![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Vox Day ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Grayfell Continuously re-adding poorly sourced content that violates BLP because
1. It fails basic NPOV guidelines. It ignores several other articles that don't describe Vox Day as "Far-Right" or "Alt-Right" in favor of one single, cherrypicked article, that describes him as far-right ONLY ONCE.
Vox,
The
Guardian,
Polygon,
advocate.com, and
Wired all fail to describe Vox Day as "far-right".
2. It fails
WP:LABEL by including a label that isn't widely used by sources (and in fact, isn't used by most reliable sources), and should be an in-text attribution, not a label (i.e. "has been described as far-right")
50.107.79.14 (
talk) 01:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked --
Tsumikiria⧸
🌹
🌉
21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Setting aside the WP:SOCK concerns raised by the IP's behavior (such as this post)...
He also owes thousands to far-right writers like the anti-Islamist Pamela Geller and to science fiction writer Theodore Beale (Vox Day). [1]
This is very obviously the same sock as 50.107.81.26 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was previously blocked for evasion. Grayfell ( talk) 02:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Folks. No need to waste your time on a sock of a purely disruptive troll who was not here to improve the project in the first place. The IP is now CheckUser blocked by NinjaRobotPirate. Quoting Drmies, "Trolls and POV pushers are like dogs returning to their vomit". Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹 🌉 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
A barrage of IP users have been editing the page to include unsourced, partisan snipes to push a narrative in favor of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, because Ms. Maxwell holds negative opinions of her. This is likely either an organized brigade from Twitter or one user with a handful of devices with IP addresses. It will likely pass within a few days, however, for now it's currently unprotected with a few folks keeping a constant eye on it. -- KingForPA ( talk) 16:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Editors keep trying to push a Western/Anti-Russian pov on the Ben Swann page by changing the word "narrative" to "propaganda" when source clearly uses the former term. More eyes on this would be appreciated. -- 74.195.159.155 ( talk) 14:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
"Reality Check", which has garnered media attention for questioning widely accepted narratives on high-profile controversies such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, and an alleged link between vaccines and autism.
promoting conspiracy theories about…
all editors' legitimate concerns
legitimate concerns
legitimate
Luke Brugnara ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've been attempting to clean up the article on Luke Brugnara, which was very POV, with extensive statements that weren't actually supported by the cited sources. User Joshualeverburg1 (the article's original creator) has reverted all my edits, first just with the explanation "reverting vandalism," and most recently with the statement that I was trying to "besmirch" the article's subject by posting "false statements." I've asked multiple times for Joshualeverburg1 to come to the talk page to discuss these edits, as well as posting a warning about edit warring on his talk page, but he has refused to engage in any discussion about the article. Any suggestions on where we go from here? BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 22:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, it appears that the user threatened legal action, and has been blocked. Would it be appropriate for me to restore my edits at this point, or would that constitute edit warring? BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 23:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
On the Harry Lloyd page, the same IP address, 2.39.36.135, keeps adding the same information about the actor's wife. The information is entirely speculation on a "fake marriage", when the actor has actually confirmed his marital status here in an interview for UTP (Un-titled Project) magazine. They also keep stating that interviews given to reputable media sources by the actor are "fake", with no sourcing of this theory, and claims the actor is actively vandalising his own page to "troll". Other than perhaps a throw-away sentence in a life section of some sort I don't think his wife needs any mention at all, as she is not notable and a low-profile individual.
Myself and other users keep reverting the edits, but as this material continues to be added I thought it would be appropriate to raise the issue here (apologies if this isn't correct procedure, I'm new!). The material added also infringes POV and OR rules as the edits consistently paint the actor as a "troll" as part of this person's wild speculations, without trustworthy sources. If this isn't the correct board for this, could someone point me in the right direction?
I thought the issue was worth raising here because of how the same defamatory content is repeatedly added time and time again. (I also cross-posted this to the OR noticeboard, apologies if that was incorrect)
SillyRoundKatie ( talk) 20:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@ GreenMeansGo: SillyRoundKatie ( talk) 00:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC) They have unfortunately just begun making the edits again, is there anything further I can do other than keep removing them? I don't want to seem that I am edit-warring SillyRoundKatie ( talk) 00:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Contributions from Wikipedia user Jimmy Bing displays several edits that would reveal an admitted conflict of interest. Many defensive edits to the W. Mark Lanier page leaves room for question that someone close to the indivdual or possibly employed by the Lanier Law Firm is making edits in his best interest.
Examples below:
22:35, 17 June 2009 diff hist +135 Virtuality (film) Fox has no official site. Check futurefox.com, they've linked to us.
20:51, 17 June 2009 diff hist +63 Virtuality (film) We're working with FOX to promote the show.
Special:Contributions/Jimmy_Bing
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:1700:c8c0:ec90:89a:e7fb:f034:c4a1 (
talk)
04:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
See Naomi Osaka. I'm not actually sure if the source technically supports the content we attribute to it, since having two passports is essentially the same as holding dual citizenship for almost all purposes. But Japan doesn't recognize dual citizenship for anyone over the age of 20; presumably this is quietly overlooked in the case of talented athletes who live outside Japan but want to represent Japan in their chosen sport, but it seems highly likely the Japanese Ministry of Justice would feel differently if she took up residency in Japan and decided to play tennis as an American. And I can't escape the sneaky feeling that if it really was a matter of her holding dual citizenship, our source would just come out and say that directly rather than specifically referring to the number of passports she possesses. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Zofia Klepacka ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anti-LGBT/homophobic vandalism. Please, lock the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.80.21 ( talk) 16:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Quick general question: is there some kind of consensus on whether participation in a documenta makes an artist notable? My notion would be yes, it being an invited and highly prestigious event; but not sure of precedents. (specific case in point - Nomin Bold, who also has other international exhibitions under her belt, so probably not riding on that) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Derogatory article mentioning Cow belt, whether Indian govt has spine, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajnp1 ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
A bio turned into a press release, filled with promotional blurbs. More eyes on this, please. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 05:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Problematic edits by eponymous account. Unsourced personal content, including some with WP:BLP issues that may need to be rev/deleted. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 19:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
In 2010, Hank Johnson expressed fears about Guam capsizing during a Congressional hearing, should his comment be mentioned in the lead paragraph of his entry? The gaffe is currently covered in the article body, but not the lead. Here's the edit in question. Nblund talk 20:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm unsure if this is the correct place to address this issue, apologies if it isn't. Article on Jérôme_Rothen is subject to (at the moment) minor vandalism related to the recent PSG-ManUtd champions league match. Patrice_Evra referred to him in a disparaging way that has gone viral, i believe the french version of the article has been locked and it might be worth putting a temporary lock on the article until the fuss dies down. Zaq12wsx ( talk) 11:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I am Professor Jose M Bernardo. Years ago, someone created a biography on me José-Miguel Bernardo I have now an ongoing argument against ISBA. I am fighting legally their reasons to exclude me: I consider their action to be seriously libelous and a violation of my honorability, and I do not want their original decision (never supported by any form of legal jury) to be mentioned in my bibliography. I have edited out that paragraph twice, and someone (who obvously holds a grudge on me) has added it again. If this cannot be stopped, I would rather have my entire biography removed from Wikipedia (I guess I am entitled to that). I am editing out this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseMBernardo ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on here, some kind of edit warring over marital status going back to June last year, ongoing today [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Please help me with...
<Kenneth Blum is listed by Quackwatch as a promoter of questionable health products.[2] and Doctors writing for Quackwatch have questioned the scientific credibility of the genetic tests that Blum markets.[7]-->
I have no experience with Wikipedia and need help to get the article right. Kenneth Blum is a living persons and according to your guidelines high-quality sources should be used and any material must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Recently there seems to have been postings that are not neutral, or verifiable.
Ref {2} and {7} refer to the same article cited on the Quackwatch website. The website Quackwatch is endorsed by a group of naysayers who call themselves “ Skeptics.” Stephen Barrett and his board of 20 are known for many non –scientific attacks on alternative medical approaches including vitamins and minerals or any nutritional supplement. Barrett appears to have no understanding of basic scientific exploration having had no experience in the field. Therefore, any statements cited in this Wikipedia page must be read with caution and dismissed based on unsupported claims. Stephen Barrett is a self- proclaimed promoter of unscientific bias against all alternative medicine. Most experienced scientists and practitioners of alternative medicine and traditional medicine oppose Quackwatch and Barrett. Donna Ladd, a journalist with the Village Voice, says that "Barrett relies mostly on negative research even to the point of rejecting positive [peer reviewed] studies.” Throughout life Linus Pauling winner of two Nobel Prizes, was also called “the world’s biggest Quack,” and even Albert Einstein stated that Pauling’s research was too complicated for him to understand. MargMad (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MargMad (
talk •
contribs)
Elvera Sanchez ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biography says Sammy Davis Jr was her only child then end of article says she was survived by her daughter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.0.168 ( talk) 15:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Sword and Scale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There has been some long-term edit warring going on at Sword and Scale between MBoudet (and some IPs) and Satani over a section of the article that MBoudet claims is defamatory. If MBoudet is who he claims to be, then it's clear they have a COI (see WP:COIN#Sword and Scale); however, his BLP concerns probably shouldn't have been laughed off in edit sums by Satani per WP:BLPREMOVE. There's been no article talk page discussion about this at all, so it might be a good idea to for some others to get involved and sort through this. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe some of you can have a look at this article and its recent history, and make a judgment on the content and the sourcing. Thank you all so much, Drmies ( talk) 03:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I have reviewed this article and find it to be really poorly sourced and primarily self-promotional. Moreover, the individual in question is hardly notable in any way. Frankly, she is little more than an extra. I would nominate for deletion. Coffee312 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
In the wiki page on Jamie Moyer, the section on his personal life implies that he is still married to Karen Moyer. Karen and Jamie were divorced in 2017. I'm a friend of Jamie's. He has expressed the desire to see his personal information updated to reflect reality but has no idea how to do it. I told him I would try. I can't find a reference online to the Moyers' divorce but I know it is true. You might try contacting him. 24.17.11.63 ( talk) 01:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)M A Ganong
Tucker Carlson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would like to call editors experienced with BLP to the breaking news about Tucker Carlson's comments from a couple years ago on a call-in show. An editor at the article talk page said that Carlson "is a public figures, which negates WP:BLP concerns." I am, of course, not defending the comments, but I think some context is missing, the way it is written now isn't optimal, and we should still presume BLP applies to that page. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
one instance, I'd agree. Appears that he made these comments over many instances over years. I removed it at first because of the sourcing. But, it's now hitting RS. If someone makes their living making high profile, negative comments about other folks, their own glass walls may be exposed. O3000 ( talk) 15:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Mark Foster Gage ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This whole article has just been turned into an advert for this person. Very little sourcing done for the majority of the article, struggling to see actual notability here. Equine-man ( talk) 23:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Needs some scrutiny. I'm particularly concerned with Harris Bokhari#Muslim Association of Britain activism. I see that one source on the issue of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood is to the website of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, which I don't think is a suitable source for a BLP. I've just been dealing with an issue involving combining two sources to make an argument here [16] and [17] which is how I came upon Bokhari's article. Note that I have no sympathy for Bokhari's position on Ahamdiyya. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
(specifically Brody Dalle#Personal life
Brody Dalle's age is stated when she met Tim Armstrong, but Tim Armstrong's age isn't given. I have added that I believe he was 30 in 1995 (I did this last month and someone removed it). I think this is important information for both newer fans and older fans to be aware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.22.176 ( talk) 13:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The list of politicians listed as having been convicted of crimes in California has the same exact names on it as the list for Arkansas. If you click on the names, you will see they are ARKANSAS politicians from their descriptions; therefore, it seems that there is no list for California, which is what I was looking for when I came across this serious error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpecheur ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking for a second opinion here. Beausoleil was a very minor (probably non-notable at that point) musician and artist who was convicted of murder as part of the Manson "Family" and has been incarcerated since 1970. He is now going through the parole process. Someone apparently close to Beausoleil has been editing the article to (in my view) give undue weight to his "career" as a musician and artist, and give undue detail in the lede as to the parole process. I've reverted them, but they have responded with further reversions and threats to "report me" on the article talk page. I'm reluctant to get any further into edit-warring threats, and would appreciate uninvolved editors taking a look, and helping to determine where the balance should lie. Thanks. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I have been editing this page since 2016. It hasn’t been until recently (when Bobby Beausoleil was granted parole on January 3, 2019) that there has been a sudden interest in this page specifically the first paragraph or two. You imply that in your opinion that someone close to him is editing the article to give undue weight to his career and detail to his parole process. In fact, I’m not some one close to Beausoleil…just someone who feels strongly that he deserves recognition for his body of work. My special interest is in underground, counterculture, and experimental film, music and art. This area has been a passionate interest of mine since I was a teenager and I became aware of Beausoleil’s work through his soundtrack for the film by Kenneth Anger, Lucifer Rising. This film, the soundtrack in particular, is widely renowned by fans who have a similar interest. This work and other works by him are known in America, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Russia. His music has been released by legitimate and respected music labels in this country, the UK, Sweden, and Italy while his work has been featured in magazines published on both sides of the Atlantic.
It is clear that both of you are oriented to the sphere that Beausoleil should only be known as a murderer. You have both flatly stated this. Be advised that any attempt to prevent this Wiki page from including information about his work as an artist and musician is tantamount to censorship. Removing valid and significant information from a wiki page devoted to a living subject for the purpose of vilifying or presenting a one-sided perspective amounts to defamation, and is strictly prohibited by the wikipedia parameters. This editor will vigorously resist any attempt to represent Beausoleil as a murderer only unworthy of being recognized for his work.
You have implied that I have a bias and I could just as easily say the same for you and some of the other editors I have had to deal with the past two months. In my view, you are part of the contignency of people that want to put forth a biased agenda due to his past associations, i.e. Charles Manson, in an effort to sway public opinion. Mnpie1789 ( talk) 23:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Let me make it clear that I believe that Beausoleil’s crime is repugnant. I had no intention of changing any of the page detailing that part of the history. I hoped that other editors who continue to harbor harsh attitudes towards Beausoleil would be willing to meet halfway on the documentation of his history. So far it seems to have been a futile hope.
You are absolutely right, and thank you for pointing out to me what the correct Wikipedia criteria for sourcing information. Honestly, since other editors who have contributed to the page over the years have relied on references to the cielodrive website, which is almost exclusively a repository for court records, police records, and other public records, that I could use it as reference. It was never questioned in the past years, so I assumed it was allowed.
There is no pattern developing with the sources. Ghmyrtle was very insistent that the first paragraph was not properly sourced, so I went out of my way to give as many references as possible. I didn’t realize that would be cause for alarm or cause further issues. Since there are issues with using a blog that I found that has lots of well referenced articles on it, I have no problem getting rid of those and putting the actual referenced book/article/interview, etc. You may be right that the page should simply be gutted. It could simply be left that way, with all improperly sourced material discarded, or abandoned entirely. Be careful what you wish for.
As for you having an issue with PleaseKillMe.com because of the name, that reflects unmitigated bias. The website is named after a best selling book, Please Kill Me, which is a well-known definitive oral history about NYC punk by the writers, Legs McNeil and Gillian McCain, that has been in print for 20 years. Their website that I have referenced is considered their home where they post their recent articles as well as overseeing the other writers who contribute articles about art, music and pop culture. I highly recommend you look up Legs and Gillian’s Wikipedia pages to verify this. I used their review of Beausoleil’s last album to show that a well-established writers/rock journalists were behind it. If that isn’t considered a reliable source, then I’m at a loss as to what is.
I’m going to follow your suggestion and clean up the sourcing on the page, and eliminate the “narrative” language bits in the text. Thanks for your input. It was mostly on point. Mnpie1789 ( talk) 23:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Some of his activities before he was jailed were him being a member of the Grass Roots (before they became Love), the founder/lead of The Orkustra who is considered the official band of The Diggers and played with many famous bands such as Steve Miller Band, Buffalo Springfield and Charlatans at various shows in the bay area, and working on the Lucifer Rising soundtrack with another band he founded called the Magick Powerhouse of Oz in 1967 in exchange for Kenneth Anger wanting him to appear in the short film as an actor. Those are just some examples to show that he was an accomplished musician and artist before his crime and indeed shows that it is your opinion (which is unbalanced) that the only reason he has an article here is because he is a murderer. As for the longstanding version you are referring to that you edited, it has only been up for almost two months. A longstanding version would be my edit that goes as far back as 2018. With my edit there is a proper balance. It clearly shows the facts that he was a musician and multi-disciplined artist before prison and then it goes into his crime and association with Manson and the Manson family. Again, this is tantamount to censorship. As I said before, removing valid and significant information from a wiki page devoted to a living subject for the purpose of vilifying or presenting a one-sided perspective amounts to defamation, and is strictly prohibited by the wikipedia parameters. This editor will vigorously resist any attempt to represent Beausoleil as a murderer only unworthy of being recognized for his work. BTW, Please Kill Me is what Richard Hell wrote on his shirt before a gig with Television and he wound up giving it to Richard Lloyd to wear. You may find it obnoxious, but it's part of NYC punk history and should have no bearing here. [1] Mnpie1789 ( talk) 14:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The article Jesse Brown (journalist) seems highly reliant on Twitter as a source, particularly for its "criticism" section. It looks like an editor with a personal grudge against Brown is using the article as a form of retaliation. Could editors please review it? 75.119.247.233 ( talk) 01:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
In January 2019, Carter hoped
Cory Booker to run for
president.
[18]
[19]
This quickly got removed by another editor, citing "fails noteworthiness test" as the reason. Please help. I have tried to resolve the edit-dispute by:-
On 2nd thought, "Carter hoped Booker run for president" is the correct grammar, thanks. Tony85poon ( talk) 04:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/13/jimmy-carter-trump-1207385 Tony85poon ( talk) 23:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
<deleted>
Another tricky article, where the sexual misconduct allegations, at least some of them, are better sourced than the sections about him as a possibly notable person. This needs some attention from an article writer (I did some scrapping), and esp. the last section needs attention--is the content properly verified to reliable sources? Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
There is an RfC of interest at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#RfC about keeping perpetrator's/perpetrators' name in lead. wumbolo ^^^ 10:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The note at the end of the first para on Liz's lack of legal training is unsourced and frankly offensive given her 15 years of specialist work as the Deputy Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the British Columbia Privacy Commissioner and now the UK Information Commissioner. She is one of the key international leaders in this field.
Whether she went to Law School is irrelevant - and the recent edit doesn't make a case for why it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.6.10 ( talk) 14:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your time in reviewing this report.
I believe that this article exposes one weakness of the incredible resource that is Wikipedia; namely, that on articles with many sources in a foreign language, a few editors are able to control the content without a complete picture of the incident.
The article on the Providence religious movement has been a bit of a battleground between church members and editors for several years, which is unfortunate to see; however the article violates the BLP policy for several reasons.
In its current form, the article details that several former members accused Jung of sexual crimes, and their accusations were published in newspapers throughout the region. These are the papers that are generally being used as source material for the article.
However, as the trial developed, several investigative journalists published detailed reports which indicated several lapses on the part of the media, and false testimony from some of the witnesses(including one of the accusers eventually being convicted of perjury.)
Yet because these articles were not published in English, they were not easily accessible to the editors (I lived in Asia for several years, and as such was able to track sources in the original Korean.)
Here are a few examples of missing information:
1. The SBS was found in a court of law to have doctored and photo-shopped material of Jung. The Christian Gospel Mission sued SBS for this, won the lawsuit, and received 900 million won in compensation($900,000 USD). The court also gave the following orders: SBS must not broadcast material provided by the involved informant (Kim OO); SBS must inform the Christian Gospel Mission 48 hours before broadcasting any material related to their organization; SBS must guarantee 5% of the broadcasting time to the Christian Gospel Mission so that their rebuttal will also be aired. If these orders are violated, SBS must pay damages in the amount of 30 million won(30,000 US dollars) for each violation. SBS later issued an official letter of apology to the CGM.
2. It was discovered that Kim Do Hun of the anti-CGM group EXODUS, who originally orchestrated the press conference for the four plaintiffs against Jung, had demanded settlement money from Jung and the Christian Gospel Mission in the amount of 2,000,000,000 won (2 million USD) without the knowledge or consent of the four accusers.
3. During the trial of Jung's trial, one of the four original accusers, last name Jang, officially withdrew her lawsuit, stating on record that not committed a single act of sexual abuse, but that he was innocent. The court warned that recanting her testimony at that stage would mean she had committed perjury. Ms. Jang later appeared in court with her mother, said she did not care if she was punished, but maintained that no sexual abuse occurred and Jung was innocent. Additionally, she stated that plaintiff D--who filed together with her in a joint lawsuit--had also fabricated her allegations at the instruction of the original informer (Kim Do-hun of the anti-JMS group EXODUS). Jang was later convicted of perjury.
There are plenty of other examples as well.
I have access to the sources and tried to edit them into the article before simply as a section detailing the controversy around the trial, but was prevented from doing so.
The article should be fair and balanced in according with your policies; failure to include this information would be detrimental to the integrity of the article.
Thanks for your assistance, and I am happy to answer any additional questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOScali ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Above is a single purpose account who only edits pages related to Providence. This user is the same as GIOSCali ( talk · contribs), and on that account only edited Providence pages. There's a real problem for years where SPA would come in and make sweeping changes to Providence related pages, claim it's all lies, try to push sources tied to Providence, all in an attempt to white wash the article. Multiple users have been banned in regards to this. This happens about once every few years it seems. It's just a cycle that never ends. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 20:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
This article's references Alejandro Vandenbroele are all pointing to media sources, all of them largely known as opposition biased media. Considering the whole of the article treats about alleged crimes, the sources should be proper legal documents, or the criminal references completely removed from the article, as they're not properly sourced. This article, as it is sourced, is not different than fake news, and a shame for Wikipedia's image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.46.37.216 ( talk) 22:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Is being edited to remove the {{autobiography}} tag, and to include "man of the year" designation and other vaguely promotional content by Timenine, probably by a sock of the article subject. Could use eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
This article's history is full of irony. It was created by the subject on November 23, 2018. That account (and another) have been blocked by me as socks. At the time, Shupe had been successful in a legal petition to have their gender declared non-binary, meaning they were neither male nor female. Since then, Shupe has changed their mind about how they self-identify and wants to be considered male. The editing became tendentious, principally because the socks had not yet been blocked and there were obvious COI edits.
Shupe, who was likely pleased with the Oregon judge when the petition was succesful, is now less happy because of their change of mind. Shupe wrote an op-ed in which they accuse the Oregon judge of bias because supposedly the judge has a transgender child. Black Future has added the following to the article: "Shupe has since stated that he believes the judge, who has a transgender child, should have recused herself from the case due to the apparent conflict of interest, claiming 'she was advancing her child’s transgender identity, too.'" and citing to the op-ed. I have reverted twice as it's self-serving, WP:COATRACK, and a BLP violation of the judge. The material clearly violates WP:BLPSELFPUB.
I don't wish to edit-war even if my reverts are exempt under the BLP exception, so I've brought it here (skipping a discussion on the article Talk page, I know).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the offending sentence per BLP. The user that restored it cited that the source is primary, which still means it should be removed as per policy stating not to use primary sources for negative information related to people. Valeince ( talk) 21:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Maybe a simple question. The Mary Kay Letourneau BLP specifies the age of her child victim as 12 or 13 at earliest point. If you gather the sources, you have about a 50-50 split on this question. Half say 12, half say 13. Based on the principles of BLP, do we specify the age as 13 (the most clearly substantiated age), or present it as "12 or 13" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Someone who understands what "conservative" writing is, please review my appraisal here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary_Kay_Letourneau#age_of_victim
Ok, another try:
I've come to conclusions about this article:
But first, people insistent on defending the most salacious facts among the spectrum of alleged facts reported (even by reliable sources, like People!) need to be admonished. A pattern of more conservative claims that are also more credible is absolutely enough to abandon the more titillating claims.
When writing conservatively, ask what evidence-based explanation is most substantiated. It's a super-useful way to think about covering both tabloid and legal events. But it takes some clarity about what details reliable sources provide about the core claims, and whether we merely count instances or examine evidence to resolve uncertainty.
You and I are expected at all times to treat other editors with politeness, assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks. That hasn't been happening on this article.
Also, the following statement is a limit, and an opportunity:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources
In this policy, verdicts (and other court documents, but especially verdicts) can only augment NPOV-secondary sources. In this situation, that policy sounds powerful. We have a massive NPOV-secondary reach on this article, but obvious divergences in claims among those sources. I believe NPOV-primary sources would absolutely corroborate the NPOV-secondary sources that provide evidence (and favor the lesser-saliciousness). All of the verdicts in this matter are admissable as sources because they absolutely do augment NPOV-secondary sources about these legal events. However, I do think the police report is covered excellently by the Washington Post, and police testimony is covered by the Associated Press. Primary sources shouldn't be needed, but we sure could go there! Mcfnord ( talk) 20:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
My name, William W. Thompson, is used in the story regarding Ben Swann.
1. I am still an employee at the CDC. I have worked there continuously since 1998 and I am currently a senior scientist in the Division of Viral Hepatitis. This can be confirmed by contacting the CDC.
2. The claims I have made have never been discredited by legitimate scientific sources. I don't want to go into the details here because I am trying to adhere to the current gag order that has been put on me by the CDC until an internal investigation has been completed. This can be confirmed by contacting the CDC.
In my opinion, the current information in this story regarding me is libelous.
Sincerely,
Bill Thompson.(phone number removed)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.68.58 ( talk) 17:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Nader El-Bizri ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just to request the contributions of experienced Wikipedia editors to improve the content of the article and address any flagged issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.54.56 ( talk) 13:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
We are seeking the intervention of experienced Wikipedia editors to improve the article and evaluate whatever issues are raised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.144.26 ( talk) 08:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
All the references in the article are properly connected to institutions such universities, BBC, France Culture, academic press; so the issues flagged have been cleared and yet a note is still placed on the article and it therefore needs to be evaluated by experienced Wikipedia editors to reach consensus that the issues have been resolved — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.194.28 ( talk) 07:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Please can again any experienced Wikipedia editors look into improving the article and clearing the issues raised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.144.15 ( talk) 15:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The article had a long section on "Ideas" that was elaborated by multiple editors over time but it was deleted by the editor who placed the tags and that is why perhaps it reads now like a resume. Instead of deleting the whole section it could have been improved (although it had citation like the ones used in academic papers). Anyway more experienced editors can look into this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.194.26 ( talk) 06:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
References
Ilhan Omar has explicitly said in her Yahoo News interview that her mother was ethnically Yemeni.@9:14 [21] The article currently says she was partially Yemeni. Shouldnt we take the subjects word for it in this case? I was reverted several times on the page. Magherbin ( talk) 20:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
To many, the election of Abiy Ahmed, closely followed by the release of political prisoners and a real peace with neighbouring Eritrea, was one of the most hopeful recent developments in Africa.
However, the subsequent diminution in the power of ethnic minorities in the north of Ethiopia has meant a concentrated backlash.
Recently, the lead section of this BLP has become slanted in a way that I personally find unacceptable. What do others think? -- BushelCandle ( talk) 04:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Tariq Mahmood Idris ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, I removed unreferenced death place and death date from this article but a search of the web shows that he may well have died, eg. https://www.facebook.com/BritishMuslimHeritageCentre/posts/janaza-salah-islamic-funeral-prayer-arrangement-for-tariq-mahmood-idris-tomorrow/1329959593752853/ and https://eternalidolinterlude.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/in-loving-memory-of-my-friend-tariq/comment-page-1/ Can either of these be used to reference his death in the article ? or can someone find a reliable source, thanks GrahamHardy ( talk) 08:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
There is presently a discussion at Talk:Ali Bin Fetais Al-Marri regarding the removal of controversial material about the subject, who is the Attorney General of Qatar. I would invite any of the regular visitors to this page to possibly weigh in on the matter, to obtain a wider consensus. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I am a paid advocate of the person featured in this biography of a living person. Per Wiki guidelines, I have posted a number of facts on the Talk page of the article that we believe should be added to the article, as well as a few items we believe are inaccurate or misleading and should be deleted (all with the necessary sources). I would just like to call attention to those items and respectfully request that a Wiki editor review them. Thank you for your time. AMcKnightTaylor ( talk) 22:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello BLPN. I think there are inaccurate statements in our BLP Saikat Chakrabarti, concerning a complaint filed with the Federal Elections Commission. The problematic passages are:
... the attorney for the Ocasio-Cortez campaign and the political action committees with which Chakrabarti was associated, refuted the complaint as baseless ...– this clause has three problems:
Legal and campaign finance experts have expressed opinions consistent with Mitrani's assessment.This is entirely an OR interpretation (and not a correct one; the experts say there may be some minor wrongdoing, whereas the attorney says there is no wrongdoing whatsoever). The cited sources do not compare the experts' opinions with the attorneys' opinion. No RS reports that any legal or campaign finance expert said that the allegations are "baseless" or "refuted", etc.
The sources cited are Fox News, Washington Post, AP News, and Business Insider. To try to fix this, I edited the first clause to bring it closer to the sources, and removed the second clause, and posted on the article's talk page. My edits were reverted and consensus to maintain the status quo was declared on the talk page. I still think it's just a black-and-white issue of not accurately reporting what the sources are saying. So, I ask for more eyes on this. Thank you. Leviv ich 21:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Editors, many of them without many or any other edits to Wikipedia pages, are constantly adding that the subject (who was born and raised in New York) is a citizen of France, even though the claim isn't directly supported by sourcing. Usually, they are adding it right in the first sentence of his article. There is a source that appears to indicate he has a French passport, but, as our Wikipedia article on the topic states, a French passport "[serves] as indication of French citizenship" but "not proof [emphasis mine]; the possession of a French passport only establishes the presumption." In any case, it's original research and there doesn't appear to be a source that actually says he's a citizen. Sample : "To quote Art. 30-2 of French Civil Code, However, where French nationality may flow only from parentage, it shall be deemed established... Thus, born to a French father and holding a French passport, he should be considered a French citizen unless you can prove otherwise, not the other way around". This is the very definition of original research. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 06:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Please see talk page there! -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Spoonkymonkey, who is currently temporarily blocked, has been editing Jesse Brown (journalist) to re-add derogatory information sourced only to Twitter. [22] There are also reasons to believe he is in a COI situation Brown, which Arbcomm is aware of but which I am not going to go into here in order not to violate the policy on outing. Based on their editing patterns, it also appears that User:Spoonkymonkey used the sockpuppet User:Midlandino to edit the Brown article back in January. 104.222.125.138 ( talk) 22:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Gianna Jessen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is no evidence provided to substantiate her claim that she survived an attempted abortion. The entry should be clear about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfreeg ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Stephen Moore (writer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs administrator attention. Two editors ( User:Snooganssnoogans, User:Soibangla) are attempting to place violations into this article regardless of WP:RS (using blogspot, and a mediate source with paid pundits talking... not a journalist's report), WP:OR (stating things not stated in any source), and WP:SYNTH (by attempting to add their own rebuttals to his appointment, and to Moore's statements which simply no source is doing). I unfortunately do not have the time today to attempt to undo/change every edit against policy there. (I only happened to be editing the article at all since there was news of the appointment and not a lot about it in Moore's article for the public to read about... I wasn't out looking for bias) 2601:282:B00:B56A:89B9:FECA:6506:724A ( talk) 19:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Sam Hyde's affiliations to the "alt-right" have marred his career and are clearly being used as a form of defamation by user Mrschimpf by removing any edits that provide context for these claims. Additionally, Hyde's support of pizzagate is not a defining trait and continues to be included in the header of the article instead of in the body of the biography section where it belongs. Mrschimpf clearly has a penchant for ensuring his opinion based viewpoints on right leaning figures remain on several articles based on the users edit history. This user cannot be regarded as an unbiased contributor or moderator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Optional Syntax ( talk • contribs) 00:32, March 17, 2019 (UTC)
Gavin McInnes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page includes multiple libelous assertions that are either sourced to partisan opinion-editorials or to articles completely irrelevant to the text at hand. In the "Career" section, there is a pattern of putting quotes and the editor's personal views together in order to create a specific narrative of events that casts the subject of the page in a negative light. Also, in the "Views" section of the page, there is a general pattern of inserting out-of-context quotes in order to try to prove the editor's personal view of McGinnes.
Thanks for taking a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaddyoKrsna ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The article cites her appearance in a movie called "Neighbours" but that is an Indian vampire film. I believe the correct film is "Neighbors" by Judd Apatow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.157.15 ( talk) 14:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
E. J. Levy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User NekoKatsun has repeatedly (and almost immediately) removed edits I made to correct inaccurate content. NekoKatsun wholesale removed my entire edit and reverted the text back to a former version with incorrect information. I explicitly stated why I made the corrections, and offered citation support. NekoKatsun is using E.J. Levy's page to promote an agenda (a singular interpretation the real-life figure Levy's novel is based on, James Miranda Barry, when IN FACT there are many interpretations of Barry's life and gender, based on published biographies and articles, many of which I've read). Argument's about James Miranda Barry's life should be made on the Barry's page, not E.J. Levy's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caprae Lac ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowkidar Chor Hai on the grounds that the article violates WP:BLP and WP:SOAPBOX. While being one of the many throw-away slogans, the title itself claims the Indian Prime Minister is a "thief", and that is just an absurd allegation made by his opposition.
It needs some extra attention.
Arbcom has clarified before that BLP applies on such stuff per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Principles. 103.220.38.163 ( talk) 18:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
For Sasha Grey two contributors agree that TMZ is an unreliable source, and that a recently archived talk page consensus about Dubiously cited information under "Personal Life" stated in 2016 about TMZ is still valid. This consensus also explicitly covers a Complex.com source based on the TMZ report. Fun fact, the two contributors are the GA nominator and the GA reviewer for Sasha Grey.
The reviewer suggested to add the info with reliable sources including Complex, The Daily Beast, and Daily Dot. The nominator rejected Complex.com per consensus, and rejected The Daily Beast per RS/P (yellow) and the immediate removal of an attempted January 2018 use of this source; as noted at the end of the recently archived consensus.
Both consider The Daily Dot as good source (RS/P green), and the article is used as source on Sasha Grey, but not for the TMZ info. Likewise the nominator added a Mandatory.com source for another fact, ignoring the same TMZ info also quoted by Mandatory. In a second review pass both contributors started to repeat their arguments unmodified, only one "find more" suggestion is covered by Mandatory. JFTR, an unrelated The Daily Beast source is used on the "almost good" article uncontested. – 84.46.53.4 ( talk) 00:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
With the GA review now out of the way (fail) I'm still interested in other opinions about the TMZ source, it is only tagged as "yellow" (caution) instead of "red" (verboten) on WP:RS/P#TMZ. – 84.46.52.48 ( talk) 13:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
In February 2018, Laura Dekker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) gave an interview with American Sailing Association. The article is titled "Laura Dekker Interview, Part 1". A direct quote from that article is posted below. https://asa.com/news/2018/02/06/laura-dekker-interview-pt1/
Laura Dekker recently gave a presentation at a fund raiser for LifeSail, a Los Angeles non-profit that uses sailing as a vehicle to teach life lessons to kids. As fate would have it, Dekker has donated her beloved Guppy, the very boat she did the trip on, to LifeSail. She has similar ideals about sailing’s educational value and soon the boat will make its way from New Zealand to LA via Fiji and Hawaii.
The same reference is used in the line: In February 2018, Dekker loaned 'Guppy to LifeSail, a Los Angeles non-profit that uses sailing as a vehicle to teach life lessons to kids. [73] [1]
However, this line states loaned, which according to the American Sailing Association article is inaccurate.
References
Adesuwa Aighewi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi!
This is Adesuwa Aighewi. I was born in 1992, someone keeps changing it to 1988. They have now blocked anyone from editing. This is a problem for my career. Can we please change back to my real age of 26 and not allow anymore changing?
Thank you!
AA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adesuwa Aighewi ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I am contacting you regarding the article for Gary Cohn, the investment banker (found at /info/en/?search=Gary_Cohn_(investment_banker)). I do not regularly edit Wikipedia pages and am not completely familiar with the procedures, but the below paragraph struck me as strange compared to the tone of other Wikipedia articles:
Critics of Cohn's describe his work style as arrogant, aggressive, abrasive, and risk-prone. They describe his "6-foot 3-inch & 220lbs" stature as intimidating, as he might "sometimes hike up one leg, plant his foot on a trader's desk, his thigh close to the employee's face, and ask how markets were doing".[15] According to former Bear Stearns Asset Management CEO Richard Marin, Cohn's arrogance is at the root of the problem. "When you become arrogant, in a trading sense, you begin to think that everybody's a counterparty, not a customer, not a client."[15]
Cohn's supporters see these qualities as advantages. Michael Ovitz, co-founder and former chairman of Creative Artists Agency and former president of The Walt Disney Company, stated that he is impressed with Cohn. Ovitz said: "He's a trader. He has that whole feel in his body and brain and fingertips."[15] Ovitz sees Cohn's toughness as a "positive" value, explaining that a high-ranking executive can't be "all peaches and cream".[11][15]
Donna Redel, who was Chairman of the Board of the New York Mercantile Exchange when Cohn worked there as a silver trader, remembers Cohn as "firm", "strategic", and "driven". Martin Greenberg, her predecessor, said Cohn "was tough", and added, "Gary got in with the right people, worked his ass off, and used his head".[15]
No matter an individual’s opinion on Mr. Cohn (with whom I have no professional affiliation), I think the bolded material presents some potential issues in terms of quality and tone. The first bolded sentence appears to be a bit biased in the tone - I think a balanced approach could be taken in the description of these qualities, but this paragraph is not how it would be done. Additionally. The combination of the attribution "arrogant, aggressive, abrasive, and risk-prone.” is not quoted, which masks the fact that the referenced article (view-source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-24/succeeding-blankfein-at-goldman-may-prove-hurdle-too-high-for-no-2-cohn) never presents this depiction of Mr. Cohn as described here. Specifically, Richard Marin is the only person in the article mentioned as viewing Mr. Cohn as arrogant, the full quote reading "Richard Marin said Cohn's arrogance is at 'the root of the problem' at Goldman Sachs. 'When you become arrogant, in a trading sense, you begin to think that everybody's a counterparty, not a customer, not a client,' Marin said. 'And as a counterparty, you're allowed to rip their face off.’” Especially since the descriptor “arrogant” is applied twice in the Wikipedia article, it seems a bit misleading considering that both references refer to a single quote which is the only use of the word in the referenced Bloomberg article. The referenced Bloomberg article never describes Cohn as aggressive, and in fact the only use of the word is from a lawyer definitively saying that Cohn was not aggressive. The referenced Bloomberg article never describes Cohn as risk-prone (which I think is a malapropism in this context in any case); in fact, the only mention of Mr. Cohn in connection with risk in the article is describing how his willingness to take risks while leader of a business unit led to great success for that unit. The phrase “intimidating, as he might” is part of the quote, and I think it is arguably displaying of a point-of-view when it is not displayed in this way. The way the phrase “the root of the problem” appears in the Wikipedia article (removed from the original quote, see above) I feel is arguably non-neutral in its perspective.
Your team may agree with any or all of these comments; I flag them for your attention in the hope that the material of the article can be reviewed by people with more experience than myself and, if appropriate, make changes. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.10.215 ( talk) 17:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I am the creator of Robert Schwarz (astrophysicist). Yesterday, anonymous user 157.132.20.166 began removing text from the page. The first removal had no description, so I undid it. Later removal descriptions say that they were done by Dr. Schwarz himself, who is upset that the page was written without his knowledge. A check of https://www.whatismyip.com/ip-address-lookup/ shows this IP address is associated with the U.S. Antarctic program, and so I believe these comments were actually written by Dr. Schwarz. I believe that all of the information on the page--including the information removed--was well-sourced and written in a neutral point of view. What is the appropriate thing to do here? EAWH ( talk) 18:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The article Simon Palfrey appears to have been written either by the subject of the biography himself, or by a person closely connected with him.
The article as a whole reads like a piece of self-advertising or self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:E41B:4100:D921:E7B4:D7CA:6D09 ( talk) 13:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
An IP editor has repeatedly been changing the birth date without a supporting source. I initially reverted to the previous version but, upon realising that the cited source was a deadlink, removed the information entirely. The editor has continued to restore the unsourced material. I am now at 3RR and do not wish to edit war, so I am posting here. – Tera tix ₵ 09:38, 28 March 2019 (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.
Stephanie Singer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Stephanie_Singer&type=revision&diff=889669018&oldid=878720327
Please remove the added paragraph.
The added paragraph contains a false and libelous statement.
The added paragraph has no citation and seems designed to damage my reputation.
-- Symmetrysinger ( talk) 18:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Stephanie Singer
This article is about a lawyer for whom a section was created about multiple disciplinary items he was involved in with the Maryland state bar association. All of these issues were sourced from a single RS. However the vast number of the issues weren’t even mentioned by the RS. I subsequently deleted the entire section. I’ve no interest in cleaning up the text to find what may be sourced. It is incumbent upon the editors who added such material to make sure it was properly sourced. Some may say this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don’t know if there was a baby to begin with. Feel free to re-add this section if you can find adequate sourcing. Regardless, I would appreciate it if you could add this to your watchlist and if it isn’t too much trouble to indicate here that you’re keeping an eye on the article, just so I know this has some eyeballs on the thing. Much appreciated -- That man from Nantucket ( talk) 01:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Talk:Jonathan_Swan#Request_Edit_--_Remove_Contentious_Material_re:_BLP. I have a disclosed COI regarding this discussion. BC1278 ( talk) 22:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
I thought I would avoid the curling project and bring this up here to get NPOV as to WP:Undue etc. The details are big in the curling world; being talked about by Vic Rauter and Russ Howard on the TSN coverage of the world championships. Thoughts? 96.55.104.236 ( talk) 17:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Many changes were made to this article by JWSM-Bungarabee which include a number of allegations and negative personal opinions about presumably living people and current organisations. Many of the edits are large and often edit previous edits so it is hard to pin down the problems to specific edits. Some examples that particularly concern me though are:
Apart from BLP concerns, many of the edits are citing an unpublished source (citation [1]) written by the contributor (comments refer to it as their own work). A previous attempt was made by another editor to undo some of these edits but these were subsequently restored by JWSM-Bungarabee. Kerry ( talk) 09:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Andrew Wiles ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't know if this is worthy to post here, but I have a concern regarding the wiki page for mathematician Andrew Wiles. The guy is a genius and highly respected in the mathematics community. He's definitely going down in the history books. However, the image used on the page is not flattering at all. There are many images available online that look much nicer, many of which compose of him writing mathematical statements on a chalkboard. There is even a beautifully done portrait of him by painter Rupert Alexander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencerkraisler ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me there is a trend in Wikipedia to include political cartoons about Saudi monarch Mohammad bin Salman portraying killing Jamal Khashoggi in multiple articles. This issue has been previously discussed in Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi article where community consensus has determined that it violates WP:BLP and was removed. However, these pictures still show up in multiple articles ( Jamal Khashoggi page for example) and most of these cartoons are published by a an Iranian based news website ( Tasnim News Agency). There seems to be conflicting views on to include such political cartoons in BLP pages or not while those seeking inclusion argue about censorship so I would like to get to the bottom of it here. Isn't a political cartoon essentially an opinion? I don't mind having these cartoons published in the Editorial cartoon or it's author's page, but does this material merit inclusion in a BLP article? Would appreciate someone's who's experienced in BLP articles opinion. Thanks. Wikiemirati ( talk) 21:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Please could I ask the word Evangelist is taken out of the title of this entry? Mark is a CEO of charity. A more appropriate title would be Mark Russell (Charity Executive). The current title is misleading and leads people reading the entry to assume things that aren't the case
That would be very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:AF15:300:E8BA:7C6B:82F:B64E ( talk) 17:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Now, evangelical organizations may hire experts who don't share that faith. Corporations hire outsiders to be their CEOs all the time. A young Steve Jobs hired the older former CEO of Pepsico to run Apple, a few decades ago, who the fired Jobs, and almost drove Apple into the ground. If Church Army hired an outsider, I'd agree with the disambiguator "executive". If Russell lost his faith, so being CEO was just a job, I'd agree with the disambiguator "executive". But that is not the case, is it? Isn't he still an evangelical? Geo Swan ( talk) 15:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Vox Day ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Grayfell Continuously re-adding poorly sourced content that violates BLP because
1. It fails basic NPOV guidelines. It ignores several other articles that don't describe Vox Day as "Far-Right" or "Alt-Right" in favor of one single, cherrypicked article, that describes him as far-right ONLY ONCE.
Vox,
The
Guardian,
Polygon,
advocate.com, and
Wired all fail to describe Vox Day as "far-right".
2. It fails
WP:LABEL by including a label that isn't widely used by sources (and in fact, isn't used by most reliable sources), and should be an in-text attribution, not a label (i.e. "has been described as far-right")
50.107.79.14 (
talk) 01:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked --
Tsumikiria⧸
🌹
🌉
21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Setting aside the WP:SOCK concerns raised by the IP's behavior (such as this post)...
He also owes thousands to far-right writers like the anti-Islamist Pamela Geller and to science fiction writer Theodore Beale (Vox Day). [1]
This is very obviously the same sock as 50.107.81.26 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was previously blocked for evasion. Grayfell ( talk) 02:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Folks. No need to waste your time on a sock of a purely disruptive troll who was not here to improve the project in the first place. The IP is now CheckUser blocked by NinjaRobotPirate. Quoting Drmies, "Trolls and POV pushers are like dogs returning to their vomit". Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹 🌉 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
A barrage of IP users have been editing the page to include unsourced, partisan snipes to push a narrative in favor of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, because Ms. Maxwell holds negative opinions of her. This is likely either an organized brigade from Twitter or one user with a handful of devices with IP addresses. It will likely pass within a few days, however, for now it's currently unprotected with a few folks keeping a constant eye on it. -- KingForPA ( talk) 16:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Editors keep trying to push a Western/Anti-Russian pov on the Ben Swann page by changing the word "narrative" to "propaganda" when source clearly uses the former term. More eyes on this would be appreciated. -- 74.195.159.155 ( talk) 14:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
"Reality Check", which has garnered media attention for questioning widely accepted narratives on high-profile controversies such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, and an alleged link between vaccines and autism.
promoting conspiracy theories about…
all editors' legitimate concerns
legitimate concerns
legitimate
Luke Brugnara ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've been attempting to clean up the article on Luke Brugnara, which was very POV, with extensive statements that weren't actually supported by the cited sources. User Joshualeverburg1 (the article's original creator) has reverted all my edits, first just with the explanation "reverting vandalism," and most recently with the statement that I was trying to "besmirch" the article's subject by posting "false statements." I've asked multiple times for Joshualeverburg1 to come to the talk page to discuss these edits, as well as posting a warning about edit warring on his talk page, but he has refused to engage in any discussion about the article. Any suggestions on where we go from here? BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 22:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, it appears that the user threatened legal action, and has been blocked. Would it be appropriate for me to restore my edits at this point, or would that constitute edit warring? BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 23:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
On the Harry Lloyd page, the same IP address, 2.39.36.135, keeps adding the same information about the actor's wife. The information is entirely speculation on a "fake marriage", when the actor has actually confirmed his marital status here in an interview for UTP (Un-titled Project) magazine. They also keep stating that interviews given to reputable media sources by the actor are "fake", with no sourcing of this theory, and claims the actor is actively vandalising his own page to "troll". Other than perhaps a throw-away sentence in a life section of some sort I don't think his wife needs any mention at all, as she is not notable and a low-profile individual.
Myself and other users keep reverting the edits, but as this material continues to be added I thought it would be appropriate to raise the issue here (apologies if this isn't correct procedure, I'm new!). The material added also infringes POV and OR rules as the edits consistently paint the actor as a "troll" as part of this person's wild speculations, without trustworthy sources. If this isn't the correct board for this, could someone point me in the right direction?
I thought the issue was worth raising here because of how the same defamatory content is repeatedly added time and time again. (I also cross-posted this to the OR noticeboard, apologies if that was incorrect)
SillyRoundKatie ( talk) 20:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@ GreenMeansGo: SillyRoundKatie ( talk) 00:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC) They have unfortunately just begun making the edits again, is there anything further I can do other than keep removing them? I don't want to seem that I am edit-warring SillyRoundKatie ( talk) 00:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Contributions from Wikipedia user Jimmy Bing displays several edits that would reveal an admitted conflict of interest. Many defensive edits to the W. Mark Lanier page leaves room for question that someone close to the indivdual or possibly employed by the Lanier Law Firm is making edits in his best interest.
Examples below:
22:35, 17 June 2009 diff hist +135 Virtuality (film) Fox has no official site. Check futurefox.com, they've linked to us.
20:51, 17 June 2009 diff hist +63 Virtuality (film) We're working with FOX to promote the show.
Special:Contributions/Jimmy_Bing
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:1700:c8c0:ec90:89a:e7fb:f034:c4a1 (
talk)
04:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
See Naomi Osaka. I'm not actually sure if the source technically supports the content we attribute to it, since having two passports is essentially the same as holding dual citizenship for almost all purposes. But Japan doesn't recognize dual citizenship for anyone over the age of 20; presumably this is quietly overlooked in the case of talented athletes who live outside Japan but want to represent Japan in their chosen sport, but it seems highly likely the Japanese Ministry of Justice would feel differently if she took up residency in Japan and decided to play tennis as an American. And I can't escape the sneaky feeling that if it really was a matter of her holding dual citizenship, our source would just come out and say that directly rather than specifically referring to the number of passports she possesses. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Zofia Klepacka ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anti-LGBT/homophobic vandalism. Please, lock the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.80.21 ( talk) 16:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Quick general question: is there some kind of consensus on whether participation in a documenta makes an artist notable? My notion would be yes, it being an invited and highly prestigious event; but not sure of precedents. (specific case in point - Nomin Bold, who also has other international exhibitions under her belt, so probably not riding on that) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Derogatory article mentioning Cow belt, whether Indian govt has spine, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajnp1 ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
A bio turned into a press release, filled with promotional blurbs. More eyes on this, please. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 05:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Problematic edits by eponymous account. Unsourced personal content, including some with WP:BLP issues that may need to be rev/deleted. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 19:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
In 2010, Hank Johnson expressed fears about Guam capsizing during a Congressional hearing, should his comment be mentioned in the lead paragraph of his entry? The gaffe is currently covered in the article body, but not the lead. Here's the edit in question. Nblund talk 20:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm unsure if this is the correct place to address this issue, apologies if it isn't. Article on Jérôme_Rothen is subject to (at the moment) minor vandalism related to the recent PSG-ManUtd champions league match. Patrice_Evra referred to him in a disparaging way that has gone viral, i believe the french version of the article has been locked and it might be worth putting a temporary lock on the article until the fuss dies down. Zaq12wsx ( talk) 11:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I am Professor Jose M Bernardo. Years ago, someone created a biography on me José-Miguel Bernardo I have now an ongoing argument against ISBA. I am fighting legally their reasons to exclude me: I consider their action to be seriously libelous and a violation of my honorability, and I do not want their original decision (never supported by any form of legal jury) to be mentioned in my bibliography. I have edited out that paragraph twice, and someone (who obvously holds a grudge on me) has added it again. If this cannot be stopped, I would rather have my entire biography removed from Wikipedia (I guess I am entitled to that). I am editing out this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseMBernardo ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on here, some kind of edit warring over marital status going back to June last year, ongoing today [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Please help me with...
<Kenneth Blum is listed by Quackwatch as a promoter of questionable health products.[2] and Doctors writing for Quackwatch have questioned the scientific credibility of the genetic tests that Blum markets.[7]-->
I have no experience with Wikipedia and need help to get the article right. Kenneth Blum is a living persons and according to your guidelines high-quality sources should be used and any material must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Recently there seems to have been postings that are not neutral, or verifiable.
Ref {2} and {7} refer to the same article cited on the Quackwatch website. The website Quackwatch is endorsed by a group of naysayers who call themselves “ Skeptics.” Stephen Barrett and his board of 20 are known for many non –scientific attacks on alternative medical approaches including vitamins and minerals or any nutritional supplement. Barrett appears to have no understanding of basic scientific exploration having had no experience in the field. Therefore, any statements cited in this Wikipedia page must be read with caution and dismissed based on unsupported claims. Stephen Barrett is a self- proclaimed promoter of unscientific bias against all alternative medicine. Most experienced scientists and practitioners of alternative medicine and traditional medicine oppose Quackwatch and Barrett. Donna Ladd, a journalist with the Village Voice, says that "Barrett relies mostly on negative research even to the point of rejecting positive [peer reviewed] studies.” Throughout life Linus Pauling winner of two Nobel Prizes, was also called “the world’s biggest Quack,” and even Albert Einstein stated that Pauling’s research was too complicated for him to understand. MargMad (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MargMad (
talk •
contribs)
Elvera Sanchez ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biography says Sammy Davis Jr was her only child then end of article says she was survived by her daughter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.0.168 ( talk) 15:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Sword and Scale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There has been some long-term edit warring going on at Sword and Scale between MBoudet (and some IPs) and Satani over a section of the article that MBoudet claims is defamatory. If MBoudet is who he claims to be, then it's clear they have a COI (see WP:COIN#Sword and Scale); however, his BLP concerns probably shouldn't have been laughed off in edit sums by Satani per WP:BLPREMOVE. There's been no article talk page discussion about this at all, so it might be a good idea to for some others to get involved and sort through this. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe some of you can have a look at this article and its recent history, and make a judgment on the content and the sourcing. Thank you all so much, Drmies ( talk) 03:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I have reviewed this article and find it to be really poorly sourced and primarily self-promotional. Moreover, the individual in question is hardly notable in any way. Frankly, she is little more than an extra. I would nominate for deletion. Coffee312 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
In the wiki page on Jamie Moyer, the section on his personal life implies that he is still married to Karen Moyer. Karen and Jamie were divorced in 2017. I'm a friend of Jamie's. He has expressed the desire to see his personal information updated to reflect reality but has no idea how to do it. I told him I would try. I can't find a reference online to the Moyers' divorce but I know it is true. You might try contacting him. 24.17.11.63 ( talk) 01:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)M A Ganong
Tucker Carlson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would like to call editors experienced with BLP to the breaking news about Tucker Carlson's comments from a couple years ago on a call-in show. An editor at the article talk page said that Carlson "is a public figures, which negates WP:BLP concerns." I am, of course, not defending the comments, but I think some context is missing, the way it is written now isn't optimal, and we should still presume BLP applies to that page. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
one instance, I'd agree. Appears that he made these comments over many instances over years. I removed it at first because of the sourcing. But, it's now hitting RS. If someone makes their living making high profile, negative comments about other folks, their own glass walls may be exposed. O3000 ( talk) 15:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Mark Foster Gage ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This whole article has just been turned into an advert for this person. Very little sourcing done for the majority of the article, struggling to see actual notability here. Equine-man ( talk) 23:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Needs some scrutiny. I'm particularly concerned with Harris Bokhari#Muslim Association of Britain activism. I see that one source on the issue of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood is to the website of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, which I don't think is a suitable source for a BLP. I've just been dealing with an issue involving combining two sources to make an argument here [16] and [17] which is how I came upon Bokhari's article. Note that I have no sympathy for Bokhari's position on Ahamdiyya. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
(specifically Brody Dalle#Personal life
Brody Dalle's age is stated when she met Tim Armstrong, but Tim Armstrong's age isn't given. I have added that I believe he was 30 in 1995 (I did this last month and someone removed it). I think this is important information for both newer fans and older fans to be aware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.22.176 ( talk) 13:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The list of politicians listed as having been convicted of crimes in California has the same exact names on it as the list for Arkansas. If you click on the names, you will see they are ARKANSAS politicians from their descriptions; therefore, it seems that there is no list for California, which is what I was looking for when I came across this serious error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpecheur ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking for a second opinion here. Beausoleil was a very minor (probably non-notable at that point) musician and artist who was convicted of murder as part of the Manson "Family" and has been incarcerated since 1970. He is now going through the parole process. Someone apparently close to Beausoleil has been editing the article to (in my view) give undue weight to his "career" as a musician and artist, and give undue detail in the lede as to the parole process. I've reverted them, but they have responded with further reversions and threats to "report me" on the article talk page. I'm reluctant to get any further into edit-warring threats, and would appreciate uninvolved editors taking a look, and helping to determine where the balance should lie. Thanks. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I have been editing this page since 2016. It hasn’t been until recently (when Bobby Beausoleil was granted parole on January 3, 2019) that there has been a sudden interest in this page specifically the first paragraph or two. You imply that in your opinion that someone close to him is editing the article to give undue weight to his career and detail to his parole process. In fact, I’m not some one close to Beausoleil…just someone who feels strongly that he deserves recognition for his body of work. My special interest is in underground, counterculture, and experimental film, music and art. This area has been a passionate interest of mine since I was a teenager and I became aware of Beausoleil’s work through his soundtrack for the film by Kenneth Anger, Lucifer Rising. This film, the soundtrack in particular, is widely renowned by fans who have a similar interest. This work and other works by him are known in America, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Russia. His music has been released by legitimate and respected music labels in this country, the UK, Sweden, and Italy while his work has been featured in magazines published on both sides of the Atlantic.
It is clear that both of you are oriented to the sphere that Beausoleil should only be known as a murderer. You have both flatly stated this. Be advised that any attempt to prevent this Wiki page from including information about his work as an artist and musician is tantamount to censorship. Removing valid and significant information from a wiki page devoted to a living subject for the purpose of vilifying or presenting a one-sided perspective amounts to defamation, and is strictly prohibited by the wikipedia parameters. This editor will vigorously resist any attempt to represent Beausoleil as a murderer only unworthy of being recognized for his work.
You have implied that I have a bias and I could just as easily say the same for you and some of the other editors I have had to deal with the past two months. In my view, you are part of the contignency of people that want to put forth a biased agenda due to his past associations, i.e. Charles Manson, in an effort to sway public opinion. Mnpie1789 ( talk) 23:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Let me make it clear that I believe that Beausoleil’s crime is repugnant. I had no intention of changing any of the page detailing that part of the history. I hoped that other editors who continue to harbor harsh attitudes towards Beausoleil would be willing to meet halfway on the documentation of his history. So far it seems to have been a futile hope.
You are absolutely right, and thank you for pointing out to me what the correct Wikipedia criteria for sourcing information. Honestly, since other editors who have contributed to the page over the years have relied on references to the cielodrive website, which is almost exclusively a repository for court records, police records, and other public records, that I could use it as reference. It was never questioned in the past years, so I assumed it was allowed.
There is no pattern developing with the sources. Ghmyrtle was very insistent that the first paragraph was not properly sourced, so I went out of my way to give as many references as possible. I didn’t realize that would be cause for alarm or cause further issues. Since there are issues with using a blog that I found that has lots of well referenced articles on it, I have no problem getting rid of those and putting the actual referenced book/article/interview, etc. You may be right that the page should simply be gutted. It could simply be left that way, with all improperly sourced material discarded, or abandoned entirely. Be careful what you wish for.
As for you having an issue with PleaseKillMe.com because of the name, that reflects unmitigated bias. The website is named after a best selling book, Please Kill Me, which is a well-known definitive oral history about NYC punk by the writers, Legs McNeil and Gillian McCain, that has been in print for 20 years. Their website that I have referenced is considered their home where they post their recent articles as well as overseeing the other writers who contribute articles about art, music and pop culture. I highly recommend you look up Legs and Gillian’s Wikipedia pages to verify this. I used their review of Beausoleil’s last album to show that a well-established writers/rock journalists were behind it. If that isn’t considered a reliable source, then I’m at a loss as to what is.
I’m going to follow your suggestion and clean up the sourcing on the page, and eliminate the “narrative” language bits in the text. Thanks for your input. It was mostly on point. Mnpie1789 ( talk) 23:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Some of his activities before he was jailed were him being a member of the Grass Roots (before they became Love), the founder/lead of The Orkustra who is considered the official band of The Diggers and played with many famous bands such as Steve Miller Band, Buffalo Springfield and Charlatans at various shows in the bay area, and working on the Lucifer Rising soundtrack with another band he founded called the Magick Powerhouse of Oz in 1967 in exchange for Kenneth Anger wanting him to appear in the short film as an actor. Those are just some examples to show that he was an accomplished musician and artist before his crime and indeed shows that it is your opinion (which is unbalanced) that the only reason he has an article here is because he is a murderer. As for the longstanding version you are referring to that you edited, it has only been up for almost two months. A longstanding version would be my edit that goes as far back as 2018. With my edit there is a proper balance. It clearly shows the facts that he was a musician and multi-disciplined artist before prison and then it goes into his crime and association with Manson and the Manson family. Again, this is tantamount to censorship. As I said before, removing valid and significant information from a wiki page devoted to a living subject for the purpose of vilifying or presenting a one-sided perspective amounts to defamation, and is strictly prohibited by the wikipedia parameters. This editor will vigorously resist any attempt to represent Beausoleil as a murderer only unworthy of being recognized for his work. BTW, Please Kill Me is what Richard Hell wrote on his shirt before a gig with Television and he wound up giving it to Richard Lloyd to wear. You may find it obnoxious, but it's part of NYC punk history and should have no bearing here. [1] Mnpie1789 ( talk) 14:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The article Jesse Brown (journalist) seems highly reliant on Twitter as a source, particularly for its "criticism" section. It looks like an editor with a personal grudge against Brown is using the article as a form of retaliation. Could editors please review it? 75.119.247.233 ( talk) 01:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
In January 2019, Carter hoped
Cory Booker to run for
president.
[18]
[19]
This quickly got removed by another editor, citing "fails noteworthiness test" as the reason. Please help. I have tried to resolve the edit-dispute by:-
On 2nd thought, "Carter hoped Booker run for president" is the correct grammar, thanks. Tony85poon ( talk) 04:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/13/jimmy-carter-trump-1207385 Tony85poon ( talk) 23:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
<deleted>
Another tricky article, where the sexual misconduct allegations, at least some of them, are better sourced than the sections about him as a possibly notable person. This needs some attention from an article writer (I did some scrapping), and esp. the last section needs attention--is the content properly verified to reliable sources? Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
There is an RfC of interest at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#RfC about keeping perpetrator's/perpetrators' name in lead. wumbolo ^^^ 10:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The note at the end of the first para on Liz's lack of legal training is unsourced and frankly offensive given her 15 years of specialist work as the Deputy Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the British Columbia Privacy Commissioner and now the UK Information Commissioner. She is one of the key international leaders in this field.
Whether she went to Law School is irrelevant - and the recent edit doesn't make a case for why it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.6.10 ( talk) 14:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your time in reviewing this report.
I believe that this article exposes one weakness of the incredible resource that is Wikipedia; namely, that on articles with many sources in a foreign language, a few editors are able to control the content without a complete picture of the incident.
The article on the Providence religious movement has been a bit of a battleground between church members and editors for several years, which is unfortunate to see; however the article violates the BLP policy for several reasons.
In its current form, the article details that several former members accused Jung of sexual crimes, and their accusations were published in newspapers throughout the region. These are the papers that are generally being used as source material for the article.
However, as the trial developed, several investigative journalists published detailed reports which indicated several lapses on the part of the media, and false testimony from some of the witnesses(including one of the accusers eventually being convicted of perjury.)
Yet because these articles were not published in English, they were not easily accessible to the editors (I lived in Asia for several years, and as such was able to track sources in the original Korean.)
Here are a few examples of missing information:
1. The SBS was found in a court of law to have doctored and photo-shopped material of Jung. The Christian Gospel Mission sued SBS for this, won the lawsuit, and received 900 million won in compensation($900,000 USD). The court also gave the following orders: SBS must not broadcast material provided by the involved informant (Kim OO); SBS must inform the Christian Gospel Mission 48 hours before broadcasting any material related to their organization; SBS must guarantee 5% of the broadcasting time to the Christian Gospel Mission so that their rebuttal will also be aired. If these orders are violated, SBS must pay damages in the amount of 30 million won(30,000 US dollars) for each violation. SBS later issued an official letter of apology to the CGM.
2. It was discovered that Kim Do Hun of the anti-CGM group EXODUS, who originally orchestrated the press conference for the four plaintiffs against Jung, had demanded settlement money from Jung and the Christian Gospel Mission in the amount of 2,000,000,000 won (2 million USD) without the knowledge or consent of the four accusers.
3. During the trial of Jung's trial, one of the four original accusers, last name Jang, officially withdrew her lawsuit, stating on record that not committed a single act of sexual abuse, but that he was innocent. The court warned that recanting her testimony at that stage would mean she had committed perjury. Ms. Jang later appeared in court with her mother, said she did not care if she was punished, but maintained that no sexual abuse occurred and Jung was innocent. Additionally, she stated that plaintiff D--who filed together with her in a joint lawsuit--had also fabricated her allegations at the instruction of the original informer (Kim Do-hun of the anti-JMS group EXODUS). Jang was later convicted of perjury.
There are plenty of other examples as well.
I have access to the sources and tried to edit them into the article before simply as a section detailing the controversy around the trial, but was prevented from doing so.
The article should be fair and balanced in according with your policies; failure to include this information would be detrimental to the integrity of the article.
Thanks for your assistance, and I am happy to answer any additional questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOScali ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Above is a single purpose account who only edits pages related to Providence. This user is the same as GIOSCali ( talk · contribs), and on that account only edited Providence pages. There's a real problem for years where SPA would come in and make sweeping changes to Providence related pages, claim it's all lies, try to push sources tied to Providence, all in an attempt to white wash the article. Multiple users have been banned in regards to this. This happens about once every few years it seems. It's just a cycle that never ends. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 20:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
This article's references Alejandro Vandenbroele are all pointing to media sources, all of them largely known as opposition biased media. Considering the whole of the article treats about alleged crimes, the sources should be proper legal documents, or the criminal references completely removed from the article, as they're not properly sourced. This article, as it is sourced, is not different than fake news, and a shame for Wikipedia's image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.46.37.216 ( talk) 22:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Is being edited to remove the {{autobiography}} tag, and to include "man of the year" designation and other vaguely promotional content by Timenine, probably by a sock of the article subject. Could use eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
This article's history is full of irony. It was created by the subject on November 23, 2018. That account (and another) have been blocked by me as socks. At the time, Shupe had been successful in a legal petition to have their gender declared non-binary, meaning they were neither male nor female. Since then, Shupe has changed their mind about how they self-identify and wants to be considered male. The editing became tendentious, principally because the socks had not yet been blocked and there were obvious COI edits.
Shupe, who was likely pleased with the Oregon judge when the petition was succesful, is now less happy because of their change of mind. Shupe wrote an op-ed in which they accuse the Oregon judge of bias because supposedly the judge has a transgender child. Black Future has added the following to the article: "Shupe has since stated that he believes the judge, who has a transgender child, should have recused herself from the case due to the apparent conflict of interest, claiming 'she was advancing her child’s transgender identity, too.'" and citing to the op-ed. I have reverted twice as it's self-serving, WP:COATRACK, and a BLP violation of the judge. The material clearly violates WP:BLPSELFPUB.
I don't wish to edit-war even if my reverts are exempt under the BLP exception, so I've brought it here (skipping a discussion on the article Talk page, I know).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the offending sentence per BLP. The user that restored it cited that the source is primary, which still means it should be removed as per policy stating not to use primary sources for negative information related to people. Valeince ( talk) 21:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Maybe a simple question. The Mary Kay Letourneau BLP specifies the age of her child victim as 12 or 13 at earliest point. If you gather the sources, you have about a 50-50 split on this question. Half say 12, half say 13. Based on the principles of BLP, do we specify the age as 13 (the most clearly substantiated age), or present it as "12 or 13" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Someone who understands what "conservative" writing is, please review my appraisal here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary_Kay_Letourneau#age_of_victim
Ok, another try:
I've come to conclusions about this article:
But first, people insistent on defending the most salacious facts among the spectrum of alleged facts reported (even by reliable sources, like People!) need to be admonished. A pattern of more conservative claims that are also more credible is absolutely enough to abandon the more titillating claims.
When writing conservatively, ask what evidence-based explanation is most substantiated. It's a super-useful way to think about covering both tabloid and legal events. But it takes some clarity about what details reliable sources provide about the core claims, and whether we merely count instances or examine evidence to resolve uncertainty.
You and I are expected at all times to treat other editors with politeness, assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks. That hasn't been happening on this article.
Also, the following statement is a limit, and an opportunity:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources
In this policy, verdicts (and other court documents, but especially verdicts) can only augment NPOV-secondary sources. In this situation, that policy sounds powerful. We have a massive NPOV-secondary reach on this article, but obvious divergences in claims among those sources. I believe NPOV-primary sources would absolutely corroborate the NPOV-secondary sources that provide evidence (and favor the lesser-saliciousness). All of the verdicts in this matter are admissable as sources because they absolutely do augment NPOV-secondary sources about these legal events. However, I do think the police report is covered excellently by the Washington Post, and police testimony is covered by the Associated Press. Primary sources shouldn't be needed, but we sure could go there! Mcfnord ( talk) 20:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
My name, William W. Thompson, is used in the story regarding Ben Swann.
1. I am still an employee at the CDC. I have worked there continuously since 1998 and I am currently a senior scientist in the Division of Viral Hepatitis. This can be confirmed by contacting the CDC.
2. The claims I have made have never been discredited by legitimate scientific sources. I don't want to go into the details here because I am trying to adhere to the current gag order that has been put on me by the CDC until an internal investigation has been completed. This can be confirmed by contacting the CDC.
In my opinion, the current information in this story regarding me is libelous.
Sincerely,
Bill Thompson.(phone number removed)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.68.58 ( talk) 17:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Nader El-Bizri ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just to request the contributions of experienced Wikipedia editors to improve the content of the article and address any flagged issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.54.56 ( talk) 13:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
We are seeking the intervention of experienced Wikipedia editors to improve the article and evaluate whatever issues are raised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.144.26 ( talk) 08:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
All the references in the article are properly connected to institutions such universities, BBC, France Culture, academic press; so the issues flagged have been cleared and yet a note is still placed on the article and it therefore needs to be evaluated by experienced Wikipedia editors to reach consensus that the issues have been resolved — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.194.28 ( talk) 07:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Please can again any experienced Wikipedia editors look into improving the article and clearing the issues raised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.144.15 ( talk) 15:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The article had a long section on "Ideas" that was elaborated by multiple editors over time but it was deleted by the editor who placed the tags and that is why perhaps it reads now like a resume. Instead of deleting the whole section it could have been improved (although it had citation like the ones used in academic papers). Anyway more experienced editors can look into this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.194.26 ( talk) 06:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
References
Ilhan Omar has explicitly said in her Yahoo News interview that her mother was ethnically Yemeni.@9:14 [21] The article currently says she was partially Yemeni. Shouldnt we take the subjects word for it in this case? I was reverted several times on the page. Magherbin ( talk) 20:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
To many, the election of Abiy Ahmed, closely followed by the release of political prisoners and a real peace with neighbouring Eritrea, was one of the most hopeful recent developments in Africa.
However, the subsequent diminution in the power of ethnic minorities in the north of Ethiopia has meant a concentrated backlash.
Recently, the lead section of this BLP has become slanted in a way that I personally find unacceptable. What do others think? -- BushelCandle ( talk) 04:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Tariq Mahmood Idris ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, I removed unreferenced death place and death date from this article but a search of the web shows that he may well have died, eg. https://www.facebook.com/BritishMuslimHeritageCentre/posts/janaza-salah-islamic-funeral-prayer-arrangement-for-tariq-mahmood-idris-tomorrow/1329959593752853/ and https://eternalidolinterlude.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/in-loving-memory-of-my-friend-tariq/comment-page-1/ Can either of these be used to reference his death in the article ? or can someone find a reliable source, thanks GrahamHardy ( talk) 08:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
There is presently a discussion at Talk:Ali Bin Fetais Al-Marri regarding the removal of controversial material about the subject, who is the Attorney General of Qatar. I would invite any of the regular visitors to this page to possibly weigh in on the matter, to obtain a wider consensus. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I am a paid advocate of the person featured in this biography of a living person. Per Wiki guidelines, I have posted a number of facts on the Talk page of the article that we believe should be added to the article, as well as a few items we believe are inaccurate or misleading and should be deleted (all with the necessary sources). I would just like to call attention to those items and respectfully request that a Wiki editor review them. Thank you for your time. AMcKnightTaylor ( talk) 22:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello BLPN. I think there are inaccurate statements in our BLP Saikat Chakrabarti, concerning a complaint filed with the Federal Elections Commission. The problematic passages are:
... the attorney for the Ocasio-Cortez campaign and the political action committees with which Chakrabarti was associated, refuted the complaint as baseless ...– this clause has three problems:
Legal and campaign finance experts have expressed opinions consistent with Mitrani's assessment.This is entirely an OR interpretation (and not a correct one; the experts say there may be some minor wrongdoing, whereas the attorney says there is no wrongdoing whatsoever). The cited sources do not compare the experts' opinions with the attorneys' opinion. No RS reports that any legal or campaign finance expert said that the allegations are "baseless" or "refuted", etc.
The sources cited are Fox News, Washington Post, AP News, and Business Insider. To try to fix this, I edited the first clause to bring it closer to the sources, and removed the second clause, and posted on the article's talk page. My edits were reverted and consensus to maintain the status quo was declared on the talk page. I still think it's just a black-and-white issue of not accurately reporting what the sources are saying. So, I ask for more eyes on this. Thank you. Leviv ich 21:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Editors, many of them without many or any other edits to Wikipedia pages, are constantly adding that the subject (who was born and raised in New York) is a citizen of France, even though the claim isn't directly supported by sourcing. Usually, they are adding it right in the first sentence of his article. There is a source that appears to indicate he has a French passport, but, as our Wikipedia article on the topic states, a French passport "[serves] as indication of French citizenship" but "not proof [emphasis mine]; the possession of a French passport only establishes the presumption." In any case, it's original research and there doesn't appear to be a source that actually says he's a citizen. Sample : "To quote Art. 30-2 of French Civil Code, However, where French nationality may flow only from parentage, it shall be deemed established... Thus, born to a French father and holding a French passport, he should be considered a French citizen unless you can prove otherwise, not the other way around". This is the very definition of original research. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 06:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Please see talk page there! -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Spoonkymonkey, who is currently temporarily blocked, has been editing Jesse Brown (journalist) to re-add derogatory information sourced only to Twitter. [22] There are also reasons to believe he is in a COI situation Brown, which Arbcomm is aware of but which I am not going to go into here in order not to violate the policy on outing. Based on their editing patterns, it also appears that User:Spoonkymonkey used the sockpuppet User:Midlandino to edit the Brown article back in January. 104.222.125.138 ( talk) 22:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Gianna Jessen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is no evidence provided to substantiate her claim that she survived an attempted abortion. The entry should be clear about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfreeg ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Stephen Moore (writer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs administrator attention. Two editors ( User:Snooganssnoogans, User:Soibangla) are attempting to place violations into this article regardless of WP:RS (using blogspot, and a mediate source with paid pundits talking... not a journalist's report), WP:OR (stating things not stated in any source), and WP:SYNTH (by attempting to add their own rebuttals to his appointment, and to Moore's statements which simply no source is doing). I unfortunately do not have the time today to attempt to undo/change every edit against policy there. (I only happened to be editing the article at all since there was news of the appointment and not a lot about it in Moore's article for the public to read about... I wasn't out looking for bias) 2601:282:B00:B56A:89B9:FECA:6506:724A ( talk) 19:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Sam Hyde's affiliations to the "alt-right" have marred his career and are clearly being used as a form of defamation by user Mrschimpf by removing any edits that provide context for these claims. Additionally, Hyde's support of pizzagate is not a defining trait and continues to be included in the header of the article instead of in the body of the biography section where it belongs. Mrschimpf clearly has a penchant for ensuring his opinion based viewpoints on right leaning figures remain on several articles based on the users edit history. This user cannot be regarded as an unbiased contributor or moderator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Optional Syntax ( talk • contribs) 00:32, March 17, 2019 (UTC)
Gavin McInnes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page includes multiple libelous assertions that are either sourced to partisan opinion-editorials or to articles completely irrelevant to the text at hand. In the "Career" section, there is a pattern of putting quotes and the editor's personal views together in order to create a specific narrative of events that casts the subject of the page in a negative light. Also, in the "Views" section of the page, there is a general pattern of inserting out-of-context quotes in order to try to prove the editor's personal view of McGinnes.
Thanks for taking a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaddyoKrsna ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The article cites her appearance in a movie called "Neighbours" but that is an Indian vampire film. I believe the correct film is "Neighbors" by Judd Apatow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.157.15 ( talk) 14:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
E. J. Levy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User NekoKatsun has repeatedly (and almost immediately) removed edits I made to correct inaccurate content. NekoKatsun wholesale removed my entire edit and reverted the text back to a former version with incorrect information. I explicitly stated why I made the corrections, and offered citation support. NekoKatsun is using E.J. Levy's page to promote an agenda (a singular interpretation the real-life figure Levy's novel is based on, James Miranda Barry, when IN FACT there are many interpretations of Barry's life and gender, based on published biographies and articles, many of which I've read). Argument's about James Miranda Barry's life should be made on the Barry's page, not E.J. Levy's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caprae Lac ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowkidar Chor Hai on the grounds that the article violates WP:BLP and WP:SOAPBOX. While being one of the many throw-away slogans, the title itself claims the Indian Prime Minister is a "thief", and that is just an absurd allegation made by his opposition.
It needs some extra attention.
Arbcom has clarified before that BLP applies on such stuff per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Principles. 103.220.38.163 ( talk) 18:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
For Sasha Grey two contributors agree that TMZ is an unreliable source, and that a recently archived talk page consensus about Dubiously cited information under "Personal Life" stated in 2016 about TMZ is still valid. This consensus also explicitly covers a Complex.com source based on the TMZ report. Fun fact, the two contributors are the GA nominator and the GA reviewer for Sasha Grey.
The reviewer suggested to add the info with reliable sources including Complex, The Daily Beast, and Daily Dot. The nominator rejected Complex.com per consensus, and rejected The Daily Beast per RS/P (yellow) and the immediate removal of an attempted January 2018 use of this source; as noted at the end of the recently archived consensus.
Both consider The Daily Dot as good source (RS/P green), and the article is used as source on Sasha Grey, but not for the TMZ info. Likewise the nominator added a Mandatory.com source for another fact, ignoring the same TMZ info also quoted by Mandatory. In a second review pass both contributors started to repeat their arguments unmodified, only one "find more" suggestion is covered by Mandatory. JFTR, an unrelated The Daily Beast source is used on the "almost good" article uncontested. – 84.46.53.4 ( talk) 00:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
With the GA review now out of the way (fail) I'm still interested in other opinions about the TMZ source, it is only tagged as "yellow" (caution) instead of "red" (verboten) on WP:RS/P#TMZ. – 84.46.52.48 ( talk) 13:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
In February 2018, Laura Dekker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) gave an interview with American Sailing Association. The article is titled "Laura Dekker Interview, Part 1". A direct quote from that article is posted below. https://asa.com/news/2018/02/06/laura-dekker-interview-pt1/
Laura Dekker recently gave a presentation at a fund raiser for LifeSail, a Los Angeles non-profit that uses sailing as a vehicle to teach life lessons to kids. As fate would have it, Dekker has donated her beloved Guppy, the very boat she did the trip on, to LifeSail. She has similar ideals about sailing’s educational value and soon the boat will make its way from New Zealand to LA via Fiji and Hawaii.
The same reference is used in the line: In February 2018, Dekker loaned 'Guppy to LifeSail, a Los Angeles non-profit that uses sailing as a vehicle to teach life lessons to kids. [73] [1]
However, this line states loaned, which according to the American Sailing Association article is inaccurate.
References
Adesuwa Aighewi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi!
This is Adesuwa Aighewi. I was born in 1992, someone keeps changing it to 1988. They have now blocked anyone from editing. This is a problem for my career. Can we please change back to my real age of 26 and not allow anymore changing?
Thank you!
AA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adesuwa Aighewi ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I am contacting you regarding the article for Gary Cohn, the investment banker (found at /info/en/?search=Gary_Cohn_(investment_banker)). I do not regularly edit Wikipedia pages and am not completely familiar with the procedures, but the below paragraph struck me as strange compared to the tone of other Wikipedia articles:
Critics of Cohn's describe his work style as arrogant, aggressive, abrasive, and risk-prone. They describe his "6-foot 3-inch & 220lbs" stature as intimidating, as he might "sometimes hike up one leg, plant his foot on a trader's desk, his thigh close to the employee's face, and ask how markets were doing".[15] According to former Bear Stearns Asset Management CEO Richard Marin, Cohn's arrogance is at the root of the problem. "When you become arrogant, in a trading sense, you begin to think that everybody's a counterparty, not a customer, not a client."[15]
Cohn's supporters see these qualities as advantages. Michael Ovitz, co-founder and former chairman of Creative Artists Agency and former president of The Walt Disney Company, stated that he is impressed with Cohn. Ovitz said: "He's a trader. He has that whole feel in his body and brain and fingertips."[15] Ovitz sees Cohn's toughness as a "positive" value, explaining that a high-ranking executive can't be "all peaches and cream".[11][15]
Donna Redel, who was Chairman of the Board of the New York Mercantile Exchange when Cohn worked there as a silver trader, remembers Cohn as "firm", "strategic", and "driven". Martin Greenberg, her predecessor, said Cohn "was tough", and added, "Gary got in with the right people, worked his ass off, and used his head".[15]
No matter an individual’s opinion on Mr. Cohn (with whom I have no professional affiliation), I think the bolded material presents some potential issues in terms of quality and tone. The first bolded sentence appears to be a bit biased in the tone - I think a balanced approach could be taken in the description of these qualities, but this paragraph is not how it would be done. Additionally. The combination of the attribution "arrogant, aggressive, abrasive, and risk-prone.” is not quoted, which masks the fact that the referenced article (view-source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-24/succeeding-blankfein-at-goldman-may-prove-hurdle-too-high-for-no-2-cohn) never presents this depiction of Mr. Cohn as described here. Specifically, Richard Marin is the only person in the article mentioned as viewing Mr. Cohn as arrogant, the full quote reading "Richard Marin said Cohn's arrogance is at 'the root of the problem' at Goldman Sachs. 'When you become arrogant, in a trading sense, you begin to think that everybody's a counterparty, not a customer, not a client,' Marin said. 'And as a counterparty, you're allowed to rip their face off.’” Especially since the descriptor “arrogant” is applied twice in the Wikipedia article, it seems a bit misleading considering that both references refer to a single quote which is the only use of the word in the referenced Bloomberg article. The referenced Bloomberg article never describes Cohn as aggressive, and in fact the only use of the word is from a lawyer definitively saying that Cohn was not aggressive. The referenced Bloomberg article never describes Cohn as risk-prone (which I think is a malapropism in this context in any case); in fact, the only mention of Mr. Cohn in connection with risk in the article is describing how his willingness to take risks while leader of a business unit led to great success for that unit. The phrase “intimidating, as he might” is part of the quote, and I think it is arguably displaying of a point-of-view when it is not displayed in this way. The way the phrase “the root of the problem” appears in the Wikipedia article (removed from the original quote, see above) I feel is arguably non-neutral in its perspective.
Your team may agree with any or all of these comments; I flag them for your attention in the hope that the material of the article can be reviewed by people with more experience than myself and, if appropriate, make changes. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.10.215 ( talk) 17:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I am the creator of Robert Schwarz (astrophysicist). Yesterday, anonymous user 157.132.20.166 began removing text from the page. The first removal had no description, so I undid it. Later removal descriptions say that they were done by Dr. Schwarz himself, who is upset that the page was written without his knowledge. A check of https://www.whatismyip.com/ip-address-lookup/ shows this IP address is associated with the U.S. Antarctic program, and so I believe these comments were actually written by Dr. Schwarz. I believe that all of the information on the page--including the information removed--was well-sourced and written in a neutral point of view. What is the appropriate thing to do here? EAWH ( talk) 18:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The article Simon Palfrey appears to have been written either by the subject of the biography himself, or by a person closely connected with him.
The article as a whole reads like a piece of self-advertising or self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:E41B:4100:D921:E7B4:D7CA:6D09 ( talk) 13:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
An IP editor has repeatedly been changing the birth date without a supporting source. I initially reverted to the previous version but, upon realising that the cited source was a deadlink, removed the information entirely. The editor has continued to restore the unsourced material. I am now at 3RR and do not wish to edit war, so I am posting here. – Tera tix ₵ 09:38, 28 March 2019 (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.
Stephanie Singer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Stephanie_Singer&type=revision&diff=889669018&oldid=878720327
Please remove the added paragraph.
The added paragraph contains a false and libelous statement.
The added paragraph has no citation and seems designed to damage my reputation.
-- Symmetrysinger ( talk) 18:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Stephanie Singer
This article is about a lawyer for whom a section was created about multiple disciplinary items he was involved in with the Maryland state bar association. All of these issues were sourced from a single RS. However the vast number of the issues weren’t even mentioned by the RS. I subsequently deleted the entire section. I’ve no interest in cleaning up the text to find what may be sourced. It is incumbent upon the editors who added such material to make sure it was properly sourced. Some may say this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don’t know if there was a baby to begin with. Feel free to re-add this section if you can find adequate sourcing. Regardless, I would appreciate it if you could add this to your watchlist and if it isn’t too much trouble to indicate here that you’re keeping an eye on the article, just so I know this has some eyeballs on the thing. Much appreciated -- That man from Nantucket ( talk) 01:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Talk:Jonathan_Swan#Request_Edit_--_Remove_Contentious_Material_re:_BLP. I have a disclosed COI regarding this discussion. BC1278 ( talk) 22:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
I thought I would avoid the curling project and bring this up here to get NPOV as to WP:Undue etc. The details are big in the curling world; being talked about by Vic Rauter and Russ Howard on the TSN coverage of the world championships. Thoughts? 96.55.104.236 ( talk) 17:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Many changes were made to this article by JWSM-Bungarabee which include a number of allegations and negative personal opinions about presumably living people and current organisations. Many of the edits are large and often edit previous edits so it is hard to pin down the problems to specific edits. Some examples that particularly concern me though are:
Apart from BLP concerns, many of the edits are citing an unpublished source (citation [1]) written by the contributor (comments refer to it as their own work). A previous attempt was made by another editor to undo some of these edits but these were subsequently restored by JWSM-Bungarabee. Kerry ( talk) 09:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Andrew Wiles ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't know if this is worthy to post here, but I have a concern regarding the wiki page for mathematician Andrew Wiles. The guy is a genius and highly respected in the mathematics community. He's definitely going down in the history books. However, the image used on the page is not flattering at all. There are many images available online that look much nicer, many of which compose of him writing mathematical statements on a chalkboard. There is even a beautifully done portrait of him by painter Rupert Alexander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencerkraisler ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me there is a trend in Wikipedia to include political cartoons about Saudi monarch Mohammad bin Salman portraying killing Jamal Khashoggi in multiple articles. This issue has been previously discussed in Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi article where community consensus has determined that it violates WP:BLP and was removed. However, these pictures still show up in multiple articles ( Jamal Khashoggi page for example) and most of these cartoons are published by a an Iranian based news website ( Tasnim News Agency). There seems to be conflicting views on to include such political cartoons in BLP pages or not while those seeking inclusion argue about censorship so I would like to get to the bottom of it here. Isn't a political cartoon essentially an opinion? I don't mind having these cartoons published in the Editorial cartoon or it's author's page, but does this material merit inclusion in a BLP article? Would appreciate someone's who's experienced in BLP articles opinion. Thanks. Wikiemirati ( talk) 21:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Please could I ask the word Evangelist is taken out of the title of this entry? Mark is a CEO of charity. A more appropriate title would be Mark Russell (Charity Executive). The current title is misleading and leads people reading the entry to assume things that aren't the case
That would be very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:AF15:300:E8BA:7C6B:82F:B64E ( talk) 17:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Now, evangelical organizations may hire experts who don't share that faith. Corporations hire outsiders to be their CEOs all the time. A young Steve Jobs hired the older former CEO of Pepsico to run Apple, a few decades ago, who the fired Jobs, and almost drove Apple into the ground. If Church Army hired an outsider, I'd agree with the disambiguator "executive". If Russell lost his faith, so being CEO was just a job, I'd agree with the disambiguator "executive". But that is not the case, is it? Isn't he still an evangelical? Geo Swan ( talk) 15:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)