruthful and as such is contrary to the law, to the Internet ethics, to the rules of morality and good faith, as well as to three of the Wikipedia content principles: - Opportunity to verify (against relibale sources); - Neutral point of view; - Encyclopedic style.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgelee78 ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Jerry Sandusky ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Two new accounts have added "innocence" material to the Jerry Sandusky article. As many know, Jerry Sandusky was convicted of child sexual abuse.
The material added by these two new accounts concerns a book and other stuff arguing for Sandusky's supposed possible innocence. Thoughts? I started a discussion section at
Talk:Jerry Sandusky#Case for Innocence section. A permalink for it is
here.
Flyer22 Reborn (
talk)
19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Correction: Only one of the accounts is new. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Definitely need some opinions on this. Collect, any thoughts? I've argued WP:Undue weight. We have Aerkem going on about Mark Pendergrast and how he is "a well-known writer, and a specialist of repressed memory." And we have AmiLynch going on about an additional investigation and research. In my opinion, material on this is not much different than conspiracy theories on matters that are reported as fact. There are those who believe that Darlie Routier and Scott Peterson are innocent as well. When it comes to books for BLP crime cases, we usually simply mention them in the "Further reading" section. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Biggest problem? The possibility that this is promotional material for a single book. Actually probability. Collect ( talk) 23:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: If by 'pushing the book' you mean 'mentioning a relevant and reasonably reliable source', yes I am pushing the book. You wrote that 'When it comes to books for BLP crime cases, we usually simply mention them in the "Further reading" section': would that be appropriate in this case? As a newbie I would appreciate some feedback on my now deleted edit (before AmiLynch's further edit): was it problematic because written under 'Case for innocence' rather than 'Further reading'? or for other reasons? Aerkem ( talk) 09:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree the content can be modified in a few places to make it completely objective. I don’t see any factual errors though, as surprising as some of the facts may be. Given that primary sources are unacceptable, this book is one of the few sources we have available (some of you are dismissive of it, but it is extensively sourced and well-cited itself). Other useful sources may exist though. As I wrote on the Jerry Sandusky talk page: Special Agent John Snedden investigated the case for the FBI to evaluate whether former University President Spanier’s Top Secret security clearance should be renewed and found there was no sexual abuse at PSU in this case, nor a cover-up. John Ziegler, another author (he is also a documentary filmmaker and former broadcaster), also did years of research and came to believe Sandusky was innocent. AmiLynch ( talk) 20:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Mudar Zahran ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm seeking other editors' opinions. Zahran is a Jordanian-born Palestinian. He was criticized—in very harsh terms—by Caroline Glick, a prominent and influential editorial columnist (and deputy managing editor) for the Jerusalem Post. Under normal circumstances, we would cite her column, attribute her opinion, and call it a day.
The problem is that Glick didn't publish her views in the Jerusalem Post, but on Facebook. Her Facebook post was cited the next day by Elder of Ziyon, a blog. Two weeks later, an opinion columnist in Globes, an Israeli business newspaper, wrote about it. The Globes column was re-published the same day by Glick's paper, the Jerusalem Post.
Can Glick's views be included in Zahran's BLP? Clearly Elder of Ziyon, a blog, cannot be cited. Can Glick's Facebook post? What about the Globes opinion column? Does the fact that the paper where Glick is an editor republished the Globes column give it any added credibility?
If you think this question is better suited for WP:RS/N, please let me know. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I came across these edit summaries in the article's history, apparently by the subject himself:
Given the sensitive nature of the allegations, I wonder if an experienced volunteer could have a look at the article. Judging by the editing history of Special:Contributions/Newmanthfc, this appears to be an auto-biography, so there's a concern there as well. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The apparent subject of this article has been edit warring to remove information about about an alleged sexual misconduct that has been reported by the CBC. Given that he is a relatively unknown person, however, I think it is worth reviewing whether the considerations of WP:BLPCRIME come into play and whether mentioning it is giving it undue weight at this point. Bringing it here so uninvolved editors can review. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime. The CBC article is completely ambiguous as to what the actual allegations are: whether we are talking about making a hostile environment through dirty jokes or some form of sexual assault. Sexual misconduct opens the door for the later interpretation when we do not specify what it is, so I think BLPCRIME does come into play, as there is the suggestion that a crime may have been committed, especially when one considers that the sourcing doesn't specify the allegations. I'm not arguing one way or another for inclusion (I'm leaning against it currently, but not enough to strongly object if consensus is otherwise), but I do think we would need a consensus to include it, and consider if we should exclude it per the principles behind BLPCRIME. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
"Sexual assault" is a criminal offense in the jurisdiction involved. In short, it precisely fills the bill for falling under BLPCRIME. Suppose someone was "being investigated for mass-killing" - no rational person would hold that the claim did not fall under BLPCRIME. "Sexual assault" is a crime in Canada. No matter who is "doing the investigation." In fact, it is likely that the issue is more critical if the investigator is not specifically trained in investigative work. Collect ( talk) 01:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Hang Yin (scientist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The IP address (14.141.50.250)based in Delhi, India has been repetitively inserting libelous, unsourced contents to this page since Nov, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.196.66.35 ( talk) 00:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Black Panther member Abu-Jamal was convicted for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. As detailed in our article in sections Appeals and review and Popular support and opposition, Abu-Jamal's conviction, guilt, and status are all controversial.
On 19 February, CityOfSilver added this text to the first sentence of the lead:
Mumia Abu-Jamal is... a convicted murderer...
This was reverted by Bbb23. The edit has been edit-warred over continuously since, with current iterations making "convicted murderer" the very first description of the lead and article.
This edit was originally made by an IP 18 months ago [6], though I promptly reverted them [7] at that time. As far as I can tell, since the article's creation in 2001 it hasn't attempted either to label Abu-Jamal in this way, nor to declare that wikipedia has discovered the WP:TRUTH of his status as a "murderer."
I think it's clear that given the incredible controversy over Abu-Jamal's case, and his own insistence on his innocence, that we cannot describe him as "a convicted murderer" in Wikipedia's voice per WP:LABEL, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. This would be wrong anywhere in the article, but in the lead, and in the first sentence, this editorial mistake is especially egregious.
More eyes on the article would be appreciated. - Darouet ( talk) 18:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Jayron32 and CambridgeBayWeather: this article has been around for a long time — since 2001 — so with or without protection, and with or without the right/wrong version, I'd love for outside input from this board and other experienced editors (which is not to say those involved are not experienced, as they certainly are). - Darouet ( talk) 21:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty experienced in murder-related BLPs and think "convicted murderer" is a fair label for someone convicted of murder, and does not suggest in Wikipedia's voice that he actually murdered someone or not, only that we believe he was convicted for such. I've a minor gripe with how it was inserted before the "American" part, but that's just style. No opinion on whether it goes first, second or third in the opening sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Ahmet Şık ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Related article: /info/en/?search=Ahmet_Şık The following link is not a valid websites and redirects to a porn web site. Please remove it from external sources section.
Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekabeyler ( talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
There is an RFC which may be of interest to the members of this wikiproject Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#RFC_regarding_the_sexuality_of_David_Ogden_Stiers ResultingConstant ( talk) 21:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
The article (infobox, specifically) contains a claim about her citizenship without citation. Should be provided or the claim removed. 75.172.227.168 ( talk) 18:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Of course that's issue. 174.19.229.79 ( talk) 14:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Claiming someone is a citizen of a country when he or she is not is extremely controversial and offensive. I will remove it by next week if left without sources. 174.19.229.79 ( talk) 16:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't find this offensive, but it is very obviously WP:OR to be analyzing Slovenian law, US law, and Meliana's life story to determine that she has dual citizenship. It might be difficult to find a more text book case of WP:OR. This should absolutely be removed and not restored without sourcing. ResultingConstant ( talk) 18:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
We have citations to say she is Slovenian, she was born there (when it was part of Yugoslavia). We never need a source that says that someone who was born in a country is a citizen of that country. We have citation to show she was naturalized as an American citizen. IMO, at this point we would need a citation that says she renounced her citizenship to remove Slovenian. ~ GB fan 12:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Isabelle Nuru ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
None of the information on the wiki seems to be true and she's mentioned almost nowhere on the internet despite supposedly selling millions of records. It looks like Isabelle Nuru has been inputting fake information about herself and then citing this wiki elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.139.22 ( talk) 18:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Nucleya ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The author is subjective in his account, no citations for claims, poor quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.55.241.54 ( talk) 15:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Seth Meyers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I recently removed some content from this BLP that I felt was not reliably sourced enough, and other content that did not seem to be reflected by the source. This revert was recently undone, and I wanted to know other editors' opinions regarding whether the content that I removed and which has now been restored complies with BLP. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Ismail ibn Musa Menk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Name of Article Imail_ibn_Musa Menk
/info/en/?search=Ismail_ibn_Musa_Menk
The references given for this person have been falsified in an attempt to defame a person and cause harm. It identifies the subject Ismail_ibn_Musa_Menk which he has never self-proclaimed to be. This user profile GorgeCusterSabre ( /info/en/?search=User:GorgeCustersSabre) aims to put the subject in a negative light , the person writes bad things about people who don't belong to his sect of Islam. His views re not neutral in their tone. He repeatedly deletes any additions on the page even when they are referenced proeprley without explanation I want to know is this something Wiki pedia is encourages and allows ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindmind ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that a new user removed their post at this noticeboard. The post can be seen at the bottom of 09:09, 8 March 2018. The article has a lot of details concerning allegations of inappropriate behavior, with half of the lead devoted to the topic. Any thoughts? Johnuniq ( talk) 09:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
No big mystery here guys. I'm attempting to have libelous information removed from John T. Draper's page. I've followed Wikiepedia's instructions and am waiting for the info to be removed. If Wikipedia editors won't follow Wikipedia's policy, then further action will be taken. This is a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue of defamatory information being allowed by Wikipedia to remain published to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMP Bart ( talk • contribs) 04:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
First, it doesn't matter what my relationship to Mr. Draper is, the material is defamatory. Second, libel is a sub-species of defamation. It's a little concerning that you're being standoff-ish about that fact. Third, you sound bias yourself, so maybe that is a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. You could possibly be receiving money to keep this information up? I identified myself and relationship with Mr. Draper in order to be 100% transparent, so maybe you should do the same. And finally, it doesn't matter how many times and places the information has been repeated as it is defamatory. I'm making a request in good-faith for the editors to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and remove this libelous information. This is my fourth request and have even gone so far as to show how the information meets the legal standard for defamation (of which libel is a type).
Please remove the libelous information about John T. Draper.
Sincerely yours, [User:EMP_Bart] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6113:5500:95F3:A566:40F5:A744 ( talk) 21:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd never heard of Draper before I just read the entry, through the link on this noticeboard. Content is well sourced, relevant. It is debatable whether it should be featured so prominently (right now it's several sentences in the lede) but there is no legitimate reason for it to be removed completely. Bangabandhu ( talk) 19:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The WEIGHT given to each and every allegation approaches UNDUE in the body of the BLP, and the lead definitely exceeded that standard. Collect ( talk) 14:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
reads as a formal press release/paid advertisement with little to no verifiable sources.
I just removed some WP:BLP content that appeared to me to be agenda-driven, and largely not about Pierce. Would appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 19:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I removed the worst section --- IMO it is intrinsically violative of a bunch of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and appears to be intended to attack a person rather than provide encyclopedic information of value to readers. Collect ( talk) 14:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the BLP for Peter Ruckman, apparently his son PS Ruckman Jr. committed suicide right after possibly shooting to death his own two sons in the family home the other day. You can see this information has been added to the Peter Ruckman biography at the tail end of the personal life section (first section in the article). Two questions: 1) Should we be concerned about having that statement before the authorities conclude their murder investigation, and 2) if confirmed, do we keep it permanently in the article? Just so we're clear, my guess is that it's true and he probably did kill his kids, but also keeping in mind that PS Ruckman Jr. is not the main subject of the Peter Ruckman BLP. Thanks, AzureCitizen ( talk) 23:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Jane Golden ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The first paragraph of Jane Golden's listing contains this completely unsourced statement: "She is the only hold out to keep up a wildly reviled mural of former Philadelphia Mayor and notorious homophobe and racist Frank Rizzo. Despite public outcry and several vandalisms, she is pushing for the mural to be kept up."
I don't believe this is accurate, but in any event there is no source for these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:700:171:41CC:3C7C:AE04:B5FC ( talk) 14:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Johnny Antonelli ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Your bio of Johnny Antonelli states that the Giants traded him along with Harvey Kuenn to the Cleveland Indians in 1960. This is not correct regarding Harvey Keunn. Keunn was in fact traded to the Indians by the Detroit Tigers for Rocky Colavito. Keunn was the 1959 A.L. batting champ and Colavito may have been the 1959 A.L. home run champ. This trade was very unpopular with the Cleveland fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.59.202 ( talk) 21:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Yuka Kuramochi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article needs a LOT of help. I happened upon it and it's nearly nothing but trivia about her and non notable appearances. Her appearances list is longer than some A-list celebrities. Also a lot of it is in broken English. "Sentences" like "Because her hip size is large, some swimwear and the swimsuit wearing with the passage of time into the butt flesh quickly into nature and always going to "T-back state", so the charm point is called "fully automatic T-back" and has a distinctive commitment such as "T-back never wears"." I don't even know where to begin to fix this, so I'm asking for some help by folks more knowledgeable. That or nuke the thing. As it stands now it's a mockery of Wikipedia. -- Tarage ( talk) 22:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Proper for Japanese Wiki - maybe. Not notable for Wikipedia AFAICT at all. Collect ( talk) 13:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Floyd McKissick Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Was wondering if some others might take a look at content that IP 96.10.12.142 has been continuously trying to add to the article. The content has to do with an incident between McKissick and his former wife. A source is cited, but it seems quite WP:UNDUE and might be a case of someone trying to WP:RGW. If this incident is inded something meriting a mention in the article, then I think much stronger sourcing (at least more than the brief mentionin the indyweek source) should be provided. It would help though, to know what others think. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a message at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#"My" Wikipage., that may require attention in terms of BLP policy. I am simply providing this information, and I do not know anything about the merits of the case. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Our article on Hayao Miyazaki currently cites a translation of his son's personal blog in three locations. WP:BLPSPS allows for self-published sources only under very particular circumstances and only sources by the subject himself (not a member of his family), but if "nausicaa.net" (which apparently has an editorial team) publishes what appears to be a straight translation of his son's (presumably self-published) blog, does that satisfy? As for content, two instances could probably be cited to reliable sources (if only in Japanese), but the quote in the "personal life" section (which I will not repeat) seems concerning. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Ugh. I just found tracked down the original "blog" here -- does being on the company's official website mean BLPSPS doesn't apply? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
James Allsup ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't want to get sucked in to this myself, but there are BLP violations going on at James Allsup. Some editors want to call him a white supremacist, and have put this in the lead with seven citations to crap sources like Mashable and The Verge. And no context in the article; I suspect he probably rejects that label himself, and that should be noted. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 23:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Richard Manitoba ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My edit reporting Dick Manitoba's arrest was reverted yesterday as a BLP violation, stating that we can only add reports of convictions, not arrests.
This is not supported by /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.
According to the "People Accused of Crimes" section: "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."
Dick Manitoba is a public figure - in fact, arguments to suggest he wasn't notable enough to warrant his own article outside of the Dictators were defeated on the Talk page. Rolling Stone ran an article about his arrest, citing the NY Daily News story. You'd have a hard time arguing he's not a public figure.
As far as I can tell, there are two primary sources - Variety and NY Daily News, who both independently confirmed the story. So it meets the multiple sources test.
Also, the sentence in Wikipedia that I added did nothing but report the arrest.
Worst of all, the final paragraph in the Wiki article appears that Dick wrote it himself, as it ends with "We hope to have it in the marketplace soon". I removed this yesterday, and it was reverted - this is not encyclopedic at all. The rest of the paragraph was fine, but that sentence doesn't belong there.
Talk page has not received any response. Looking for this debate to be settled as this has been a fairly negative start to my Wikipedia experience - I read and followed the rules. TravellerInStygian ( talk) 13:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Christina_Hoff_Sommers There is contentious source material referring to Christina Hoff Sommers as an anti-feminist, and as a feminist. Past talk discussions have been unable to agree on what to put in the page. Users are attempting to shoehorn in anti-feminist comments, even though discussions going back a year have not been able to agree. The subject in question disagrees greatly with the labeling of anti-feminist. S806 ( talk) 20:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I have a concern about a statement in the page for Daniel Biss . I don't know him and have no connection with him, but as he is a candidate for political office (contentious Democratic primary for IL governor), he is probably under extra scrutiny right now.
Under "Personal life, education, and mathematical career", there is the following statement: "Nikolai Mnëv, a mathematician at the Steklov Institute of Mathematics at St. Petersburg in Russia, found that the proof written by Biss in his article was "seriously flawed". When Mnëv found the flaw, Biss did not immediately retract it; it took nearly four years." Reference # [15] is given for the second sentence. Reference [15] is from the personal blog of another mathematician named Doron Zeilberger.
In the blog post, Dr. Zeilberger states "It took the Annals of Mathematics many years to finally accept, very reluctantly, Tom Hales' seminal, computer-assisted, article proving Kepler's 300-year-old conjecture, because they didn't trust computer proofs. It took them only a couple of months to accept a human-generated proof, by Daniel Biss, that was later found, by Nikolai Mnev, to be seriously flawed (and even though the error was pointed out more than five years ago, it took them about four years to publish a retraction)."
Dr. Zeilberger's words are ambiguous as to whether it was the journal, Annals of Mathematics, that failed to publish Biss's retraction, or whether it was due to Biss failing to submit his retraction until four years later. It could have been a combination of delays on the part of both Biss and the journal. However, at least just going by this single source, what is stated in the Wikipedia article - that "Biss did not immediately retract it" i.e. putting the blame solely on Biss - is not correct.
Furthermore, Dr. Zeilberger specifically names his blog "Dr. Z's opinions" - he clearly does not intend for his blog to be used as an academic or journalistic source. (See http://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/OPINIONS.html )
I think this statement, cited only with Dr. Zeilberger's blog post, might violate the policy of Verifiability. The statement makes Biss look bad, and is poorly sourced. Sources should be added to back up the fact that it was actually Biss's fault that the retraction was not published for four years. If no other sources for that statement exist, the statement could be more accurately edited to something like "After Mnëv found the flaw, the retraction did not appear in the journal for nearly four years." - this would be (1) more neutral as it reflects on Biss and (2) correct according to information in the citation.
Ideally, though, there would be another source to even back up the statement that it took four years at all. A mathematician or librarian (which I am neither) could easily look up Biss's original article and its retraction in the Annals of Mathematics and verify that the interval was four years. If it isn't, the statement should be removed.
I'm happy to make the edit if others agree; I'm just brand-new to Wikipedia editing so I wanted to see what more experienced folks thought first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorpunk23 ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
George Groves (boxer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Properly Referenced - https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/george-groves-vs-callum-smith-12165929 Update to: George Grove's World Boxing Super Series Schedule Update; is being repeatedly deleted for no specified reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.119.24 ( talk) 04:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Terry Hall (singer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I tried to edit the page to reflect the current situation in Terry Hall's life and was rejected because it was not sourced, but a point that I believe is false and is basically Lindy Heymann telling a journalist she is his partner is being upheld. This woman is harassing me constantly and I am his current legal wife. I reported the matter to police because I don't have proof that is of a type you will accept. Sincerely, Heidi Ann Murphy/Lancia Roselya, PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.16 ( talk) 23:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Agnes Kagure Kariuki ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This one is alternating between an attack page and a puff piece (it looks like the original author has some COI). I could G10 this right now and probably get it deleted... can an admin take a look and make a decision? -- Izno ( talk) 20:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Al Giordano has been targeted for silly vandalism in the past, but there is a new SPA Botman34 [8], aided by an IP with very similar goals and linking style [9] trying to add defamatory material based on rumors reported in Twitter and Facebook and (so far) one clickbait blog, which merely reports in detail the same Twitter and Facebook comments.
Botman34 was warned a few days ago about edit-warring, after which he became more subtle, making a few "improving" edits. These SPAs don't seem interested in wiki policy, what they want is to get defamatory material into the article, even if only briefly. Why? See for example this tweet from around the same time that Botman34 showed up: "What happens when you google your good buddy Al Giordano?" [10]'
If harassment claims show up in RS, then we can discuss adding them to the bio, although the MeToo claims against Giordano seem minor: that he made some inappropriate remarks, that others at his journalism school harassed people, plus several complaints that he asked women students to do things for no pay, which seems an odd complaint about somebody who runs a nonprofit group that needs volunteer help from many participants.
I don't know if it is the same person or not, but around March 4 we had a different SPA DonLemonparty, [11] again somebody who structures newslinks in a very similar way, trying to add the same material.
Semi-protecting the article might do more than continuing to debate policy with these SPAs, but what do others think? HouseOfChange ( talk) 21:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Your concern about the sourcing of the harassment claims is a legitimate one. However, the claims themselves are decidedly not "minor." They include allegations that Giordano offered "roofies" to a male student at the School of Authentic Journalism [12], that he sexually harassed and degraded female students [13] [14], and that he tried to silence and intimidate his victims [15]. Perhaps you should take the time to review the full allegations before making any more contributions to this page. ~BotMan34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botman34 ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Sean Gabb ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I nominated the Sean Gabb article for deletion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Gabb) on the grounds that the article, as originally configured, failed WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Another user has since argued that Gabb meets the notability criteria due to his role in managing a website prior to the 2001 UK General Election, which did receive notable media coverage (and has included additional references). I'm not sure whether this establishes notability. It would be useful to have some more experienced users comment. Thanks. L.R. Wormwood ( talk) 19:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been doing some MOS fixes on our
Japanese bamboo weaving article, and noticed something potentially more serious.
This person is definitely male, but someone on Wikipedia seems to have misread his name in an English source that used the simplified romanization "Suiko", which looks like a Japanese woman's name. It is of course OR to talk about some prominent female artisans in a predominantly male industry when you don't even know whether the people in question are female, but is this also a BLP issue?
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
11:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Screw it. It's unsourced, and obviously inaccurate, so I might as well just remove it. If anyone thinks name-dropping him in the article is important enough, they can do so. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Delyan Peevski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, I noticed a very disturbing behavior on the page of Delyan Peevski. I am a new member of the Wikipedia family and according to Wikipedia, Biographies of living persons must be right. Viewing the history of the page everybody can see that there is a problem. [ [18]]. The article is full with attempts to edit. I saw that people tried to add information with source but one user User:Quickfingers continues to delete it. I saw that a lot of users tried to delete information and add GOVERNMENT sources to prove their point but their attempts were blocked. I know that Mr. Peevski is a politician and it is very easy to add and control an article of Wikipedia but he is also a living person and a human being. I saw that in The References category there are archived references /No 1,3/, a template for [citation needed] , just main pages of popular cites /No 4,15/, with no relation to him No /5,6,20/, proven fake news /9,10/ and etc. There is a Germen version for him and the germen article is without any active sources or with the source for a different site /You see the title of the source but the web site is different and not related to this post/ or a blog with personal opinion. The articles make suggestions based on untrue facts and circumstances (fake news) and damage a living person. They create a false, negative image of his personality and at the same time suggest that he is a part of criminal activities. This is very serious. Defamation is a crime, saying somebody is part of criminal activities without prove is a crime. Trying to block everybody and undoing their edits from the articles without any reason or reliable source of information is against Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I don’t think that Wikipedia is the place for political battles. Just a thought in mind: the information of publicly listed companies and its owners is very easy to check. I checked it out in the Bulgarian Commercial Registry http://www.brra.bg/ and it turns out that the statements in the article are fare from the truth. What to do in case like this? Is there an active editor who can see what is happening? Can somebody notify Wikipedia about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaderp6 ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Note simultaneous drive to remove both this person's bio and the publishing company which he directs, Annex Press. Given the simultaneous delete requests it would appear that there is an harassment issue. I found that the article on the Annex Press was vandalized, i.e. most of the links and much of the important information relating to authors published had been removed by a physician, who it appears has multiple issues with multiple wiki contributors. I fail to see any for profit aspect to the articles and lacking proof of this contention suggest that the user / editor 'doc' should desist from further removal of information, or comment upon, unless proof is offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideveon ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Jacksepticeye ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A new editor User:Jackboi27 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is claiming that he had died on March 1st. I see that he is still posting on twitter, so something is going on, hopefully just vandalism.-- Auric talk 18:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Tim Armstrong (executive) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi page watchers! Can someone experienced in editing biographies of living persons look at the last paragraph of Controversies at Tim Armstrong?
In March 2018, Oath, Inc., of which Armstrong is CEO, fired four sisters working for the platform after it was highlighted that they were daughters of right-wing agitator Pamela Geller. [1] Oath said in a statement that "The Morning Breath, an Oath social-media show, is being canceled immediately and we have launched an internal investigation and will take other appropriate steps based on the results of the investigation." [2]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)}
There are a few problems with this.
Can an editor, or editors, review the paragraph and determine if it is appropriate for the article on Tim Armstrong based on available sourcing? My suggestion is that it be removed, or corrected and moved to Oath Inc. Disclosure: I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to make edits to Verizon-related articles on my behalf. Thank you, VZBob ( talk) 19:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Our article on Cathy Newman, a British journalist, has been the subject of several protracted disputes for about a month and a half now. Following a viral interview with Jordan Peterson, Newman was heavily criticized on social media. She received death threats and a torrent of social media abuse, according to The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, The Varsity, The Times, etc. Editors disagree on whether we can say that Newman received threats, whether we should include opinion pieces critical of Newman, and whether the depth of coverage we give controversy in the article is appropriate for a BLP. How should we present this material? — 0xf8e8 ( t♥lk) 03:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Newman has been the subject of gender-based abuse and threats on social media, which has led Channel 4 to conduct a risk analysis by security experts.I did not respect TCW, but chose to focus on the more general BLPSTYLE/NEWSORG objections already outlined. The diffs concern Filigranski's actions, reasoning and proposals, not their person or character; it doesn't seem accurate to say I'm "commenting on the contributor" as outlined at WP:NPA. — 0xf8e8 ( t♥lk) 15:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Leila de Lima ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An IP editor at WP:ANI says:
I am not a admin or editor. Just some random noob who came across an article and was astonished about the unverifiable claims made without the appropriate sources and written with a lack of neutral viewpoint.
It seems these issues were brought to the attention since 2016 and the article has continued to sit for years.
Things like De Lima finds her son 'inspirational' How is that encyclopedic content? And then this section Justice and extra-judicial killings (EJK) "De Lima, who chaired the Commission on Human Rights and was Justice Secretary, is the face of the anti-EJK campaign in the Philippines. She is against the brutal ways propelled by the deadly Philippine Drug War. Her position and investigation on the war irked Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte and led to her imprisonment through trumped-up charges with no concrete evidences[sic]"
First of all, the section and the underlying content have nothing to do with one another. Two, trumped-up charges is loaded language and no concrete evidence is not a legal standard. Nor does the one article source prove or even indicate her opposition to Duetre is what led to her imprisonment
This is only the most noticeable examples as the article is riddled with similar problems throughout. I hope a neutral admin/editor examines the article and makes the appropriate corrections. Thanks. 72.139.196.172 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
A few egregious problems have been fixed, but some still remain. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm posting this on behalf of Cunydigital , who is now blocked. It probably would have been better if they'd raised their concerns here first.
Hi - This is being requested by Frank Sobrino, Media Relations Director at CUNY. Our office poses a conflict of interest to editing James B. Milliken's page.
CHALLENGED MATERIAL #1 “Upon accepting the appointment to the position of Chancellor of CUNY, Milliken's first controversial 'move' was into a luxury, penthouse apartment located on Manhattan's Upper East Side, with a monthly rent bill of $18,000," according to the New York Observer, paid for by the public university system. [12] Rudin Management reportedly leased Milliken's apartment to the Research Foundation of the City University of New York, a university affiliated nonprofit with the stated purpose of funding research and acquiring university facilities. [13] Milliken himself no stranger to the perks of higher education administration, according to a 2013 The Wall Street Journal report of his annual financial disclosure statements, showed he had received numerous "personal gifts from donors, alumni and business executives" while at the University of Nebraska, including a pheasant-hunting trip, four Elton John concert tickets, and flights via corporate jets. [14]”
OUR COMMENTS: We urge removal of this paragraph on grounds of fairness and context. It smacks of editorializing by someone with an axe to grind and distorts Milliken’s tenure. It leaves the false impression that Milliken has been controversial and been accused of financial impropriety from the moment of his arrival and has accomplished nothing in his four years.
Specific points:
1. The footnoted attribution for the first sentence does not back up the statement that Milliken's move into an $18,000 apartment was “controversial.” The first link is to an article about CUNY faculty protesting outside Milliken’s apartment because they had been working without a contract (for several years before his arrival). There is no mention of the cost of his apartment.
2. Though an article about the apartment is footnoted after a later sentence, there is no support for the suggestion that the cost of Milliken’s apartment was improper. It's a mischaracterization to suggest it was or is regarded as unusually lavish or that it has been an issue during his tenure.
3. The information about perks at the University of Nebraska similarly has an editorializing tone and lacks context -- i.e. are/were these perks unusual, illegal or improper for presidents of major state universities? Further, gratuitously including this Nebraska information in the section about Milliken’s tenure at CUNY appears to be an attempt to advance the dubious claim that exploiting his public positions is a part of his record and reputation. There’s no support for that assertion. ''-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 15:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLP is clear -- using sources to make contentious claims which are not clearly so stated in the sources is contrary to policy in the first place. "Libel issues" are absolutely irrelevant, as everyone should know by now. Nor is it improper to avoid "spin" in any BLP -- simply saying We can promote spin, therefore we ought to promote spin or the like is absolutely contrary to common sense and common decency. Collect ( talk) 00:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Anna Graceman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The database of the US Copyright Office is being used to support the birth year of this musician, as well as her actual name, as shown in
this diff (highlighted, readded text under Early life section ... originally added with
this edit, though with
modifications made by me regarding the web site source itself). An editor is challenging whether the source is reliable (
diff), and since this involves a BLP, I'm looking for justification whether this source can be used to back this kind of information. Even with that, I'm not exactly sure whether to restore the content, given the nature of the information, as the challenging editor has now removed it twice.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
17:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.The US Copyright Office is not an appropriate or acceptable source for personally identifiable information - including birth names or birth dates. WP:BLPPRIVACY is also relevant - we include full names or dates of birth only where they
have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Inferring information from URLs is not a reliable source. Unless there is something better, and policy compliant, the information should be removed. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Controversial contribution of user:Czalex introduces WP:BLP problems, specifically:
Discussion is still in progress with no obvious consensus, assessment from BLP perspective is required. More info on article's talk page. 93.84.44.122 ( talk) 11:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
(Setting out my involvement, for transparency.) A controversies section was added to the Judith Hallett page, which in itself falls foul of BLP guidance, and also uses weasel words. As the page is one that our project edits (the controversies section addition was not made by one of our project eds), on 18 March we put a note on our project discussion board asking one of our eds to integrate or remove when time allowed. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Women%27s_Classical_Committee#Judith_Hallett_page
Since then, the section was removed, probably by a newbie. This has been reverted by other eds several times now and is an edit war. The addition of the controversies section does seem to me to have problems, but given that it's a page that our project is involved with, I think it's better if more neutral editors could look at this please. I don't have access to the sources cited so can't fix the weasel words problem either. Claire 75 ( talk) 08:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The section appears to be non-notable - not even hitting the importance of "he said / she said" for a BLP. "Controversy" sections are almost invariably a "bad idea" and where they are written as badly as this, ought be excised. Collect ( talk) 16:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Stephen J. Yates ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article lacks substantive background information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isp561 ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Steve Smith (cricketer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"Steve Smith admitted to Ball Tampering" has been added in the very first line in his wiki page. This incident just broke out, and should be analyzed further before adding it on to his wiki page. Moreover, Steven Smith did not tamper the ball himself. He apologized on behalf of his team's leadership group for his teammate's actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.192.8 ( talk) 20:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-involved editors needed at Jan Grabowski (historian) and Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Grabowski (historian).
Grabowski is an award winning,
[1]
[2] Canadian historian who has received positive reviews in peer-reviewed journals,
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] described an "eminent Canadian historian" by CBC,
[8] coverage is generally favorable (as well as pretty wide) in mainstream English language media (as may be seen with a simple google-news check). Grabowski however has faced criticism from Polish nationalists which has even led to death threats,
[9]
[10] possible per the
BBC part of "surge of anti-Semitism online and in Polish state media"
.
[11]
Our article at present has been tagged with a POV tag (without a clear rationale), and is filled with quite a bit of negative criticism from WP:FRINGE/ WP:BIASED sources (mostly non-English sources). The article at present contains approximately 2120 words of prose. 261 words describe 5 positive reviews in peer-reviewed journals. 639 words (or 30%!!!) describe 4 negative comments namely 110 words for Polish historian Grzegorz Berendt in an op-ed response in Haaretz to an article in Haaretz, [12] 37 words for Historian Piotr Gontarczyk speaking on Polish Radio 24 reported via the right-wing internet portal wpolityce.pl, [13], 201 for words Łukasz Męczykowski (per [19] a PhD in humanities that is a fan of tanks and the British Home Guard and who is a school teacher) on the website/blog histmag.org, [14] and 291 words for Bogdan Musial in a Polish publication. [15] The latter two are of particular concern - inclusion of Męczykowski on histmag.org does not seem DUE under any reasonable standard. Bogdan Musiał on the other hand is known, however he is quoted without context, he is described in RS as belonging to an "ethno-nationalist school", [16] [17] as treating Żydokomuna (Judeo-Communism) not as an antisemitic canard but as historical reality, [18] and has made widely repeated comments on Jewish religious beliefs. [19] [20] [21] Icewhiz ( talk) 19:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Joshua Gagnon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article reads like self-promotion, or at least puffery. I'm also not sure it meets the notability requirements.
Douglas V. Mastriano ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article, Douglas V. Mastriano, is filled with laudatory, poorly sourced promotional material about a congressional candidate in central Pennsylvania. Mastriano -- one of seven candidates for the seat -- is a retired Army colonel and author, but his actual portfolio is far too thin to warrant this sort of gushing coverage.
It includes a segment on education that lists four unverifiable master's degrees, helpfully noting that "Mastriano was awarded the 2009 Eastern University Alumnus of the year in 2009 in St. Davids, Pennsylvania."[3]
The "Strategist" section is vastly overlong, consisting mostly of reprinted material from his academic thesis. The "Congressional Candidate" section fails to note the most notable aspect of his candidacy -- his willingness to campaign in uniform -- and includes largely fluffed-up assertions such as "Mastriano is considered an expert on Russia and the NATO security situation in Eastern and Northern Europe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pristine2 ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Tricia Walsh-Smith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am new to Wikipedia (Oliverdue)but a huge fan of Tricia Walsh Smith, so my first edit was her page as some of the information was incorrect. Unfortunately I have had my edit repeatedly undone by an editor called Oakshade. He has somehow stopped me revertng the page back to my version. As I am new I don't know how to get around this so I'm making an official complaint. I feel Walsh-Smith's page isn't non partisan and has a spiteful slant. It should simply state facts, not be detrimental to her reputation. I edited out "Dancing around London in bondage gear," a throwaway line regarding her Bonkers video. The song "Bonkers", is the theme song of the first play "Bonkers" that she wrote. She does not dance around London in bondage gear, she dances around London in jeans and tee shirt. The tone of "Dancing around London in bondage gear," is derogatory. I also removed material regarding her divorce as once again the tone was mean spirited and parroted peoples opinions. The wiki policy quite clearly states, "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if it is potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue." I hope this can be sorted and Tricia Walsh Smith gets a page that is fair and no longer mean spirited. Thank you, Oliverdue Oliverdue ( talk) 21:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Kirsty Gallacher ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Two queries.
Firstly, is this an acceptable paragraph? Note the quality of sources and see also: Sky's Kirsty Gallacher sues The Sun over 'embarrassing' story headlined: 'Thirsty Kirsty TV collapse' Press Gazette
In December 2016, Kirsty Gallacher
suffered an attack live on air which included the slurring of speech
[1] and her collapse. She was rushed to hospital for tests and found to have been suffering from "extreme exhaustion and a viral infection".
[2]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Secondly, is this paragraph undue?
On 12 August 2017, Gallacher was stopped by police in Eton near
Windsor Castle, breathalysed at the roadside and arrested. She pleaded guilty at Slough Magistrates' Court for being over three times the legal drink drive limit the morning after a night out.
[1] On 4 September 2017, Gallacher was banned from driving for two years, ordered to serve 100 hours of community service, pay £85 prosecution costs and an £85 victim surcharge.
[2]
[3]
References
Pinging editors that have reinstated this material: Dream Focus, Newroderick895, Arjayay, Davey2010. -- 94.117.77.132 ( talk) 16:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Note the IP is Hillbillyholiday evading their block. -- NeilN talk to me 21:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
N.B. : Contentious material should not be reinserted until after consensus is reached. And often large amounts must be removed, by the way. Wikipedia is here to be fair to the victims or subjects of BLPs, not here to make sure that they are properly punished. Is the person notable for the crime? And is the amount of space taken up for the crime proportional to its importance? That is what the editors on that page must weigh. Collect ( talk) 22:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Tom Fitton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In violation of Wiki policies on the biographies of living persons, this page does not have a neutral point of view and is negatively biased. In fact, the page focuses almost exclusively on alleged controversies and criticisms to the exclusion of a neutral discussion of other work related to involvement in a national, non-profit organization.
[ [28]]
Thank you, TF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.118.42 ( talk) 18:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Andre Birleanu ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The personal section of this article has been subject to repeated attempts by IPs to delete it, which have been reflexively reverted by established users. Looking at the section more closely, despite some sourcing I think I tend to agree with the IP, especially the comments about the mother of the subject's child. I declined a request to protect this page, and brought this here to see if others agree. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
A new editor claiming to represent the subject of this article has posted at its talk page. Any thoughts? Johnuniq ( talk) 22:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Rebekah Mercer#Citation needed for politico claims page:
I've tried twice to add a citation needed in the Donald Trump section, for a claim I am unable to find a source for. Each time it was removed, the first time I assumed by mistake. The claim is:
Where is the source for that? The editor reverting my tag included the comment "see footnote 13 - footnotes aren't needed for every sentence", and footnote 13 is https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-rebekah-mercer-227799
I cannot find "Corey" nor "Lewandowski" in that article. What am I missing? There are mentions in https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-tech-data-fundraising-224865 and https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-campaign-corey-lewandowski-manager-224536, are they the sources? Please understand I am trying to verify claims made to meet Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. - 84user ( talk) 06:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC) - 84user ( talk) 06:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Caroline456 and I could use some eyes on the new article Paul Erickson, where we've run into a whole bunch of neutrality-related issues. This is an article about a South Dakota Republican operative who's received a lot of news coverage recently in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe the artist/architect/art historian Khaled Malas is notable. I also believe that his article has been written from a neutral point of view. i do not support the placement of tags by an albeit more experienced wikipedian than I.~~Articgoddess02~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Articgoddess02 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
This probably needs more oversighting, e.g. [29] MaxBrowne ( talk) 03:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Protection on Felix Sater has expired (applied by CambridgeBayWeather, 29 August 2017 [30]). We have some problems and I don't want to cross 3RR myself.
See my request for non-use of this oddball source on the article talkpage and warnings on the editor's talkpage. ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Restore those edits. They're based on a court filing in the subject's lost appeals case, and are entirely factual as the article states using this public record [Source redacted] and the original source video from MSNBC where subject lied about his violent felony conviction. "Oddball"? What has that got to do with factual sources. Attacking the messenger is the province of those who cannot attack the message, nor the facts. Whomever reversed those edits should be banned from Wikipedia. Facts matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spelunkingmerica ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
References
/info/en/?search=Don_Marion_Davis[ [32]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.170.120 ( talk) 12:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Steven Christopher Parker Hello, my name is Steven Christopher Parker and I am the subject of the wikipedia page. A business owner who is trying to harass me recently made a request to delete this wiki page in an attempt to hurt me professionally. Please ignore this attempt, as it is without cause or meaningful reason. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scparker888 ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Michael Carroll (lottery winner) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
With this edit/blind revert, Oshwah has added unreferenced material to a Biography of a Living Person. Including details of where their bank accounts are/were held.
Is this acceptable behaviour for an administrator? 94.118.44.96 ( talk) 16:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm with the IP on this - his preferred version removes uncited or questionably cited tabloid trash, so nobody should sanction him for anything per WP:3RRNO. I have been concerned that Oshwah wades into situations without assessing them (eg: Tony1) and causes all manner of mayhem as a result. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Self published, does not conform to standards of verifiability and neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.81.183 ( talk) 18:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know#Quick straw poll on faux politician trio. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see this thread about adding personal information unrelated to the article topic. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Grace_Randolph&oldid=710418988
This is OLD version of my current Wikipedia page. And incorrect birthdate was entered here - I believe by someone who was harassing me online at that time - and again, because it was incorrect with no source to verify it, it was deleted.
However, it is now showing up on iPhones under "Siri Knowledge" when someone begins to search for name on a web browser, i.e. Safari, citing Wikipedia as the source.
Wikipedia is NOT the source though as that info is not on my page anymore because it was incorrect.
Can someone please help me permanently delete this page...? THANKS SO MUCH if you can!
Again, here is the OLD version of the page with the INCORRECT info: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Grace_Randolph&oldid=710418988
Bonnar212 ( talk) 07:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
For some reason, this page with incorrect info is coming up for "Siri Knowledge" and giving out incorrect info.
Is there a way to remove this page from the "archive board" for my page?
Thank you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Grace_Randolph&oldid=710418988
Bonnar212 ( talk) 17:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Giulio Meotti ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Accusations of plagiarism against journalist based on WP:OR diff, as well as Marc Tracy (presently a college sports writer) writing in a Tablet (magazine)'s WP:NEWSBLOG The Scroll. In addition we have Max Blumenthal writing in 2 blogs/opinion pieces atributing part of his writing to Tracy, and a piece in iMediaEthics which is attributed in whole to Tracy in the Tablet, with the exception of a response by Meotti which they received themselves. No subsequent followup reporting since 2012. Icewhiz ( talk) 22:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
but did carelessly fail to attribute a few isolated sentences in my own articles. I will not do so in future. Many others journalists and writers...[3]. Max Blumenthal (who is a diametrically opposed polemicist) to Meotti's writing in opEdNews and in his blog in pro-Hezbollah Al Akhbar (Lebanon) - is not a RS. None of alleged people from whom isolated sentences and fragments are alleged to have been lifted from have commented. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process
Interested editors may wish to participate in the RfC at
Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row#RfC: Police Investigation and Bullying/abuse allegations
, which was relisted on
11 February 2018. This is a contentious, multi-part issue that sorely needs attention from cooler heads who are well-versed in BLP questions. Any input is welcome. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
11:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Y&R ANZ ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New editor now blocked for major edit warring over content they object to strenuously as, let's say, "misleading". I'm sometimes blind in these matters, but due diligence requires that I ask for a review of the now removed contentious material. dif is here. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 05:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Delyan Peevski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This complaint I am referring to you is in relation to the English version of Wikipedia, which contains information about Delyan Peevski. The article is available at [1] The article contains many untrue circumstances and manipulative statements, which are not supported by reliable sources (or they refer to sources – Bulgarian media, which constantly generate “fake news”). I will briefly address some of the false statements in the article 1. At the very beginning of the article he is defined as an “oligarch” – as per the definition of the word in Wikipedia this is „a person, who is part of a small group of people holding power in a state“. The reference to the source that is being archived presently neither justifies such a statement nor the statement is credible. 2. False statements are made for his possession of media and property. According to the Bulgarian Commercial registry [2] and the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria [3] where the Bulgarian government publish the list of newspapers and their owners in Bulgaria he doesn’t own 20 newspapers or magazines. This information is published twice with the same source which is false according to the Ministry of Culture in Bulgaria [4] Furthermore his mother doesn't own the company cited in this article. This information is old and needs to be updated. 3. The statements in the entire paragraph "Privatization controversies" are also absurd and not supported by any facts. Formally there is no source of information to which this paragraph to refer to and it is marked as “citation needed”, however the contents still stays, not redacted.
4. The next paragraph, "Media and business empire", is again full of false facts and allegations for criminal activity. There are suggestions for large properties associated with him, described as a huge number of media, expressed as figures, without mentioning media names, without reference to an official company register, without citing reliable sources. The citation used is again by contributor, identified only with initials: “Sep 20th 2013 by V.v.B. | SOFIA”.
He is currently a Bulgarian MP in the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria and a living person. The whole article makes suggestions based on untrue facts and circumstances (fake news) and damages his good name. It creates a false, negative image of his personality and at the same time suggests that he is a part of criminal activities. The content described is defamatory and untruthful and as such is contrary to the law, to the Internet ethics, to the rules of morality and good faith, as well as to three of the Wikipedia content principles: - Opportunity to verify (against relibale sources); - Neutral point of view; - Encyclopedic style.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgelee78 ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Jerry Sandusky ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Two new accounts have added "innocence" material to the Jerry Sandusky article. As many know, Jerry Sandusky was convicted of child sexual abuse.
The material added by these two new accounts concerns a book and other stuff arguing for Sandusky's supposed possible innocence. Thoughts? I started a discussion section at
Talk:Jerry Sandusky#Case for Innocence section. A permalink for it is
here.
Flyer22 Reborn (
talk)
19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Correction: Only one of the accounts is new. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Definitely need some opinions on this. Collect, any thoughts? I've argued WP:Undue weight. We have Aerkem going on about Mark Pendergrast and how he is "a well-known writer, and a specialist of repressed memory." And we have AmiLynch going on about an additional investigation and research. In my opinion, material on this is not much different than conspiracy theories on matters that are reported as fact. There are those who believe that Darlie Routier and Scott Peterson are innocent as well. When it comes to books for BLP crime cases, we usually simply mention them in the "Further reading" section. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Biggest problem? The possibility that this is promotional material for a single book. Actually probability. Collect ( talk) 23:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: If by 'pushing the book' you mean 'mentioning a relevant and reasonably reliable source', yes I am pushing the book. You wrote that 'When it comes to books for BLP crime cases, we usually simply mention them in the "Further reading" section': would that be appropriate in this case? As a newbie I would appreciate some feedback on my now deleted edit (before AmiLynch's further edit): was it problematic because written under 'Case for innocence' rather than 'Further reading'? or for other reasons? Aerkem ( talk) 09:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree the content can be modified in a few places to make it completely objective. I don’t see any factual errors though, as surprising as some of the facts may be. Given that primary sources are unacceptable, this book is one of the few sources we have available (some of you are dismissive of it, but it is extensively sourced and well-cited itself). Other useful sources may exist though. As I wrote on the Jerry Sandusky talk page: Special Agent John Snedden investigated the case for the FBI to evaluate whether former University President Spanier’s Top Secret security clearance should be renewed and found there was no sexual abuse at PSU in this case, nor a cover-up. John Ziegler, another author (he is also a documentary filmmaker and former broadcaster), also did years of research and came to believe Sandusky was innocent. AmiLynch ( talk) 20:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Mudar Zahran ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm seeking other editors' opinions. Zahran is a Jordanian-born Palestinian. He was criticized—in very harsh terms—by Caroline Glick, a prominent and influential editorial columnist (and deputy managing editor) for the Jerusalem Post. Under normal circumstances, we would cite her column, attribute her opinion, and call it a day.
The problem is that Glick didn't publish her views in the Jerusalem Post, but on Facebook. Her Facebook post was cited the next day by Elder of Ziyon, a blog. Two weeks later, an opinion columnist in Globes, an Israeli business newspaper, wrote about it. The Globes column was re-published the same day by Glick's paper, the Jerusalem Post.
Can Glick's views be included in Zahran's BLP? Clearly Elder of Ziyon, a blog, cannot be cited. Can Glick's Facebook post? What about the Globes opinion column? Does the fact that the paper where Glick is an editor republished the Globes column give it any added credibility?
If you think this question is better suited for WP:RS/N, please let me know. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I came across these edit summaries in the article's history, apparently by the subject himself:
Given the sensitive nature of the allegations, I wonder if an experienced volunteer could have a look at the article. Judging by the editing history of Special:Contributions/Newmanthfc, this appears to be an auto-biography, so there's a concern there as well. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The apparent subject of this article has been edit warring to remove information about about an alleged sexual misconduct that has been reported by the CBC. Given that he is a relatively unknown person, however, I think it is worth reviewing whether the considerations of WP:BLPCRIME come into play and whether mentioning it is giving it undue weight at this point. Bringing it here so uninvolved editors can review. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime. The CBC article is completely ambiguous as to what the actual allegations are: whether we are talking about making a hostile environment through dirty jokes or some form of sexual assault. Sexual misconduct opens the door for the later interpretation when we do not specify what it is, so I think BLPCRIME does come into play, as there is the suggestion that a crime may have been committed, especially when one considers that the sourcing doesn't specify the allegations. I'm not arguing one way or another for inclusion (I'm leaning against it currently, but not enough to strongly object if consensus is otherwise), but I do think we would need a consensus to include it, and consider if we should exclude it per the principles behind BLPCRIME. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
"Sexual assault" is a criminal offense in the jurisdiction involved. In short, it precisely fills the bill for falling under BLPCRIME. Suppose someone was "being investigated for mass-killing" - no rational person would hold that the claim did not fall under BLPCRIME. "Sexual assault" is a crime in Canada. No matter who is "doing the investigation." In fact, it is likely that the issue is more critical if the investigator is not specifically trained in investigative work. Collect ( talk) 01:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Hang Yin (scientist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The IP address (14.141.50.250)based in Delhi, India has been repetitively inserting libelous, unsourced contents to this page since Nov, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.196.66.35 ( talk) 00:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Black Panther member Abu-Jamal was convicted for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. As detailed in our article in sections Appeals and review and Popular support and opposition, Abu-Jamal's conviction, guilt, and status are all controversial.
On 19 February, CityOfSilver added this text to the first sentence of the lead:
Mumia Abu-Jamal is... a convicted murderer...
This was reverted by Bbb23. The edit has been edit-warred over continuously since, with current iterations making "convicted murderer" the very first description of the lead and article.
This edit was originally made by an IP 18 months ago [6], though I promptly reverted them [7] at that time. As far as I can tell, since the article's creation in 2001 it hasn't attempted either to label Abu-Jamal in this way, nor to declare that wikipedia has discovered the WP:TRUTH of his status as a "murderer."
I think it's clear that given the incredible controversy over Abu-Jamal's case, and his own insistence on his innocence, that we cannot describe him as "a convicted murderer" in Wikipedia's voice per WP:LABEL, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. This would be wrong anywhere in the article, but in the lead, and in the first sentence, this editorial mistake is especially egregious.
More eyes on the article would be appreciated. - Darouet ( talk) 18:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Jayron32 and CambridgeBayWeather: this article has been around for a long time — since 2001 — so with or without protection, and with or without the right/wrong version, I'd love for outside input from this board and other experienced editors (which is not to say those involved are not experienced, as they certainly are). - Darouet ( talk) 21:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty experienced in murder-related BLPs and think "convicted murderer" is a fair label for someone convicted of murder, and does not suggest in Wikipedia's voice that he actually murdered someone or not, only that we believe he was convicted for such. I've a minor gripe with how it was inserted before the "American" part, but that's just style. No opinion on whether it goes first, second or third in the opening sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Ahmet Şık ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Related article: /info/en/?search=Ahmet_Şık The following link is not a valid websites and redirects to a porn web site. Please remove it from external sources section.
Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekabeyler ( talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
There is an RFC which may be of interest to the members of this wikiproject Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#RFC_regarding_the_sexuality_of_David_Ogden_Stiers ResultingConstant ( talk) 21:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
The article (infobox, specifically) contains a claim about her citizenship without citation. Should be provided or the claim removed. 75.172.227.168 ( talk) 18:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Of course that's issue. 174.19.229.79 ( talk) 14:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Claiming someone is a citizen of a country when he or she is not is extremely controversial and offensive. I will remove it by next week if left without sources. 174.19.229.79 ( talk) 16:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't find this offensive, but it is very obviously WP:OR to be analyzing Slovenian law, US law, and Meliana's life story to determine that she has dual citizenship. It might be difficult to find a more text book case of WP:OR. This should absolutely be removed and not restored without sourcing. ResultingConstant ( talk) 18:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
We have citations to say she is Slovenian, she was born there (when it was part of Yugoslavia). We never need a source that says that someone who was born in a country is a citizen of that country. We have citation to show she was naturalized as an American citizen. IMO, at this point we would need a citation that says she renounced her citizenship to remove Slovenian. ~ GB fan 12:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Isabelle Nuru ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
None of the information on the wiki seems to be true and she's mentioned almost nowhere on the internet despite supposedly selling millions of records. It looks like Isabelle Nuru has been inputting fake information about herself and then citing this wiki elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.139.22 ( talk) 18:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Nucleya ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The author is subjective in his account, no citations for claims, poor quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.55.241.54 ( talk) 15:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Seth Meyers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I recently removed some content from this BLP that I felt was not reliably sourced enough, and other content that did not seem to be reflected by the source. This revert was recently undone, and I wanted to know other editors' opinions regarding whether the content that I removed and which has now been restored complies with BLP. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Ismail ibn Musa Menk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Name of Article Imail_ibn_Musa Menk
/info/en/?search=Ismail_ibn_Musa_Menk
The references given for this person have been falsified in an attempt to defame a person and cause harm. It identifies the subject Ismail_ibn_Musa_Menk which he has never self-proclaimed to be. This user profile GorgeCusterSabre ( /info/en/?search=User:GorgeCustersSabre) aims to put the subject in a negative light , the person writes bad things about people who don't belong to his sect of Islam. His views re not neutral in their tone. He repeatedly deletes any additions on the page even when they are referenced proeprley without explanation I want to know is this something Wiki pedia is encourages and allows ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindmind ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that a new user removed their post at this noticeboard. The post can be seen at the bottom of 09:09, 8 March 2018. The article has a lot of details concerning allegations of inappropriate behavior, with half of the lead devoted to the topic. Any thoughts? Johnuniq ( talk) 09:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
No big mystery here guys. I'm attempting to have libelous information removed from John T. Draper's page. I've followed Wikiepedia's instructions and am waiting for the info to be removed. If Wikipedia editors won't follow Wikipedia's policy, then further action will be taken. This is a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue of defamatory information being allowed by Wikipedia to remain published to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMP Bart ( talk • contribs) 04:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
First, it doesn't matter what my relationship to Mr. Draper is, the material is defamatory. Second, libel is a sub-species of defamation. It's a little concerning that you're being standoff-ish about that fact. Third, you sound bias yourself, so maybe that is a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. You could possibly be receiving money to keep this information up? I identified myself and relationship with Mr. Draper in order to be 100% transparent, so maybe you should do the same. And finally, it doesn't matter how many times and places the information has been repeated as it is defamatory. I'm making a request in good-faith for the editors to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and remove this libelous information. This is my fourth request and have even gone so far as to show how the information meets the legal standard for defamation (of which libel is a type).
Please remove the libelous information about John T. Draper.
Sincerely yours, [User:EMP_Bart] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6113:5500:95F3:A566:40F5:A744 ( talk) 21:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd never heard of Draper before I just read the entry, through the link on this noticeboard. Content is well sourced, relevant. It is debatable whether it should be featured so prominently (right now it's several sentences in the lede) but there is no legitimate reason for it to be removed completely. Bangabandhu ( talk) 19:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The WEIGHT given to each and every allegation approaches UNDUE in the body of the BLP, and the lead definitely exceeded that standard. Collect ( talk) 14:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
reads as a formal press release/paid advertisement with little to no verifiable sources.
I just removed some WP:BLP content that appeared to me to be agenda-driven, and largely not about Pierce. Would appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 19:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I removed the worst section --- IMO it is intrinsically violative of a bunch of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and appears to be intended to attack a person rather than provide encyclopedic information of value to readers. Collect ( talk) 14:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the BLP for Peter Ruckman, apparently his son PS Ruckman Jr. committed suicide right after possibly shooting to death his own two sons in the family home the other day. You can see this information has been added to the Peter Ruckman biography at the tail end of the personal life section (first section in the article). Two questions: 1) Should we be concerned about having that statement before the authorities conclude their murder investigation, and 2) if confirmed, do we keep it permanently in the article? Just so we're clear, my guess is that it's true and he probably did kill his kids, but also keeping in mind that PS Ruckman Jr. is not the main subject of the Peter Ruckman BLP. Thanks, AzureCitizen ( talk) 23:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Jane Golden ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The first paragraph of Jane Golden's listing contains this completely unsourced statement: "She is the only hold out to keep up a wildly reviled mural of former Philadelphia Mayor and notorious homophobe and racist Frank Rizzo. Despite public outcry and several vandalisms, she is pushing for the mural to be kept up."
I don't believe this is accurate, but in any event there is no source for these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:700:171:41CC:3C7C:AE04:B5FC ( talk) 14:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Johnny Antonelli ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Your bio of Johnny Antonelli states that the Giants traded him along with Harvey Kuenn to the Cleveland Indians in 1960. This is not correct regarding Harvey Keunn. Keunn was in fact traded to the Indians by the Detroit Tigers for Rocky Colavito. Keunn was the 1959 A.L. batting champ and Colavito may have been the 1959 A.L. home run champ. This trade was very unpopular with the Cleveland fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.59.202 ( talk) 21:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Yuka Kuramochi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article needs a LOT of help. I happened upon it and it's nearly nothing but trivia about her and non notable appearances. Her appearances list is longer than some A-list celebrities. Also a lot of it is in broken English. "Sentences" like "Because her hip size is large, some swimwear and the swimsuit wearing with the passage of time into the butt flesh quickly into nature and always going to "T-back state", so the charm point is called "fully automatic T-back" and has a distinctive commitment such as "T-back never wears"." I don't even know where to begin to fix this, so I'm asking for some help by folks more knowledgeable. That or nuke the thing. As it stands now it's a mockery of Wikipedia. -- Tarage ( talk) 22:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Proper for Japanese Wiki - maybe. Not notable for Wikipedia AFAICT at all. Collect ( talk) 13:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Floyd McKissick Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Was wondering if some others might take a look at content that IP 96.10.12.142 has been continuously trying to add to the article. The content has to do with an incident between McKissick and his former wife. A source is cited, but it seems quite WP:UNDUE and might be a case of someone trying to WP:RGW. If this incident is inded something meriting a mention in the article, then I think much stronger sourcing (at least more than the brief mentionin the indyweek source) should be provided. It would help though, to know what others think. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a message at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#"My" Wikipage., that may require attention in terms of BLP policy. I am simply providing this information, and I do not know anything about the merits of the case. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Our article on Hayao Miyazaki currently cites a translation of his son's personal blog in three locations. WP:BLPSPS allows for self-published sources only under very particular circumstances and only sources by the subject himself (not a member of his family), but if "nausicaa.net" (which apparently has an editorial team) publishes what appears to be a straight translation of his son's (presumably self-published) blog, does that satisfy? As for content, two instances could probably be cited to reliable sources (if only in Japanese), but the quote in the "personal life" section (which I will not repeat) seems concerning. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Ugh. I just found tracked down the original "blog" here -- does being on the company's official website mean BLPSPS doesn't apply? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
James Allsup ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't want to get sucked in to this myself, but there are BLP violations going on at James Allsup. Some editors want to call him a white supremacist, and have put this in the lead with seven citations to crap sources like Mashable and The Verge. And no context in the article; I suspect he probably rejects that label himself, and that should be noted. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 23:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Richard Manitoba ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My edit reporting Dick Manitoba's arrest was reverted yesterday as a BLP violation, stating that we can only add reports of convictions, not arrests.
This is not supported by /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.
According to the "People Accused of Crimes" section: "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."
Dick Manitoba is a public figure - in fact, arguments to suggest he wasn't notable enough to warrant his own article outside of the Dictators were defeated on the Talk page. Rolling Stone ran an article about his arrest, citing the NY Daily News story. You'd have a hard time arguing he's not a public figure.
As far as I can tell, there are two primary sources - Variety and NY Daily News, who both independently confirmed the story. So it meets the multiple sources test.
Also, the sentence in Wikipedia that I added did nothing but report the arrest.
Worst of all, the final paragraph in the Wiki article appears that Dick wrote it himself, as it ends with "We hope to have it in the marketplace soon". I removed this yesterday, and it was reverted - this is not encyclopedic at all. The rest of the paragraph was fine, but that sentence doesn't belong there.
Talk page has not received any response. Looking for this debate to be settled as this has been a fairly negative start to my Wikipedia experience - I read and followed the rules. TravellerInStygian ( talk) 13:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Christina_Hoff_Sommers There is contentious source material referring to Christina Hoff Sommers as an anti-feminist, and as a feminist. Past talk discussions have been unable to agree on what to put in the page. Users are attempting to shoehorn in anti-feminist comments, even though discussions going back a year have not been able to agree. The subject in question disagrees greatly with the labeling of anti-feminist. S806 ( talk) 20:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I have a concern about a statement in the page for Daniel Biss . I don't know him and have no connection with him, but as he is a candidate for political office (contentious Democratic primary for IL governor), he is probably under extra scrutiny right now.
Under "Personal life, education, and mathematical career", there is the following statement: "Nikolai Mnëv, a mathematician at the Steklov Institute of Mathematics at St. Petersburg in Russia, found that the proof written by Biss in his article was "seriously flawed". When Mnëv found the flaw, Biss did not immediately retract it; it took nearly four years." Reference # [15] is given for the second sentence. Reference [15] is from the personal blog of another mathematician named Doron Zeilberger.
In the blog post, Dr. Zeilberger states "It took the Annals of Mathematics many years to finally accept, very reluctantly, Tom Hales' seminal, computer-assisted, article proving Kepler's 300-year-old conjecture, because they didn't trust computer proofs. It took them only a couple of months to accept a human-generated proof, by Daniel Biss, that was later found, by Nikolai Mnev, to be seriously flawed (and even though the error was pointed out more than five years ago, it took them about four years to publish a retraction)."
Dr. Zeilberger's words are ambiguous as to whether it was the journal, Annals of Mathematics, that failed to publish Biss's retraction, or whether it was due to Biss failing to submit his retraction until four years later. It could have been a combination of delays on the part of both Biss and the journal. However, at least just going by this single source, what is stated in the Wikipedia article - that "Biss did not immediately retract it" i.e. putting the blame solely on Biss - is not correct.
Furthermore, Dr. Zeilberger specifically names his blog "Dr. Z's opinions" - he clearly does not intend for his blog to be used as an academic or journalistic source. (See http://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/OPINIONS.html )
I think this statement, cited only with Dr. Zeilberger's blog post, might violate the policy of Verifiability. The statement makes Biss look bad, and is poorly sourced. Sources should be added to back up the fact that it was actually Biss's fault that the retraction was not published for four years. If no other sources for that statement exist, the statement could be more accurately edited to something like "After Mnëv found the flaw, the retraction did not appear in the journal for nearly four years." - this would be (1) more neutral as it reflects on Biss and (2) correct according to information in the citation.
Ideally, though, there would be another source to even back up the statement that it took four years at all. A mathematician or librarian (which I am neither) could easily look up Biss's original article and its retraction in the Annals of Mathematics and verify that the interval was four years. If it isn't, the statement should be removed.
I'm happy to make the edit if others agree; I'm just brand-new to Wikipedia editing so I wanted to see what more experienced folks thought first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorpunk23 ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
George Groves (boxer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Properly Referenced - https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/george-groves-vs-callum-smith-12165929 Update to: George Grove's World Boxing Super Series Schedule Update; is being repeatedly deleted for no specified reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.119.24 ( talk) 04:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Terry Hall (singer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I tried to edit the page to reflect the current situation in Terry Hall's life and was rejected because it was not sourced, but a point that I believe is false and is basically Lindy Heymann telling a journalist she is his partner is being upheld. This woman is harassing me constantly and I am his current legal wife. I reported the matter to police because I don't have proof that is of a type you will accept. Sincerely, Heidi Ann Murphy/Lancia Roselya, PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.16 ( talk) 23:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Agnes Kagure Kariuki ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This one is alternating between an attack page and a puff piece (it looks like the original author has some COI). I could G10 this right now and probably get it deleted... can an admin take a look and make a decision? -- Izno ( talk) 20:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Al Giordano has been targeted for silly vandalism in the past, but there is a new SPA Botman34 [8], aided by an IP with very similar goals and linking style [9] trying to add defamatory material based on rumors reported in Twitter and Facebook and (so far) one clickbait blog, which merely reports in detail the same Twitter and Facebook comments.
Botman34 was warned a few days ago about edit-warring, after which he became more subtle, making a few "improving" edits. These SPAs don't seem interested in wiki policy, what they want is to get defamatory material into the article, even if only briefly. Why? See for example this tweet from around the same time that Botman34 showed up: "What happens when you google your good buddy Al Giordano?" [10]'
If harassment claims show up in RS, then we can discuss adding them to the bio, although the MeToo claims against Giordano seem minor: that he made some inappropriate remarks, that others at his journalism school harassed people, plus several complaints that he asked women students to do things for no pay, which seems an odd complaint about somebody who runs a nonprofit group that needs volunteer help from many participants.
I don't know if it is the same person or not, but around March 4 we had a different SPA DonLemonparty, [11] again somebody who structures newslinks in a very similar way, trying to add the same material.
Semi-protecting the article might do more than continuing to debate policy with these SPAs, but what do others think? HouseOfChange ( talk) 21:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Your concern about the sourcing of the harassment claims is a legitimate one. However, the claims themselves are decidedly not "minor." They include allegations that Giordano offered "roofies" to a male student at the School of Authentic Journalism [12], that he sexually harassed and degraded female students [13] [14], and that he tried to silence and intimidate his victims [15]. Perhaps you should take the time to review the full allegations before making any more contributions to this page. ~BotMan34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botman34 ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Sean Gabb ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I nominated the Sean Gabb article for deletion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Gabb) on the grounds that the article, as originally configured, failed WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Another user has since argued that Gabb meets the notability criteria due to his role in managing a website prior to the 2001 UK General Election, which did receive notable media coverage (and has included additional references). I'm not sure whether this establishes notability. It would be useful to have some more experienced users comment. Thanks. L.R. Wormwood ( talk) 19:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been doing some MOS fixes on our
Japanese bamboo weaving article, and noticed something potentially more serious.
This person is definitely male, but someone on Wikipedia seems to have misread his name in an English source that used the simplified romanization "Suiko", which looks like a Japanese woman's name. It is of course OR to talk about some prominent female artisans in a predominantly male industry when you don't even know whether the people in question are female, but is this also a BLP issue?
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
11:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Screw it. It's unsourced, and obviously inaccurate, so I might as well just remove it. If anyone thinks name-dropping him in the article is important enough, they can do so. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Delyan Peevski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, I noticed a very disturbing behavior on the page of Delyan Peevski. I am a new member of the Wikipedia family and according to Wikipedia, Biographies of living persons must be right. Viewing the history of the page everybody can see that there is a problem. [ [18]]. The article is full with attempts to edit. I saw that people tried to add information with source but one user User:Quickfingers continues to delete it. I saw that a lot of users tried to delete information and add GOVERNMENT sources to prove their point but their attempts were blocked. I know that Mr. Peevski is a politician and it is very easy to add and control an article of Wikipedia but he is also a living person and a human being. I saw that in The References category there are archived references /No 1,3/, a template for [citation needed] , just main pages of popular cites /No 4,15/, with no relation to him No /5,6,20/, proven fake news /9,10/ and etc. There is a Germen version for him and the germen article is without any active sources or with the source for a different site /You see the title of the source but the web site is different and not related to this post/ or a blog with personal opinion. The articles make suggestions based on untrue facts and circumstances (fake news) and damage a living person. They create a false, negative image of his personality and at the same time suggest that he is a part of criminal activities. This is very serious. Defamation is a crime, saying somebody is part of criminal activities without prove is a crime. Trying to block everybody and undoing their edits from the articles without any reason or reliable source of information is against Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I don’t think that Wikipedia is the place for political battles. Just a thought in mind: the information of publicly listed companies and its owners is very easy to check. I checked it out in the Bulgarian Commercial Registry http://www.brra.bg/ and it turns out that the statements in the article are fare from the truth. What to do in case like this? Is there an active editor who can see what is happening? Can somebody notify Wikipedia about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaderp6 ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Note simultaneous drive to remove both this person's bio and the publishing company which he directs, Annex Press. Given the simultaneous delete requests it would appear that there is an harassment issue. I found that the article on the Annex Press was vandalized, i.e. most of the links and much of the important information relating to authors published had been removed by a physician, who it appears has multiple issues with multiple wiki contributors. I fail to see any for profit aspect to the articles and lacking proof of this contention suggest that the user / editor 'doc' should desist from further removal of information, or comment upon, unless proof is offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideveon ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Jacksepticeye ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A new editor User:Jackboi27 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is claiming that he had died on March 1st. I see that he is still posting on twitter, so something is going on, hopefully just vandalism.-- Auric talk 18:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Tim Armstrong (executive) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi page watchers! Can someone experienced in editing biographies of living persons look at the last paragraph of Controversies at Tim Armstrong?
In March 2018, Oath, Inc., of which Armstrong is CEO, fired four sisters working for the platform after it was highlighted that they were daughters of right-wing agitator Pamela Geller. [1] Oath said in a statement that "The Morning Breath, an Oath social-media show, is being canceled immediately and we have launched an internal investigation and will take other appropriate steps based on the results of the investigation." [2]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)}
There are a few problems with this.
Can an editor, or editors, review the paragraph and determine if it is appropriate for the article on Tim Armstrong based on available sourcing? My suggestion is that it be removed, or corrected and moved to Oath Inc. Disclosure: I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to make edits to Verizon-related articles on my behalf. Thank you, VZBob ( talk) 19:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Our article on Cathy Newman, a British journalist, has been the subject of several protracted disputes for about a month and a half now. Following a viral interview with Jordan Peterson, Newman was heavily criticized on social media. She received death threats and a torrent of social media abuse, according to The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, The Varsity, The Times, etc. Editors disagree on whether we can say that Newman received threats, whether we should include opinion pieces critical of Newman, and whether the depth of coverage we give controversy in the article is appropriate for a BLP. How should we present this material? — 0xf8e8 ( t♥lk) 03:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Newman has been the subject of gender-based abuse and threats on social media, which has led Channel 4 to conduct a risk analysis by security experts.I did not respect TCW, but chose to focus on the more general BLPSTYLE/NEWSORG objections already outlined. The diffs concern Filigranski's actions, reasoning and proposals, not their person or character; it doesn't seem accurate to say I'm "commenting on the contributor" as outlined at WP:NPA. — 0xf8e8 ( t♥lk) 15:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Leila de Lima ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An IP editor at WP:ANI says:
I am not a admin or editor. Just some random noob who came across an article and was astonished about the unverifiable claims made without the appropriate sources and written with a lack of neutral viewpoint.
It seems these issues were brought to the attention since 2016 and the article has continued to sit for years.
Things like De Lima finds her son 'inspirational' How is that encyclopedic content? And then this section Justice and extra-judicial killings (EJK) "De Lima, who chaired the Commission on Human Rights and was Justice Secretary, is the face of the anti-EJK campaign in the Philippines. She is against the brutal ways propelled by the deadly Philippine Drug War. Her position and investigation on the war irked Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte and led to her imprisonment through trumped-up charges with no concrete evidences[sic]"
First of all, the section and the underlying content have nothing to do with one another. Two, trumped-up charges is loaded language and no concrete evidence is not a legal standard. Nor does the one article source prove or even indicate her opposition to Duetre is what led to her imprisonment
This is only the most noticeable examples as the article is riddled with similar problems throughout. I hope a neutral admin/editor examines the article and makes the appropriate corrections. Thanks. 72.139.196.172 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
A few egregious problems have been fixed, but some still remain. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm posting this on behalf of Cunydigital , who is now blocked. It probably would have been better if they'd raised their concerns here first.
Hi - This is being requested by Frank Sobrino, Media Relations Director at CUNY. Our office poses a conflict of interest to editing James B. Milliken's page.
CHALLENGED MATERIAL #1 “Upon accepting the appointment to the position of Chancellor of CUNY, Milliken's first controversial 'move' was into a luxury, penthouse apartment located on Manhattan's Upper East Side, with a monthly rent bill of $18,000," according to the New York Observer, paid for by the public university system. [12] Rudin Management reportedly leased Milliken's apartment to the Research Foundation of the City University of New York, a university affiliated nonprofit with the stated purpose of funding research and acquiring university facilities. [13] Milliken himself no stranger to the perks of higher education administration, according to a 2013 The Wall Street Journal report of his annual financial disclosure statements, showed he had received numerous "personal gifts from donors, alumni and business executives" while at the University of Nebraska, including a pheasant-hunting trip, four Elton John concert tickets, and flights via corporate jets. [14]”
OUR COMMENTS: We urge removal of this paragraph on grounds of fairness and context. It smacks of editorializing by someone with an axe to grind and distorts Milliken’s tenure. It leaves the false impression that Milliken has been controversial and been accused of financial impropriety from the moment of his arrival and has accomplished nothing in his four years.
Specific points:
1. The footnoted attribution for the first sentence does not back up the statement that Milliken's move into an $18,000 apartment was “controversial.” The first link is to an article about CUNY faculty protesting outside Milliken’s apartment because they had been working without a contract (for several years before his arrival). There is no mention of the cost of his apartment.
2. Though an article about the apartment is footnoted after a later sentence, there is no support for the suggestion that the cost of Milliken’s apartment was improper. It's a mischaracterization to suggest it was or is regarded as unusually lavish or that it has been an issue during his tenure.
3. The information about perks at the University of Nebraska similarly has an editorializing tone and lacks context -- i.e. are/were these perks unusual, illegal or improper for presidents of major state universities? Further, gratuitously including this Nebraska information in the section about Milliken’s tenure at CUNY appears to be an attempt to advance the dubious claim that exploiting his public positions is a part of his record and reputation. There’s no support for that assertion. ''-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 15:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLP is clear -- using sources to make contentious claims which are not clearly so stated in the sources is contrary to policy in the first place. "Libel issues" are absolutely irrelevant, as everyone should know by now. Nor is it improper to avoid "spin" in any BLP -- simply saying We can promote spin, therefore we ought to promote spin or the like is absolutely contrary to common sense and common decency. Collect ( talk) 00:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Anna Graceman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The database of the US Copyright Office is being used to support the birth year of this musician, as well as her actual name, as shown in
this diff (highlighted, readded text under Early life section ... originally added with
this edit, though with
modifications made by me regarding the web site source itself). An editor is challenging whether the source is reliable (
diff), and since this involves a BLP, I'm looking for justification whether this source can be used to back this kind of information. Even with that, I'm not exactly sure whether to restore the content, given the nature of the information, as the challenging editor has now removed it twice.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
17:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.The US Copyright Office is not an appropriate or acceptable source for personally identifiable information - including birth names or birth dates. WP:BLPPRIVACY is also relevant - we include full names or dates of birth only where they
have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Inferring information from URLs is not a reliable source. Unless there is something better, and policy compliant, the information should be removed. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Controversial contribution of user:Czalex introduces WP:BLP problems, specifically:
Discussion is still in progress with no obvious consensus, assessment from BLP perspective is required. More info on article's talk page. 93.84.44.122 ( talk) 11:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
(Setting out my involvement, for transparency.) A controversies section was added to the Judith Hallett page, which in itself falls foul of BLP guidance, and also uses weasel words. As the page is one that our project edits (the controversies section addition was not made by one of our project eds), on 18 March we put a note on our project discussion board asking one of our eds to integrate or remove when time allowed. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Women%27s_Classical_Committee#Judith_Hallett_page
Since then, the section was removed, probably by a newbie. This has been reverted by other eds several times now and is an edit war. The addition of the controversies section does seem to me to have problems, but given that it's a page that our project is involved with, I think it's better if more neutral editors could look at this please. I don't have access to the sources cited so can't fix the weasel words problem either. Claire 75 ( talk) 08:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The section appears to be non-notable - not even hitting the importance of "he said / she said" for a BLP. "Controversy" sections are almost invariably a "bad idea" and where they are written as badly as this, ought be excised. Collect ( talk) 16:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Stephen J. Yates ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article lacks substantive background information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isp561 ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Steve Smith (cricketer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"Steve Smith admitted to Ball Tampering" has been added in the very first line in his wiki page. This incident just broke out, and should be analyzed further before adding it on to his wiki page. Moreover, Steven Smith did not tamper the ball himself. He apologized on behalf of his team's leadership group for his teammate's actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.192.8 ( talk) 20:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-involved editors needed at Jan Grabowski (historian) and Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Grabowski (historian).
Grabowski is an award winning,
[1]
[2] Canadian historian who has received positive reviews in peer-reviewed journals,
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] described an "eminent Canadian historian" by CBC,
[8] coverage is generally favorable (as well as pretty wide) in mainstream English language media (as may be seen with a simple google-news check). Grabowski however has faced criticism from Polish nationalists which has even led to death threats,
[9]
[10] possible per the
BBC part of "surge of anti-Semitism online and in Polish state media"
.
[11]
Our article at present has been tagged with a POV tag (without a clear rationale), and is filled with quite a bit of negative criticism from WP:FRINGE/ WP:BIASED sources (mostly non-English sources). The article at present contains approximately 2120 words of prose. 261 words describe 5 positive reviews in peer-reviewed journals. 639 words (or 30%!!!) describe 4 negative comments namely 110 words for Polish historian Grzegorz Berendt in an op-ed response in Haaretz to an article in Haaretz, [12] 37 words for Historian Piotr Gontarczyk speaking on Polish Radio 24 reported via the right-wing internet portal wpolityce.pl, [13], 201 for words Łukasz Męczykowski (per [19] a PhD in humanities that is a fan of tanks and the British Home Guard and who is a school teacher) on the website/blog histmag.org, [14] and 291 words for Bogdan Musial in a Polish publication. [15] The latter two are of particular concern - inclusion of Męczykowski on histmag.org does not seem DUE under any reasonable standard. Bogdan Musiał on the other hand is known, however he is quoted without context, he is described in RS as belonging to an "ethno-nationalist school", [16] [17] as treating Żydokomuna (Judeo-Communism) not as an antisemitic canard but as historical reality, [18] and has made widely repeated comments on Jewish religious beliefs. [19] [20] [21] Icewhiz ( talk) 19:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
References
Joshua Gagnon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article reads like self-promotion, or at least puffery. I'm also not sure it meets the notability requirements.
Douglas V. Mastriano ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article, Douglas V. Mastriano, is filled with laudatory, poorly sourced promotional material about a congressional candidate in central Pennsylvania. Mastriano -- one of seven candidates for the seat -- is a retired Army colonel and author, but his actual portfolio is far too thin to warrant this sort of gushing coverage.
It includes a segment on education that lists four unverifiable master's degrees, helpfully noting that "Mastriano was awarded the 2009 Eastern University Alumnus of the year in 2009 in St. Davids, Pennsylvania."[3]
The "Strategist" section is vastly overlong, consisting mostly of reprinted material from his academic thesis. The "Congressional Candidate" section fails to note the most notable aspect of his candidacy -- his willingness to campaign in uniform -- and includes largely fluffed-up assertions such as "Mastriano is considered an expert on Russia and the NATO security situation in Eastern and Northern Europe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pristine2 ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Tricia Walsh-Smith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am new to Wikipedia (Oliverdue)but a huge fan of Tricia Walsh Smith, so my first edit was her page as some of the information was incorrect. Unfortunately I have had my edit repeatedly undone by an editor called Oakshade. He has somehow stopped me revertng the page back to my version. As I am new I don't know how to get around this so I'm making an official complaint. I feel Walsh-Smith's page isn't non partisan and has a spiteful slant. It should simply state facts, not be detrimental to her reputation. I edited out "Dancing around London in bondage gear," a throwaway line regarding her Bonkers video. The song "Bonkers", is the theme song of the first play "Bonkers" that she wrote. She does not dance around London in bondage gear, she dances around London in jeans and tee shirt. The tone of "Dancing around London in bondage gear," is derogatory. I also removed material regarding her divorce as once again the tone was mean spirited and parroted peoples opinions. The wiki policy quite clearly states, "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if it is potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue." I hope this can be sorted and Tricia Walsh Smith gets a page that is fair and no longer mean spirited. Thank you, Oliverdue Oliverdue ( talk) 21:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Kirsty Gallacher ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Two queries.
Firstly, is this an acceptable paragraph? Note the quality of sources and see also: Sky's Kirsty Gallacher sues The Sun over 'embarrassing' story headlined: 'Thirsty Kirsty TV collapse' Press Gazette
In December 2016, Kirsty Gallacher
suffered an attack live on air which included the slurring of speech
[1] and her collapse. She was rushed to hospital for tests and found to have been suffering from "extreme exhaustion and a viral infection".
[2]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Secondly, is this paragraph undue?
On 12 August 2017, Gallacher was stopped by police in Eton near
Windsor Castle, breathalysed at the roadside and arrested. She pleaded guilty at Slough Magistrates' Court for being over three times the legal drink drive limit the morning after a night out.
[1] On 4 September 2017, Gallacher was banned from driving for two years, ordered to serve 100 hours of community service, pay £85 prosecution costs and an £85 victim surcharge.
[2]
[3]
References
Pinging editors that have reinstated this material: Dream Focus, Newroderick895, Arjayay, Davey2010. -- 94.117.77.132 ( talk) 16:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Note the IP is Hillbillyholiday evading their block. -- NeilN talk to me 21:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
N.B. : Contentious material should not be reinserted until after consensus is reached. And often large amounts must be removed, by the way. Wikipedia is here to be fair to the victims or subjects of BLPs, not here to make sure that they are properly punished. Is the person notable for the crime? And is the amount of space taken up for the crime proportional to its importance? That is what the editors on that page must weigh. Collect ( talk) 22:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Tom Fitton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In violation of Wiki policies on the biographies of living persons, this page does not have a neutral point of view and is negatively biased. In fact, the page focuses almost exclusively on alleged controversies and criticisms to the exclusion of a neutral discussion of other work related to involvement in a national, non-profit organization.
[ [28]]
Thank you, TF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.118.42 ( talk) 18:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Andre Birleanu ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The personal section of this article has been subject to repeated attempts by IPs to delete it, which have been reflexively reverted by established users. Looking at the section more closely, despite some sourcing I think I tend to agree with the IP, especially the comments about the mother of the subject's child. I declined a request to protect this page, and brought this here to see if others agree. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
A new editor claiming to represent the subject of this article has posted at its talk page. Any thoughts? Johnuniq ( talk) 22:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Rebekah Mercer#Citation needed for politico claims page:
I've tried twice to add a citation needed in the Donald Trump section, for a claim I am unable to find a source for. Each time it was removed, the first time I assumed by mistake. The claim is:
Where is the source for that? The editor reverting my tag included the comment "see footnote 13 - footnotes aren't needed for every sentence", and footnote 13 is https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-rebekah-mercer-227799
I cannot find "Corey" nor "Lewandowski" in that article. What am I missing? There are mentions in https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-tech-data-fundraising-224865 and https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-campaign-corey-lewandowski-manager-224536, are they the sources? Please understand I am trying to verify claims made to meet Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. - 84user ( talk) 06:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC) - 84user ( talk) 06:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Caroline456 and I could use some eyes on the new article Paul Erickson, where we've run into a whole bunch of neutrality-related issues. This is an article about a South Dakota Republican operative who's received a lot of news coverage recently in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe the artist/architect/art historian Khaled Malas is notable. I also believe that his article has been written from a neutral point of view. i do not support the placement of tags by an albeit more experienced wikipedian than I.~~Articgoddess02~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Articgoddess02 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
This probably needs more oversighting, e.g. [29] MaxBrowne ( talk) 03:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Protection on Felix Sater has expired (applied by CambridgeBayWeather, 29 August 2017 [30]). We have some problems and I don't want to cross 3RR myself.
See my request for non-use of this oddball source on the article talkpage and warnings on the editor's talkpage. ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Restore those edits. They're based on a court filing in the subject's lost appeals case, and are entirely factual as the article states using this public record [Source redacted] and the original source video from MSNBC where subject lied about his violent felony conviction. "Oddball"? What has that got to do with factual sources. Attacking the messenger is the province of those who cannot attack the message, nor the facts. Whomever reversed those edits should be banned from Wikipedia. Facts matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spelunkingmerica ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
References
/info/en/?search=Don_Marion_Davis[ [32]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.170.120 ( talk) 12:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Steven Christopher Parker Hello, my name is Steven Christopher Parker and I am the subject of the wikipedia page. A business owner who is trying to harass me recently made a request to delete this wiki page in an attempt to hurt me professionally. Please ignore this attempt, as it is without cause or meaningful reason. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scparker888 ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Michael Carroll (lottery winner) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
With this edit/blind revert, Oshwah has added unreferenced material to a Biography of a Living Person. Including details of where their bank accounts are/were held.
Is this acceptable behaviour for an administrator? 94.118.44.96 ( talk) 16:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm with the IP on this - his preferred version removes uncited or questionably cited tabloid trash, so nobody should sanction him for anything per WP:3RRNO. I have been concerned that Oshwah wades into situations without assessing them (eg: Tony1) and causes all manner of mayhem as a result. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Self published, does not conform to standards of verifiability and neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.81.183 ( talk) 18:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know#Quick straw poll on faux politician trio. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see this thread about adding personal information unrelated to the article topic. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)