![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I removed some material from this article per WP:BLPRS and was instantly summarily reverted. I don't wanna get into an edit war even though I'm following policy. Help? 92.24.246.11 ( talk) 12:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The dates do not make sense.....
"July 2015, Gurpal was acquitted at Southwark Crown Court on 31 July 2015 of any wrongdoing.[20] During the trial, Mr Virdi accused the Met of bringing the criminal case against him as part of a 17-year campaign to "hound" him out of the force.[21]
The case of Gurpal Virdi was subsequently picked up by Sir Peter Bottomley in 1998, notable as previously Member of Parliament and advocate at the time of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.[22] Bottomley requested that the Home Secretary, at that point Theresa May, review the case.[23] In March 2018 Bottomley submitted an Early Day Motion, calling for a parliamentary debate on the matter.[24]"
Thomas Sowell ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Uninvolved eyes needed to help resolve questions of WP:WEIGHT. I stopped editing the page because of one particular user and his personal flamethrower, and I suspect that other editors who recently stopped editing the page did the same. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Kelsey Koelzer is the first Black female hockey coach in NCAA history Ed Wright, who coached the University of Buffalo in 1970, was the first Black head coach in NCAA hockey history
https://www.nhl.com/news/color-of-hockey-wright-was-ncaa-pioneer-at-buffalo/c-317614338
When I wrote my initial story about Koelzer, the NCCAA stated that she was the first Black head coach. But their database doesn't go back as far as 1970. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgdouglas35 ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
This article may be being edited by a person close to the source. It's also been subject to a prolonged tiny edit war. Thanks for looking. H0n0r ( talk) 00:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Please immediately delete the entire paragraph about The Watcher. It is libelous. It is malicious gossip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.238.31 ( talk) 22:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Basil Hassan (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Hi, came across this cause of a search for wikilinks at
Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - I do not see any verifications in the sources for the accusations being described, the first source does not even mention its name - needs some eyes.
CommanderWaterford (
talk) 10:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Wanaka Gym court case
This part does not have anything to do with Fiona Graham's experience as a geisha and it does not fit the page. If it is necessary to use this section, one must record the full story. Here it stops at 2015. In the link I have provided, you can see that the case continues after 2015.
http://theoldgymwanaka.net/other.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by JapanHistoryLady ( talk • contribs) 02:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
This is Fiona Graham. You have been accusing me of being a sock puppet for a decade now! You have no proof at all of me ever doing that so please respond properly to the people who make sensible posts here. The problem with the Wanaka Gym stuff is that someone has failed to include the court cases that I won in 2003 - the Ombudsman's report is there on the website, in 2005, in 2006, against the DBH and in Civil Court and only includes a single court case that I didn't. Since including the entire 20 years of court cases and which are not yet concluded doesn't make any sense, and since only including a court case I lost is unreasonable and unfair and an issue for the Living Person's Notice Board, you shouldn't include it at all. If you want to include it then please include every single case that I won. The real issue here on this board is why you have such an agenda to harm a living person by including only negative content and deleting anything positive.
For BLP editors can someone please help with the fact that a small number of Wikipedia editors remove all positive or recent content from my page, only keeping old or negative content? Any person trying to add positive content is labelled a sock puppet without any proof and the content they add is removed. The most recent article cited on the page is Scott Swann recent television program. Every sentence added from that program is also deleted. Ineffable Bookkeeper is the worst of the recent ones, along with Ravensfire. And the one above. What can I do about constant nonstop accusation of sock puppetry. Surely editors have to actually have some kind of proof before they damage living persons by removing all positive content from their page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:31C5:BDC3:AF2:967F ( talk) 06:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Fiona Graham: You cannot possible verify 15 years of court cases and you can possibly put a single piece of that history in there and have it be a fair reflection. So the only fair and correct thing to do is remove it. Whoever wrote the above, by the way, may be a student, but is not a student of mine. Once again, you editors are assuming that anything positive on my page is connected to me, but it is not. My students are learning that Wikipedia, which they assume to reliable, is actually incredibly biassed and unfair, and controlled by people who have the most time to spend on it! This is a very good lesson of them to learn. And it is also a pity. Wikipedia would be a wonderful thing if it wasn't for editors like the ones who constantly remove valid information from my page for no reason.
Fiona Graham: I find it very weird that on the one hand someone using your IPv6 64 said they never edit Wikipedia, despite also teaching people how to Wikipedia. [3] But then above you say you've been accused of being a sockpuppet for 10 years which is very weird for someone who never edits Wikipedia. We should never, and I'm fairly sure have never, said anything about sockpuppetry on your article, so how does someone who doesn't edit know about that? This is something only someone who edits Wikipedia is likely to know. Checking out talk pages as a non editor once or twice may happen, but checking out talk pages often enough to be aware of such accusations over 10 years is fairly unusual. Further someone using your IPv6 64 made this very self serving edit to the geisha page [4] which is very weird for someone who does not edit Wikipedia.
Anyway while I don't feel comfortable telling you what you should teach your students, I will say that from my experience here, one thing editors do need to understand is how to handle a conflict of interest. Any student of yours has a conflict of interest which means they should refrain from editing any article related to you directly. This is both the Fiona Graham article but also any parts of the geisha article that affect you especially those relating to non Japanese geisha. (Other areas of conflict could arise. E.g. stuff related to the Wānaka council's zoning regulations.) They can propose changes on the article talk page but if they do so, they should declare their conflict of interest. Unfortunately it's clear this has often not happened. It would be a great benefit to everyone if this editing with an undeclared conflict of interest, often direct editing where possible, does not occur every few month.
As I said, I don't feel comfortable telling you what to teach, but this clearly includes it being a great benefit to any student editors if they learnt not to fail so badly in handling a COI. On a more personal level, I only learnt about this maybe 2 years ago. But despite that, I've found any proposals relating to Fiona Graham generally terrible enough that even if a student editor declared their COI and restricted themselves to proposals, I still don't think they are helping anyone.
I can't speak for others but frankly, I can't really be bothered dealing with such crappy proposals made by students of a subject. However, I can understand why subjects themselves may make such terrible suggestions for change. I often still can't help them, but I'm much more willing to look more carefully at what they're saying. In that vein, I will have a look and see if I can find any sources discussion the ombudsman issue.
I do stand by my point above. From your own website, there's been nothing since 2015 that is of interest to our article which was what the editor above mentioned. You are now saying that some of our earlier coverage is lacking, which is a different issue. As Fences & Windows said, it's unlikely we can directly use anything from your website. We also cannot generally directly use trial transcripts or verdicts, nor reports from an ombudsman. If there are reliable secondary sources which mention such details, then we may be able to mention them. unfortunately your website doesn't list any but I'll have a quick look and see if I can find anything.
= Fiona Graham: So many crazy arguments above! Many people edit my page and some of them write to me to tell me that they tried to remove incorrect information or add new validly sourced information but it was removed. Why would you assume my students would have anything to do with adding anything not relating to geisha? They are only adding valid information from reliable sources. The NZ issues cannot possibly be represented fairly unless you include 15 years worth of material and if you are not going to do that you should remove the current information because it is only a tiny piece of it and unfair to include it. It is local news only, it is many years old, it is an ongoing situation that can harm a living person's life and it has nothing to do with the reason I am on Wikipedia, and therefore should be removed.
This article is full and I mean FULL of extremely negative information about a named person without appropriate citations. 92.24.246.11 ( talk) 19:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
This article Boss Hog may contain one or more mistakes about this post-punk band's first show. It states that Boss Hogg formed in 1989, and that singer Jon Spencer performed all of that first show nude! It also mentions that the band performed an early show as a last minute addition to a high profile show at CBGBs. I am a photographer who took pictures of Boss Hogg playing such a show, opening for Rapeman at CBGBs, in September 1988. Spencer was fully clothed. If this is helpful I can provide the photos and a picture of my contemporary notes on the photos....best, Pat Blashill Roland154 ( talk) 07:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I have now found another source that claims singer Cristina Martinez played the first show naked! I'm more interested in trying top find out if the date the band formed was sometime in 1989, which would mean the notes I took back then are wrong. I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia, so what sort of source would be considered acceptable? Would it have to be a magazine or newspaper article from back in the day? best, ----Pat Blashill Roland154
can u help me with this what should i add and is cite given is fine or should i put more ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyisback11188 ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Michelle Gurevich ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The IP editor 46.97.170.112 introduces information that is not directly emphasized in the source. This may be a slip of the spot in the publication. I believe that this can be added only after a few repetitions in authoritative sources. Jaguarnik's editing must be canceled. — Alexey Tourbaevsky, cheloVechek / talk 02:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Section started by now blocked sock and replies have been to their comments, so no need to continue discussion for now. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This BLP needs attention. There is little info on the work by the subject. I mentioned he has recently published a book incorporating AI in his drug discovery platform. The book was reviewed by Robert Huber, a Nobel laureate expert in structural biology. My edit got reverted with the statement "WP is not Goodreads". This BLP is completely out of balance. It mentions 4 papers challenged over a decade ago. Papers often get challenged in science. That is not notable. I am hesitant to make more changes until there is some feedback. KentQuaker ( talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
|
I noticed an editor continues to add unproven allegations to the page of Isa Ali Ibrahim to the extent that the additions seem to defeat the purposes for an autobiography of a living person. This is demonstrated by writing an unproven allegation section as the majority content of the autobiography. The guidelines stipulates that potentially libelous content or fake news be avoided to prevent defamation of character. I have repeatedly edited to provide an objective summary, however there seems to be a false propaganda narrative by User: Watercheetah99 and some other users to drive a propaganda against a living person. I have previously engaged Dewritech and WikiDan61 of whih we agreed an article is a mere highlight of a persons life and not every achievement or controversy the person has ever had in his life. I hereby report that users should be refrained from adding potentially libelous content or unproven allegations that defames the character of a living person and adds no value to readers or the article and or biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullomayo ( talk • contribs)
John McGuirk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The page for John McGuirk, available at John_McGuirk, currently lists him as the editor of a far-right website. There are 3 references given for that, none of those pages call Gript far right. One does call Gript 'alt right' but that source is a pseudoanonymous blog which is not a member of the Irish Press Council nor generally regarded as reputable - mainstream national Irish press, including RTE, the Irish Times, Prime Time, and the Journal.ie have discussed Gript and John McGuirk without classing them as far-right. I have attempted to fix the issue, and class Gript as 'right-wing' instead, which is also arguable but at least, in my view, defensible, but those changes have been repeatedly reverted by the user who added the initial claim. As the description of John McGuirk as the editor of a far-right website appears to be, on the face of it, defamatory, and is currently not backed up by sources, I wanted to flag it here to see if we can resolve the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualgrasp ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
far-right publication. It also calls McGuirk a
Far-right commentator, but we're not using it to make that claim.
alt-right website. The alt-right is part of the far-right, and The Beacon's own subheading is
reporting on the far right.
In the US, far-right talking points have been popularised through an eco-system of influencers and partisan media outlets who relay the message in milder terms. In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean...Gript and The Burkean primarily produce opinion pieces while positioning themselves as an alternative to mainstream journalism. It also includes a screenshot of McGuirk tweeting a Gript article using the manipulation tactics that it just discussed. The article itself is titled "How the far-right incite hatred".
This biographical article about a living person reads suspiciously like an autobiography intended to court a favorable public opinion in lieu of an actual trial in an actual court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lineardyna ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Bruno Bernard (writer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I semi-protected this page in response to a request at RFPP. IP addresses were removing sourced information about fraud and those sources also indicate that he has used false academic titles. The article survived an AfD in 2018 as no consensus and apparently the deletion on French Wikipedia involved legal threats. I'd like more eyes on this bio and consideration of whether it is viable. Fences& Windows 23:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a single sourced statement: Coval was removed from his position as Executive Director at Young Chicago Authors because of allegations that he had not properly followed up on sexual assaults committed by teaching artists hired by the organization.
[1] that seems to be causing a problem with an SPA who is reverting it. The sourcing for the single sentence looks pretty good, and the sentence itself is concise and neutrally worded. I've reached out on the talk page and the editor's talk page with no success. Any extra eyes on this would be appreciated, thanks.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 14:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
References
I have doubts about including a number of contentious claims sourced to something like strana.ua, pravda.com.ua or Morning Star (see Morning Star in Perennial_sources), like in these edits [8], [9]. This may be also an issue of due weight. The disagreements were discussed on article talk page, for example here. Some help from uninvolved contributors would be appreciated. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I've removed content from Toshihiro Nagoshi's page crediting Nagoshi's involvement with various games due to the use of sources that have been established as unreliable in the WP:VG/S. I've also removed other content in the page for similar reasons and detailed the issue in the relevant talk page. Despite it being a clear violation of WP:V and, as far as I understand it, violating WP:BLP, it has been reverted twice - and without adjustments or changes to the disputed sources.
The first editor, who contributed about half of the items of contention, claims other developer pages being similarly lacking in proper citation/sourcing as an excuse for reversion. The second claims that removal of the content is a perversion of BLP guidelines because it 'applies to contentious or controversial material.' and that 'Nagoshi is not going to sue for defamation over Wikipedia stating he worked on some games and joined the board of Sega.' For my part, I don't see other pages failing to meet policy as an excuse. Additionally, I consider the information contentious -both as a result of the back and forth and inherently due to not meeting verifiability- and recognize the WP:BLP policy as being applicable regardless of the tone or potential consequences of the content's inclusion by way of the following portion:
"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
I'm not interested in dragging the matter out with a reversion back-and-forth or making an argument out of it, and I would really appreciate an administrator with greater understanding of these sorts of issues to help resolve the matter decisively before it gets to that. If I've misunderstood the policy in my application, I'd appreciate things being set straight, but my current understanding is that this is in fact a violation. Advice and resolution would be valuable, as they'd inform future steps I may take in the pursuit of preventing these issues in the future and clearing up the ones that are present where the pages/project of my interest is concerned.
Thank you very much for your time in advance. Fact Scanner ( talk) 18:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The articles on Wikipedia, both in Spanish and in English, about Gustavo Petro, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, Iván Duque, the Farc, the m19, the parapolitics and the Wikiproyecto Colombia, all of them LIVING PERSONS or ongoing matters of world or national interest, have abundant false, doubtful, disputed statements or with biased or doubtful sources. For example these:
(Please SEMI-PROTECT them and correct them)
In summary, and in order not to repeat what some others have already said in the respective discussion pages, in the Wikipedia pages referring to Gustavo Petro and other pages and projects cited above, the pages are significantly biased towards Alvaro Uribe's opponents, even in pages that do not deal with or have nothing to do with Alvaro Uribe (such as Gustavo Petro's), with sources carefully selected to only support such opponents, often very doubtful, unobjective or biased, with phrases such as: "These revelations opened the doors of a strong social sanction to Uribe in Colombia by a sector of public opinion, and placed him in the sights of the ICC with the more than 250 processes in the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation that exist against him, and that, for different reasons, including corruption of the national powers", " Petro revealed that Uribe's presidential campaign in 2002 had received financial support from Enilse López, known such as La Gata, later convicted of ties to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, "etc., etc., etc. (I will not repeat).
Getting to the point of almost calling Uribe a "murderer", "genocidal", "terrorist", "corrupt", "paramilitary", "drug trafficker", "narco-paramilitary", BOTH ON THE PAGES IN ENGLISH AND IN SPANISH, even though sometimes not using those words, as he is presented as directly related to “human rights abuses” and he is also presented as solely responsible for the violence, corruption and deaths that occurred throughout the Colombian Armed Conflict.
Forgetting or omitting that: 1) Up to now none of the investigations that the Prosecutor's Office has made or is doing, has found any evidence that he has been personally involved and has not gone to criminal trial, except for that of these days of "manipulation of witnesses ”, which is ongoing without sentencing yet, 2) He did not have any public office or had anything to do with the Armed Conflict in the first two decades until 1981, and 3) They omit the massive human rights violations, deaths, drug trafficking, kidnappings and torture committed by guerrilla groups outside the law that, although pardoned, were admitted by such groups in the 1989 and 2016 Peace Accords.
President Ivan Duque is presented as if he were Alvaro Uribe's “puppet” and he is also held directly and personally responsible for all the human rights violations and violence that are taking place in Colombia.
Even in the pages on Alvaro Uribe it is mentioned that he has about 28 proceedings against in the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, taking as a source a journalistic note, but when the public database of the judicial branch of Colombia is accessed, on Consultation of processes, no such processes are observed. (In the Colombian journalistic media, false news is very frequent, towards or against all the parties involved)
More or less the same happens in the Wikipedia pages that make some reference to the 2021 PROTESTS in Colombia, very biased towards the opposition, BOTH ON THE PAGES IN ENGLISH AND IN SPANISH, where the state, the police and the army are presented as the ONLY human rights violators (when the objective reality is that more than ten policemen and military have already died in the protests, and tens of thousands of small merchants or shopkeepers have lost everything due to vandalism), echoing, or taking sources that echo, what seems to be a massive campaign of fake news and misinformation referring not only to the STRIKE but to previous times of the Armed Conflict and the presidency of Alvaro Uribe and Ivan Duque, and where many of these fake news and false videos (even from Amnesty International !!!, or Cnn or Dw, who would believe it) were actually taken in Venezuela but they are presented as if they had taken place in Colombia during the 2021 PROTESTS. This massive campaign of false news and videos and disinformation, is evidenced in serious sources such as:
The Fake News generated during the National Protests
The fake pictures, videos and news about the 2021 strikes
At least 23 fake news have been detected during the protests
Victor Muñoz DAPRE’s Director, denies decree ordering state of emergency
These iconic buildings in the world were not lit in support of Colombia during the protests
The explosion of unverified information circulating on the media during the protests
National Protests live: the ongoing protests on May 5th
Colombia Check independent verification site
False, Young man was not burned by Esmad in Floridablanca, Santander
Duque didn’t twit that if misinformation persists he’ll cancel Facebook
Video of Young man assaulted by the police in Floridablanca is real but he was not murdered
New video of policemen inhaling a presumed drug is not in Colombia but in Chile
The one in the picture is not the Esmad’s policeman reported for taking part in an assault
Police’s Ad offering reward for presumed vandals of the sacks of April 28th is false
Video of clashes between police and army is not of April 28th protests nor in Colombia
Colombia is not the only country to propose Tax Reform amidst the outbreak
Maria Fernanda Cabal did not say coffee is not to have breakfast or dinner but for visitors
Note that in Colombia it is very risky to take journalistic notes as a source, sometimes even from supposedly "serious" or "respectable" entities such as El Tiempo or Semana, and much less opinion notes, since, as can be seen in Colombia for more than ten years, impressive amounts of fake news have been circulating. However, those are most of the sources given for the Wikipedia pages mentioned at the beginning, even on the Wikipedia Pages in English.
If little of what is written in Colombia, with direct knowledge of the situation, is serious or objective, much less what is written on foreign media, including Amnesty International, CNN or DW. Not one news magazine has been left uncriticized for this in decades. Note also that credible or objective sources are so rare and occasional in Colombia, even in the supposedly “academic” sphere, that if strict criteria are used, almost nothing could be written about Colombia!
No, I am neither an uribista nor a leftist, I am a responsible and conscientious citizen who is trapped, as you surely know, in a country where everyone’s spirits are so heated and violence has been happening for so long, that it is no exaggeration to say that "half of Colombia wants to kill and hang the other half of Colombia." And that is clearly observed in the 2021 PROTESTS, where it can be said that “everyone hates everyone”.
It is assumed that Wikipedia, AND MORE IN ENGLISH, is a serious and ENCYCLOPEDIC website, for which it has no presentation that in such articles on Petro, Uribe, Duque, guerrillas, parapolitics or the Colombia Wikiproject, in Spanish and in ENGLISH, many statements are made, risky and controversial at best, implying that Uribe and Duque or the police and the army would be "murderers", "genocidal", "terrorists", "paramilitaries", "abusers of human rights ”,“ corrupt ”,“ corruption in the branches of power ”, etc., etc., etc.
Most people do not verify the facts or if what is said is true or not, and simply believe what Wikipedia says, and more being an encyclopedia.
Please, Librarians and Wikipedia editors:
Every time on one of your pages, whether in Spanish or in English, these types of statements are sneaked in, not very truthful and that could be seen as an incitement to hatred and violence, indeed half of Colombia wants to kill the other half, there are people dying!!
It is not an exaggeration to say that when a single one of these statements creeps in, or echoes a possibly false journalistic note, at least one person dies in Colombia!
Please, I beg you:
Semi-protect all those pages referring to Colombia, have the maximum possible responsibility with the wording and all statements and sources, and please proceed to correct all those pages urgently.
Thank you. Carlosverano92 ( talk) 01:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
TruthBuster21223 recently added this content to the Owen Benjamin article about a property dispute between the article subject and his neighbors. One of the sources cited is a self-published website by Mike Weland ( "Kootenai Valley Times" about page), which does not seem reliable under WP:BLPSPS. The other source ( link) does not mention a "cult" or "'Aryan Style' compound" allegation, and appears to address the issue as a zoning dispute between neighbors. I thought this looked clearly like a BLP violation, but Drmies disagreed with my opinion (see User talk:Drmies#Request for help), and I wanted to bring it here for additional opinions. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 22:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I made a
bold edit yesterday based on a comment by Cullen328 at
RSN, who noted that the
Ruby Ridge incident occurred in the same county. Given that additional context, I think it could be appropriate to include this content in some way on Benjamin's biography, along with directly mention the Ruby Ridge incident as is done in the more reliable source. I changed the sentence in the article to say: "In 2021, residents of Boundary County filed a complaint with the county commissioners over allegations that Benjamin had violated zoning provisions and was forming a "
Ruby Ridge style" compound on his property in the neighborhood.
" I would certainly feel more comfortable on a BLP if the issue was more than neighbors filing a complaint to the county (such as the county actually finding a zoning violation), but I think given the context about Benjamin as well as Boundary County, that this more neutrally-worded sentence would be appropriate. Based on this discussion and the one at RSN, it seems like there is a mixed consensus forming about whether the other source is self-published or reliable enough to use for a
contentious label like "cult", but the new content is also supported entirely by the stronger source. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 17:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
While there's a potential story here that he is developing a compound, we're going off a story based on neighbor complaint, not actual reliable sources that have reviewed the site to make that determination.Not sure if I have you right, but there's no doubt that Benjamin is building a compound, only doubt as to his purpose in doing so and the nature of that compound. For what it's worth, there are a lot of dogwhistle terms on the website Benjamin is soliciting donations on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
pointing to the recent AE thread on the AP2 area as referenceNot for nothing, but "recent AE thread on the AP2 area" is more of a category than a single thread.
Reposting. The subsection [11] contains controversial claims supported with three weak citations. One (from reason.com) is a third-hand repetition of statements from an anonymous blog. Another, from economist.com, quotes someone telling office gossip that he heard about another organization. The third from spectator.org, cites a comment box. Am I right in thinking that these are all not RS? If this material does not belong in the article, can the article be protected to stop repeated attempts to add it, and can the claims be removed from edit history? This sourcing dispute has run for years. Bistropha ( talk) 22:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I know the person who bothered to correct the original article devoted a lot of time and effort to it, but I kindly note that it still has issues.
The article has a number of dubious or disputed statements and several unreliable sources, none of them scholar or academic. ENCYCLOPEDIC articles must meet a minimum of requirements as well as their sources.
Here the detail:
(SEMI-PROTECT page, correct it)
1) A part of the article is a translation of the one in spanish, or based on it, with somewhat similarly unreliable sources or biased statements, generally in favor of the subject. It is important to say that the article in spanish at Gustavo Petro with discussion at Talk:Gustavo Petro has been discussed to favor a certain public image for the subject, or part of it even written by himself under a presumed anonymous account, which, if proven, would violate Wikipedia’s policies and rules.
2) In summary, the article in English at Gustavo Petro, besides biased in favor of the subject and against former president Uribe, uses sources that limit themselves to repeating, quoting or misquoting other secondary sources, most of them in turn doing exactly that or merely echoing rumors, political campaigns or advertising, with almost none of them based on serious journalistic work with real proof nor performing a verification, particularly in the sections Lead, “early life”, “m19 militancy”, “education” and “early political career”.
3) The Lead section and the sections “early life”, “m19 militancy”, “education” and “early political career”, give very few sources for each statement, typically none or just one, perhaps two each, all of them either foreign newsmagazines that lack first-hand knowledge on Colombia, or local sources that are clearly praising the subject and are his sympathizers, like:
a) RCN, which is known as opposition media that praises Petro against the government, except “La Silla Vacía”, which is more or less reliable.
b) Bloomberg’s source, though “Bloomberg”, lacks direct knowledge of anything colombian, limiting itself to compiling or repeating unverified third party versions.
c) Semana’s source ( Gustavo Petro progressist does not do any kind of first-hand verification or research, limiting itself to repeating what others say, so do the Rosario University source Profile of the new mayor, whose link is now dead (Petro never studied at the Rosario University), and Moloka’s source ( Gustavo Petro’s Resume ), which is but the Resume submitted by the own subject when he ran for mayor of Bogota.
d) The source City Mayors – Mayors of the Month is a foreign one, lacking first-hand knowledge (or verification) on Colombia, compiling secondary sources without citing them, in a tone clearly biased towards the subject, praising him, favoring left-wings mayors as “the best” or “greener”, calling his recall a “sack” by the Inspector General, and Colombia’s democratically-elected government “undemocratic” simply because it is not left-wing and because it is pro-US.
e) Those sections “lead”, “early life”, “m19 militancy”, “education” and “early political career”, have no notary sources or academic or reliable source of such statements. The sources cited for those sections in the article in spanish are even worse: newspapers or websites of doubtful reputation, or known in Colombia for fake news or paid political advertising by many different political parties opposing each other; even El Espectador does not have a lot of reputation or credibility.
4) Those unreliable sources claim he has a variety of Masters’ and PhD degrees, but in fact, as this source shows Petro’s fake titles, Petro was alleged (and partially shown) not to have at least one or two of those degrees. The subject himself replied here Petro answers reservations about his academic degrees with his PARTIAL grade certificates, until a CERTAIN DATE, not until the end date, or certificates saying that he studied and passed the subjects but say nothing about the thesis work nor dissertation nor graduation. The subject claimed “that was everything showing his studies”, failing to show any DEGREE DIPLOMA that effectively shows he indeed graduated, including Master’s or PhD’s Diplomas in Economics, which leaves only his word, political advertising and rumors about his Master’s and PhD’s. In that last article, written by himself, the subject admitted to not having finished his PhD as well as not having graduated as Master’s in Economics from the Pontifical Xaverian University. He even admits not knowing about or not caring about Econometrics, a key part of today’s scientific Economics. At the end of the article, he himself admits to having started those studies and to not having finished them.
5) The Lead section says “Petro served as a senator as a member of the Alternative Democratic Pole party following the 2006 legislative elections with the second largest vote in the country”, using a source which is deleted on Wikinoticias, and the article in spanish claims it was the third largest vote, but actually Gustavo Petro was just FIFTH, as shown in Senadores Electos 2006 Colombia and Conformation of the Senate of the Republic.
6) In the sections “Early Life” and “m19 militancy”, the source Colombia Politics is an unreliable one, widely known as an opposition non-government organization that criticizes Alvaro Uribe in favor of his opponents (like the subject Gustavo Petro), with no direct or first-hand knowledge of the situation in Colombia, with biased or unfounded statements, which, on their webpage, show tendentious or belligerent tone about the 2021 Colombian protests, calling the police and the army, basically, “violent” “murderers”. [ http://www.colombia-politics.com/aboutus/ Colombia Politics – About As)
7) Most of the sources used are sympathetic or biased towards the subject (Gustavo Petro), except a few things like Bogotá’s waste collection scandal or the recall, there are few sources critical to the subject.
8) Sympathetic towards the subject, the article makes no mention of the over 78 trials and judiciary processes where he has been denounced or sued (including criminal, supreme court, council of state, civil, human rights, etc.), which can be seen on the public database of Colombia’s Judiciary Branch at Historical Query of Trials and Processes – Colombia’s Judiciary Branch, writing “Gustavo Petro Urrego” in the name field, choosing “Todos los procesos” and leaving the other fields blank. There it can be seen that most of those trials have happened recently or are ongoing right now (much later than his m19 militancy) and are related to presumed corruption, damages caused by his repeated incitements to violent protests and strikes, calumny & libel & false accusations, his role or presumed incompetence as mayor of Bogota, the damages of his waste collection scandal, etc., etc., etc.
9) The section “Opposition to the Uribe government” says: “During a two-hour speech he [Petro] revealed a variety of documents demonstrating the relationship between members of the Colombian military, the current political leadership, narcotraffickers and paramilitary groups. Petro also criticized the actions of Álvaro Uribe as Governor of Antioquia Department during the CONVIVIR years, and presented an old photograph of Álvaro Uribe's brother, Santiago, alongside Colombian drug trafficker Fabio Ochoa Vázquez”. Such statements are INACCURATE and TENDENTIOUS: Petro intended to directly blame Uribe for everything, but he could never show a direct nor personal involvement of president Uribe (“the current political leadership”) with narcotrafficking or paramilitary groups or the Convivir, only involvement of other politicians (some even in opposition to Uribe), or that of his brother, never Uribe himself.
10) This is supported by A) Uribe didn’t undergo any impeachment process for these allegations, B) Colombia’s Nations’s General Attorney Office (which by law is quite independent from the Executive) investigated all those claims and evidence, during and after Uribe’s tenure, and shelved the matters, finding no merit to go to a criminal trial, as can be seen in the public databases of the General Attorney Office and the Judiciary Branch at Query of Complaints and Ex Officio Reports – Nation’s General Attorney Office and Historical query of trials and processes – Colombia’s Judiciary Branch. The quoted sentences need to be reworded and the word “demonstrating” has to be changed for “alleging”.
11) As these sources Petro has to rectify accusations against Uribe and Petro must retract say, Uribe filed a tutelary action against Petro, and won, for violation of the rights to honor and good name, dignity and presumption of innocence, with the Third Criminal Court of the Circuit dismissing all the “evidence” presented by Petro during the two-hour speech, and ordering Petro to rectify all his accusations within 48 hours, and also ordering: “en futuras entrevistas, o en comentarios que realice a través de redes sociales se abstenga de usar afirmaciones categóricas de comportamientos delictivos en contra del accionante " (that translates as “in future interviews, o social network comments, to abstain from making categorical statements about criminal behavior against the plaintiff”)
12) "Senator Petro alleged that the AUC financially contributed to the presidential campaign of Álvaro Uribe in 2002. Uribe refuted these statements by Petro but, during his presidential reelection campaign in 2006, admitted to having received financial support from Enilse López": the article’s subject (Gustavo Petro) stated that, but the wording is wrong, INACCURATE and TENDENTIOUS, since it implies that Uribe himself received the money for his own benefit, and:
a) As the article’s only source for this statement Gata encerrada ) stated, it was his CAMPAIGN who received a DONATION, and political campaigns have LEGAL STATUS (as a LEGAL ENTITY) separate from those of the candidates as private, natural citizens, just like a company is legally different and separate from each of its owners throughout the world. The source also states that there was no BAD FAITH implied, it was a common donation for a political campaign, like any other, and neither La Gata nor president Uribe demanded anything in return for giving or receiving the money.
b) In principle, there is no legal issue with campaigns receiving donations from questioned persons, since all Constitutions in the world guarantee PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE until proven guilty, and no investigation or prosecution had yet been done against La Gata in 2002. President Uribe never made any attempt to interfere or influence the investigations the Prosecutor’s Office was doing against La Gata and such office is by law quite independent from the Executive branch.
c) The multiple investigations by the Nation’s General Attorney Office to Uribe when president and after leaving office, found no proof that the money was ever something more than a usual, simple donation to a political campaign. THE ARTICLE HAS TO CLARIFY THAT, since it is, on the contrary, implying that Uribe himself received money from a drug dealer and paramilitary, in BAD FAITH and for personal benefit, in exchange for favors. Historical trial query – Colombia’s Judicial Branch ; Query of Criminal Complaints and Reports – Colombia’s Nation’s General Attorney Office ).
13) Contrary to Petro’s accusations, it was president Uribe who authored the Ley de Justicia y Paz in 2005 bringing paramilitary groups to justice and jail ( Ley de Justicia y Paz ), who asked for the capture of the remaining paramilitary groups ( Uribe demands capture of remaining paramilitaries, Uribe demands capture of remaining paramilitaries ), and who created a new Search Block to capture them ( Nine ex-paramilitaries captured.
14) This article is so sympathetic towards the subject (Gustavo Petro) that it doesn’t mention the different accusations of murder, assassination and kidnapping that were made against the subject during his m19 militancy (it only mentions rebellion, conspiracy and carrying of arms), though pardoned in the 1989 and 2016 Peace Agreements, neither does it mention anything of his role in the planning of Palace of Justice Siege as one of the foremost leaders of m19, for which he was being investigated by the General Attorney Office at the moment of the 1989 Peace Accord, as can be seen at Query of Complaints and Ex Officio Reports – Nation’s General Attorney Office. “Pardoned” does not mean those didn’t happen, only that they were not punished.
15) The article does not mention either the repeated, irresponsible, incendiary and often unfounded accusations the subject (Gustavo Petro) has been making for years towards traditional politicians almost indiscriminately, claiming to have “proofs”, as a political and publicitary strategy to gain sympathies and followers, as seen not only in his:
a) (dismissed) attacks to president Uribe, but also in:
b) accusing the prosecution of paramilitary infiltration when he learned that he was being investigated for trying to infiltrate it ( Fiscal dice que el infiltrado es Petro ),
c) as seen in inciting protests in Bogotá when he was recalled claiming a COUP D’ETAT ( Petro, Coup, Protests ),
d) as seen in him pressing the Prosecutor’s office to prosecute those who recalled him in retaliation ( Petro, Basuras ),
e) as seen in repeated claims to have been threatened to death by presumptly extinct paramilitary group AGUILAS NEGRAS ( [17], Petro’s claims before CIDH ), who have been considered by the Colombian Authorities to be extinct and rather replaced by low-level criminal groups, as shown in ( Neoparamilitarism?, Petro and Cepeda denounce threats, Planflets named after Black Eagles ).
f) as seen in claiming that the two officers asked their IDs more or less near his mother’s house ( Militarymen were performing verification activities: army ) were actually threatening his family or himself to death,
g) as seen in his claims during the 2010 presidential campaign that his aim was to “remove organized crime from power”, calling president Uribe “organized crime”, despite Petro himself being seen as a “murderer” by a segment of the population and despite the Third Court of the Circuit in 2007 ordering him to abstain from public criminal accusations against president Uribe, in Petro has to rectify accusations against Uribe and Petro must retract,
h) or as seen in his inciting of the 2021, and 2019-2020 massive street riots in Colombia ( What happens in the Protests is Petro’s responsibility, Petro calls Football fans to be part of the protests ),
i) or as seen in his repeated but unproven claims that Ivan Duque won the 2018 presidential elections by means of FRAUD ( Petro denies Ivan Duque as president,
j) or in his claims that he is going to criminally report his supporter, mayor of Bogota Claudia Lopez ( Petro threatens to file criminal trial against Claudia Lopez ),
k) or as seen in his claims, again, of COUP D’ETAT when the National Electoral Council, following the law, revoked the legal status of his political movement Colombia Humana because of extremely low vote in the 2018 Legislative Elections ( CNE denies legal status to Colombia Humana ), which does not prevent him from running for president in 2022…
(my God that guy Petro sounds like Trump!) (everything that does not favor him is a coup d’etat or a conspiracy)
16) The two officers Petro claimed were “spying on him” or “trying to kill his family”, were not captured nor detained, only asked their IDs, neither were they too close to his family’s home, and the army officially answered that they were investigating another, unrelated matter of intelligence (verification), as the source ( Militarymen were performing verification activities: army ) says.
17) Most of those “death threats” Petro talks about, have been investigated by the Nation’s General Attorney Office (which is quite independent from the Executive branch), so far having found no proof or evidence, or not being directly targeted at Petro, and hence shelving them and not going to criminal trial, despite death threats being a criminal offense in Colombia, as can be seen both in the public databases of the General Attorney Office and the Judiciary Branch at Query of Complaints and Ex Officio Reports – Nation’s General Attorney Office and Historical query of trials and processes – Colombia’s Judiciary Branch.
18) Furthermore, the BLACK EAGLES are considered by the Colombian Authorities to be extinct by the dates Petro claimed to have been threatened, and rather replaced by low-level criminal groups, as shown in ( Neoparamilitarism?, Petro and Cepeda denounce threats, Planflets named after Black Eagles ).
19) When asked about Petro’s death threats, Colonel Jimmy Perez Baena, commander in charge of the police, answered that such AGUILAS NEGRAS no longer exist, that it is other criminal bands who have taken their name, devoted to drug trafficking and in coalition with remnants of FARC, and that a number of people had been captured and made available to the Prosecution, engaged in selective homicides, who were found weapons, ammunition and pamphlets alluding to both social cleansing groups and the FARC (another guerrilla group supposed to be sympathetic to Petro), detracting from the possibility that the colombian right-wing is somehow involved in the threats, as shown in ( Neoparamilitarism?, Petro and Cepeda denounce threats, Planflets named after Black Eagles ).
20) “A lawsuit has been filed by citizens against Duque alleging bribery and fraud. The News chain Wradio made public the law suit July 11, which was presented to the CNE (Consejo Nacional Electoral, National Electoral Council, by its acronym in Spanish).[36] The state of the law suit will be defined by the Magistrado Alberto Yepes”, with the source Elections sued, but it was not presented to the CNE but to the Consejo de Estado, and the wording is INACCURATE and TENDENTIOUS: that source and the lawsuit do not mention “bribery” nor “fraud”, instead focusing on the fact that the Consejo Nacional Electoral did not allow the inscription of the party “Integración Nacionalista Radical Internacional”, and also on an alleged double-militancy incurred in by elected Vice-president Martha Lucia Ramirez.
21) Based on those allegations, that lawsuit took place and the highest instance, the Consejo de Estado, sentenced in favor of current president Ivan Duque Marquez and current Vice-president Martha Lucia Ramirez, as can be seen in: ( Pretensions rejected, double militancy denied ), where Petro and the citizens demanded “Que mediante sentencia sea declarada la nulidad del acto de elección popular efectuado el 17 de junio de 2018, en desarrollo de la segunda vuelta de la elección presidencial de nuestro país”, “En consecuencia, que se disponga la cancelación de las credenciales de Presidente y Vicepresidente que se hubiesen otorgado a los Doctores Iván Duque Márquez y Martha Lucía Ramírez Blanco” (“that by means of a sentence nullity of the act of popular election performed on June 17th, 2018, during the run-off of the presidential elections, be declared”, “Consequently, order the cancellation of the credentials of President and Vice President that had been granted to Doctors Iván Duque Márquez and Martha Lucía Ramírez Blanco”), where the sentence says: “Deniéganse las pretensiones de la demanda de conformidad con lo expuesto en la parte motiva de esta providencia” (“The pretensions of the lawsuit are denied according to what is stated in the motive part of this ruling”).
Please, proceed to correct all those above-mentioned 21 points.
The correction is urgent, critical and necessary, given the heated environment in Colombia right now, where hatred floods everything and where Wikipedia is taken as the referent to claim former president Uribe is “a murderer” and “a drug dealer”, which is the apparent implication of the article as it is right now.
Thank you, critic1234567 Critic1234567 ( talk) 02:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Critic1234567: You've written a lot, and it's unlikely anyone is going to look into every point. I suggest you concentrate on the urgent issues. From a very very quick skim through what you wrote, there are some obvious problems with your proposal.
For 8, 10, maybe 12, 14 and 21, your source is some .gov.co site. An official government website is generally fairly useless for anything but very basic information (like when someone was elected to office) with a controversial political figure. Secondary sources like Bloomberg are required. This is especially the case if you are linking to a court document or a official government press release. We cannot mention any legal cases or outcomes which have not been covered in reliable secondary sources.
For 15 since I don't understand Spanish, I would not be able to look into these examples, but I wonder if your sources support your claim. For example for 15 c, I looked at a machine translation of the BBC source and do not see any evidence of "as seen in inciting protests in Bogotá when he was recalled". I do see he called it a coup, but I don't even see any evidence that his description was a particular controversial or notable part of the dispute. Especially not that it was part of "repeated, irresponsible, incendiary and often unfounded accusations". Your personal belief it was such is not sufficient, we need sources discussing how he regularly makes such statements. To be clear, this means sources which simply mentions a statement which you find " irresponsible, incendiary and ..... unfounded". The source needs to actually describe it as such if we are going to describe his statements as such in the article. If we don't have that, we could mention some of his statements without describing them negatively, but we would still need some evidence from sources that those statements of his were particularly significant since most politicians say a lot of things all the time and we're never going to cover all of them.
Finally the choice of Colombian sources vs non Colombian sources is complicated. While lacking reporters on the ground in Colombia can be limiting, we expect quality reliable sources to be able to partly make up for it by assessing and reporting what other sources they have vetted and trust have told them. The state of press freedom in Colombia is fairly low, so we also have to take care when relying on Colombian sources, as User:Carlosverano92 mentioned above. On the whole, while we sometimes may rely on Colombian sources, in other cases quality non Colombian sources may actually be a better idea especially with extremely contentious subjects. Note I'm not saying this necessarily applies to Bloomberg.
These aren't very nice people, but starting someone's entry with "There have been rumours"? Doug Weller talk 08:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The band Stallion mentioned on the 1976 line-up page is not the american Stallion. Stallion who played at the festival were from Hastings E.Sussex England and were the winners of the MelodyMaker rock contest of that year with part of the prize for winning was to play at Reading festival. I tried to change the link but the text went to the wrong place! Surely the Reading festival archives should have the correct information somewhere or MelodyMaker can prove that Stallion (from Hastings) played that gig? No disrespect to the american Stallion but it is wrong to claim that they played that gig at Reading. Could someone please chack this out. Thank you, Digger Stallion (Hastings) roadie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.200 ( talk • contribs)
An IP claiming to be the subject needs help from somebody who can be nice, tactful, encouraging and helpful without going flame-thrower. ... and who knows how to handle this. thanks. - Roxy . wooF 20:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The underlying issue came to my attention at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Dave Bautista. The issue was the birthplace and the height of a former professional wrestler. The birthplace issue was resolved and my concern is with the associated height (and weight) issues, which apply to many professional wrestler BLPs. Discussion of this issue is ongoing at Talk:Dave Bautista#Birth place error and at User talk:InedibleHulk#Dave Bautista and User talk: Cullen328#Is seeming a bit taller harmful to a BLP in Batista's position?. It seems that this template allows display of "Billed height" and "Billed weight" parameters, which are routinely cited to web pages controlled by the WWE or other professional wrestling businesses, which are pretty much the opposite of reliable sources, since they routinely exaggerate height, weight and every other fact about their performers. So, living people have false heights and weights cited to sources known to lie constantly. Professional wrestling is an entertainment subculture built around the concept of kayfabe, which means that people who make their living from professional wrestling are expected to lie constantly and consistently about personalities, backgrounds, rivalries, heights and weights. That's an interesting sociological phenomenon but it cannot possibly be acceptable to present this type of "in universe" content in a neutral encyclopedia, cited to sources that all sane people know are unreliable. When were unreliable sources ever acceptable in a BLP? Well, back in the Wild West days of fourteen plus years ago when the BLP policy hadn't yet been written, and this policy violating template was created. The problem emerged only when the representative of a living person called the matter to our attention. I think that we need firm consensus that professional wrestling articles are not exempt from Wikipedia's core content policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, and that all unreliable sources and any content cited to unreliable sources should be removed promptly from professional wrestling articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
As an editor who primarily focuses on professional wrestling articles, I have some insight to provide. As you all know, professional wrestling is a strange universe and performing art form. Unlike other forms of entertainment such as cinema and novels, the line is frequently blurred between characters, fiction, and reality due to the nature of kayfabe interacting frequently with the real world. The infobox we speak of is not necessarily the main biographical information infobox, but rather a sub infobox entitled "professional wrestling information", which states quick facts both kayfabe (billed from/billed height) and actual information (trained by, debut, retired, etc). For instance, a wrestler may be born in one city (listed in primary infobox) but might be billed as being from another city or even a fictional place (such as "Wherever he damn well pleases" or "From the bottom of the sea" or "From Gotham") as part of his persona. Such information is considered to be important identifying characteristics of their character relevant for professional wrestling coverage on Wikipedia, and tends to be included because of the promotion saying so (whether online or during ring announcements during a wrestler's entrance). The heights might be accurate or they might be exaggerated as a part of a character as dictated by a professional wrestling company such as WWE in order to make their character appear to be more credible of a threat. It is long acknowledged that the heights stated by the company might be exaggerated, and therefore statements of actual heights and weights are likely from unreliable sources, and in such a case, listing the exaggerated height from a reliable primary source is acceptable due to the nature of kayfabe listing "professional wrestling information" and the way kayfabe interacts with reality. For instance, Adam Cole is billed as being 6'0, but is widely and infamously rumored in the wrestling community to be much shorter due to things like pictures taken with fans who are shorter than 6'0 being of comparable height to Cole. Additionally, I can compare this to a phenomenon seen in actual sports competition. Until the NBA banned this practice, coaches, players, and basketball player development executives in the NBA are known to bump up (or even down) players listed heights by a few inches in order to justify marketing them to play a certain position normally played by taller or shorter players. For instance, Kobe Bryant was listed as 6'6 despite being 6'4 to better justify him being a shooting guard and Kevin Durant listed himself as 6'9 despite being 6'10 (or alternatively 7'0 in shoes) in order for him to play small forward rather than as center. In sports, height is important to list for various reasons, and teams sometimes state a wrong height for their personal benefit. However, it still is sourced as accurate for purposes of biography, as it comes from authoritative bodies. In regards to wrestling, it does not constitute a violation of BLP due to the height never implying to be accurate, and professional wrestling articles look at kayfabe from an outside point of view, such as when explaining storylines and listing billed height. In sports it's listed height, in professional wrestling it's billed height. Slightly different terms but same concept, for slightly different reasons but for very similar purposes intended to benefit the involved parties. Maybe I'd recommend making it more clear that the height is of the character and not of the actual person somehow? Because clearly it doesn't intend to deceive. It strives to accurately reflect the wrestling character as it is presented. Due to the nature of kayfabe these billed heights of the characters that the wrestling promotions promote sometimes gets misconstrued as promoting false information regarding the actual persons itself. DrewieStewie ( talk) 10:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
As others have said above, I see no issue with us including "in-universe" billed height. There is no claim on our part that these are meant to be realistic, and I certainly don't agree with the idea that the use of the word "billed" qualifies as WP:WEASEL. Now, if OP wanted to add an "actual height" field I don't think I'd oppose it, but I certainly don't think that kayfabe billed heights and weights are in any way a BLP violation. — Czello 12:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Allegedly well over 400 lbas his billed weight... — Czello 12:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree with those above that at no pin to are we claiming these billed heights and weights are the living person's actual figures, and that's made plainly clear by the "billed" being included on the parameter. Gotta remember, these articles are as much about the kayfabe character (or succession thereof for those who have had long careers) as the real-world person. oknazevad ( talk) 12:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree that as long as it is clear that we're talking "billed" or other delineation as to state that this is not what "reality" is saying but what the wrestling promotional material is saying, that's fine. (I'd preferably like to see a color bar above that information as to break where everything below it is the "billed" personality and everything above it is from the infobox person proper, but the proper labels help to avoid that as a necessity). -- Masem ( t) 15:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Cullen 328 seems to be confused about the word "unreliable". Nobody is claiming that the information is accurate. But billed height, weight, and hometown are defining characteristics of wrestlers--just watch the introduction to absolutely every match. For what it's worth, McFarland's Biographical Dictionary of Professional Wrestling states that he is 6'6" and 325 pounds. Anyhow, I don't see the problem here. There is an actual height in the infobox and a billed height below. If a reliable source could be given for actual weight, I'm sure that could be added as well. 13:29, 18 May 2021 (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.
Per @ Cullen328, Firefangledfeathers, and Zaereth: - it is not apparent that "billed" sufficiently conveys the fictional aspect of height / weight / hometown being advertised by the pro-wrestling company. As such, I would like to formally propose MjolnirPants' idea that we edit Template:Infobox professional wrestler's display, changing (1) "Billed height" to "Character's height", changing (2) "Billed weight" to "Character's weight", and changing "Billed from" to "Character's hometown". This will better inform readers that this is not the actual height / weight / hometown of these professional wrestlers. starship .paint ( exalt) 02:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I see that the information is something that readers may want, but I also see that it's easy for readers, and editors, to have no idea that "billed" means "make believe" in the context of the height and weight. I propose that we change it to
Kayfabe weight,
Kayfabe height, and
Kayfabe hometown. Kayfabe is a strange enough word where if you don't know what it means you'll at least hover over the wikilink and see In professional wrestling, kayfabe /ˈkeɪfeɪb/ (also called work or worked), as a noun, is the portrayal of staged events within the industry as "real" or "true"
. It is far less likely than "billed" to be mistaken for real life and we can wikilink directly to the article that explains the concept to non-wrestling fans who may be looking at these articles.
"Billed" in this context means exactly what it says: the height/weight by which the performer is "advertise{d} by a bill or public notice". We aren't saying Batista etc *is* a certain height, we are saying he is *billed* as being that height.— Czello 12:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Professional wrestling is an entertainment subculture built around the concept of kayfabe, which means that people who make their living from professional wrestling are expected to lie constantly and consistently about personalities, backgrounds, rivalries, heights and weights. That's an interesting sociological phenomenon but it cannot possibly be acceptable to present this type of "in universe" content in a neutral encyclopedia, cited to sources that all sane people know are unreliable.I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think his issue is with the existence of kayfabe parameters in the infobox and how we source them -- not a confusion about whether or not they're real. — Czello 12:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate some guidance in this process. I acknowledged from the beginning of my edit request that I work with Dave Bautista. In addition to that, I am his oldest childhood friend and am simply trying to correct an error in his birthplace. I'm not sure how doing that could raise any conflict of interest, but I would like to certify here that I am not being paid directly or indirectly to try to correct this error.on COIN. Without doing any outing, the combination of those and access to the internet should clarify. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
"billed height" -wrestling
and you'll find books using the term in other contexts.
Levivich
harass/
hound 17:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
If the lying concept of "billed height" and "billed weight" has any place on Wikipedia, it should be because actually reliable sources independent of WWE choose to cover it.A search of Google Books yields Sisterhood of the Squared Circle ( ECW Press), Historical Dictionary of Wrestling ( Scarecrow Press), Biographical Dictionary of Professional Wrestling, 2d Ed. ( McFarland & Company), and Legends of Pro Wrestling ( Skyhorse Publishing), among others. Levivich harass/ hound 04:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
the undertaker heightand marvel at how it feeds back incorrect information sourced to Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 19:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I was alerted to this article through this article talking about biographic changes in our article on the show. Looking over the content, it seems to me that all the tracking of the contestants' lives is a major BLP problem for people who aren't really public figures, even if they volunteered to be temporarily in the spotlight on this sort of show. I don't imagine that we can reach a consensus to eliminate all the details about the participants, but it seems to me that it ought to be considerably reduced. Mangoe ( talk) 16:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The editor User_talk:71.65.65.144 has been repeatedly adding unfounded claims that the subject is part of a "smear campaign". Upon request for citation, the editor added some links to non-neutral sources and a news article that doesn't back up the claims. The editor has been warned multiple times on their talk page and has recently deleted the last warning. I believe the editor to be obviously vandalizing Wikipedia. Roper Klacks ( talk) 20:48, 31 May 2021 (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.
Katherine Maher ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Reads like an advertisement complete with twitter link. Not a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:8808:2C00:D97A:224:D9CF:CD16 ( talk) 06:50, 30 May 2021 (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.
Not a notable person. /info/en/?search=VM_Brasseur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:8808:2C00:D97A:224:D9CF:CD16 ( talk) 06:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Mark E. Curry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This person is a notorious person who keeps editing his profile. There are several articles written about his exploitative nature. https://theintercept.com/2021/05/31/payday-lender-native-american-tribe-american-web-loan/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawman01 ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
There's an edit war going on. Controversial info about a living person is getting included, with a sole source being a website called popmatters.com. I don't think that this tabloid type source is sufficiently reliable for such controversial info in a BLP article. I removed all BLP violations at the moment, but protection might be needed. Grand master 16:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
What should happen with this BLP? The only references that I can see are either broken or trivial ( "Producers are John G. Lenic and Kaleena Kiff through their Trinity Works Entertainment banner"). I clicked many of the blue links in the Filmography section and found that "Kiff" is mentioned in less than a quarter of them. Thoughts? Johnuniq ( talk) 07:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The article hasn't credited the time Britt Ekland dated Sammy Davis Jr., the fact which was fully reported by world celebrities media in early 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.33.141.132 ( talk • contribs)
Andrew Pessin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone keeps repeatedly adding false, misleading, and defamatory material about Andrew Pessin, maliciously charging him as "well known for Islamophobia" based on distortion from various sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miranda6391 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Ed Henry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) "alleged affairs" are not well sourced entries and they are being used as defamatory on this person ( Ed Henry).
Entries in his career area were pejorative misrepresentations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zxbailey15:35, 5 June 2021 ( talk • contribs)
It appears there are several frivolous claims on this article with no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.50.16 ( talk) 10:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Jahrein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jahrein a few weeks ago made a statement during his Twitch stream on Israel and Palestine conflict. His statements were edited by unreliable pro-government sources. Now a misleading text is added to the relevant article by User:Adigabrek. Although I had removed problematic text, he reverted my edits. This is a violation of WP:BLP. Not exactly for these websites but there is a there is a noticeboard discussion that states Turkish news sites are generally unreliable. [35]
The sources used in the article:
-- V. E. ( talk) 17:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Visnelma: and @ Adigabrek:, I have removed the "Hostility with Gaga Bulut" and "Jerusalem controversy" sections because all the sources use "allegedly" which is not acceptable for controversial claims per BLP standards. That said, the very brief discussion at RSN linked above cannot be considered to stand for a proposition that the sites quoted are considered unreliable by a broad consensus. Please discuss these reliability and BLP issues on the article talk instead of engaging an edit war. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Crazy Legs (dancer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article could do with some eyes. 92.24.246.11 ( talk) 01:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Christopher Massimine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I stumbled across this by accident as I've never heard of the subject. The article is poorly written in a number of respects, but there are now many new users who are fighting over certain material, and the present state of the article with respect to BLP violations is awful. As I attempt to follow it, there are at least two main disputes, whether Massimine was an associate producer of the Broadway play American Idiot, and whether he in fact did work for clients as an independent producer. As a result, we have such wonderful language in the article as:
"Massimine claims to have earned a Tony Award nomination for his work as a producer on American Idiot (musical) (although this has not been independently verified), produced concerts for major label artists, and claims to have developed high-impact promotional campaigns in recorded music, retail, and video gaming, yet many of the people he has named as past clients have denied knowing Massimine and insist that he did no work on their behalf." (footnotes omitted)
There is also one more issue at the end of the article:
"On October 16, 2019, a press release announced he was selected by the "NPAA" as Humanitarian of the Year. According to multiple news reports in June of 2021, there is no evidence of the existence of an organization known as the "NPAA" outside of the self-published press release announcing the award." (footnotes omitted)
There has been some discussion on the article Talk page about these issues, most of it by the newly created accounts.
There is also a disturbing statement on the userpage of one of the newly created accounts, Sophistrate:
"I used to publish/edit under the name Atomicskier, but recently took a renewed interest in Wikipedia after discovering that someone was using it as one of his many online vehicles to defraud employers. It has now become my personal mission to make sure this abuse of Wikipedia and its mission is rectified."
To date, Sophistrate has edited only the Massimine article. Indeed, this all started with the user's first edit attempting clumsily to have the article speedy deleted. The article before that point had nothing negative in it; in fact, it was a bit of a puff piece.
Hopefully, some more BLP-experienced users will address these issues. I'm not necessarily saying that some - or even all - of the negative aspects of the article are untrue, but we have to have strong, reliable sources to back them up, and we have to express them very differently from the way they are expressed now.
And then there's the MOS issues and that dreadful infobox ...-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I removed some material from this article per WP:BLPRS and was instantly summarily reverted. I don't wanna get into an edit war even though I'm following policy. Help? 92.24.246.11 ( talk) 12:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The dates do not make sense.....
"July 2015, Gurpal was acquitted at Southwark Crown Court on 31 July 2015 of any wrongdoing.[20] During the trial, Mr Virdi accused the Met of bringing the criminal case against him as part of a 17-year campaign to "hound" him out of the force.[21]
The case of Gurpal Virdi was subsequently picked up by Sir Peter Bottomley in 1998, notable as previously Member of Parliament and advocate at the time of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.[22] Bottomley requested that the Home Secretary, at that point Theresa May, review the case.[23] In March 2018 Bottomley submitted an Early Day Motion, calling for a parliamentary debate on the matter.[24]"
Thomas Sowell ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Uninvolved eyes needed to help resolve questions of WP:WEIGHT. I stopped editing the page because of one particular user and his personal flamethrower, and I suspect that other editors who recently stopped editing the page did the same. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Kelsey Koelzer is the first Black female hockey coach in NCAA history Ed Wright, who coached the University of Buffalo in 1970, was the first Black head coach in NCAA hockey history
https://www.nhl.com/news/color-of-hockey-wright-was-ncaa-pioneer-at-buffalo/c-317614338
When I wrote my initial story about Koelzer, the NCCAA stated that she was the first Black head coach. But their database doesn't go back as far as 1970. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgdouglas35 ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
This article may be being edited by a person close to the source. It's also been subject to a prolonged tiny edit war. Thanks for looking. H0n0r ( talk) 00:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Please immediately delete the entire paragraph about The Watcher. It is libelous. It is malicious gossip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.238.31 ( talk) 22:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Basil Hassan (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Hi, came across this cause of a search for wikilinks at
Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - I do not see any verifications in the sources for the accusations being described, the first source does not even mention its name - needs some eyes.
CommanderWaterford (
talk) 10:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Wanaka Gym court case
This part does not have anything to do with Fiona Graham's experience as a geisha and it does not fit the page. If it is necessary to use this section, one must record the full story. Here it stops at 2015. In the link I have provided, you can see that the case continues after 2015.
http://theoldgymwanaka.net/other.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by JapanHistoryLady ( talk • contribs) 02:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
This is Fiona Graham. You have been accusing me of being a sock puppet for a decade now! You have no proof at all of me ever doing that so please respond properly to the people who make sensible posts here. The problem with the Wanaka Gym stuff is that someone has failed to include the court cases that I won in 2003 - the Ombudsman's report is there on the website, in 2005, in 2006, against the DBH and in Civil Court and only includes a single court case that I didn't. Since including the entire 20 years of court cases and which are not yet concluded doesn't make any sense, and since only including a court case I lost is unreasonable and unfair and an issue for the Living Person's Notice Board, you shouldn't include it at all. If you want to include it then please include every single case that I won. The real issue here on this board is why you have such an agenda to harm a living person by including only negative content and deleting anything positive.
For BLP editors can someone please help with the fact that a small number of Wikipedia editors remove all positive or recent content from my page, only keeping old or negative content? Any person trying to add positive content is labelled a sock puppet without any proof and the content they add is removed. The most recent article cited on the page is Scott Swann recent television program. Every sentence added from that program is also deleted. Ineffable Bookkeeper is the worst of the recent ones, along with Ravensfire. And the one above. What can I do about constant nonstop accusation of sock puppetry. Surely editors have to actually have some kind of proof before they damage living persons by removing all positive content from their page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:31C5:BDC3:AF2:967F ( talk) 06:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Fiona Graham: You cannot possible verify 15 years of court cases and you can possibly put a single piece of that history in there and have it be a fair reflection. So the only fair and correct thing to do is remove it. Whoever wrote the above, by the way, may be a student, but is not a student of mine. Once again, you editors are assuming that anything positive on my page is connected to me, but it is not. My students are learning that Wikipedia, which they assume to reliable, is actually incredibly biassed and unfair, and controlled by people who have the most time to spend on it! This is a very good lesson of them to learn. And it is also a pity. Wikipedia would be a wonderful thing if it wasn't for editors like the ones who constantly remove valid information from my page for no reason.
Fiona Graham: I find it very weird that on the one hand someone using your IPv6 64 said they never edit Wikipedia, despite also teaching people how to Wikipedia. [3] But then above you say you've been accused of being a sockpuppet for 10 years which is very weird for someone who never edits Wikipedia. We should never, and I'm fairly sure have never, said anything about sockpuppetry on your article, so how does someone who doesn't edit know about that? This is something only someone who edits Wikipedia is likely to know. Checking out talk pages as a non editor once or twice may happen, but checking out talk pages often enough to be aware of such accusations over 10 years is fairly unusual. Further someone using your IPv6 64 made this very self serving edit to the geisha page [4] which is very weird for someone who does not edit Wikipedia.
Anyway while I don't feel comfortable telling you what you should teach your students, I will say that from my experience here, one thing editors do need to understand is how to handle a conflict of interest. Any student of yours has a conflict of interest which means they should refrain from editing any article related to you directly. This is both the Fiona Graham article but also any parts of the geisha article that affect you especially those relating to non Japanese geisha. (Other areas of conflict could arise. E.g. stuff related to the Wānaka council's zoning regulations.) They can propose changes on the article talk page but if they do so, they should declare their conflict of interest. Unfortunately it's clear this has often not happened. It would be a great benefit to everyone if this editing with an undeclared conflict of interest, often direct editing where possible, does not occur every few month.
As I said, I don't feel comfortable telling you what to teach, but this clearly includes it being a great benefit to any student editors if they learnt not to fail so badly in handling a COI. On a more personal level, I only learnt about this maybe 2 years ago. But despite that, I've found any proposals relating to Fiona Graham generally terrible enough that even if a student editor declared their COI and restricted themselves to proposals, I still don't think they are helping anyone.
I can't speak for others but frankly, I can't really be bothered dealing with such crappy proposals made by students of a subject. However, I can understand why subjects themselves may make such terrible suggestions for change. I often still can't help them, but I'm much more willing to look more carefully at what they're saying. In that vein, I will have a look and see if I can find any sources discussion the ombudsman issue.
I do stand by my point above. From your own website, there's been nothing since 2015 that is of interest to our article which was what the editor above mentioned. You are now saying that some of our earlier coverage is lacking, which is a different issue. As Fences & Windows said, it's unlikely we can directly use anything from your website. We also cannot generally directly use trial transcripts or verdicts, nor reports from an ombudsman. If there are reliable secondary sources which mention such details, then we may be able to mention them. unfortunately your website doesn't list any but I'll have a quick look and see if I can find anything.
= Fiona Graham: So many crazy arguments above! Many people edit my page and some of them write to me to tell me that they tried to remove incorrect information or add new validly sourced information but it was removed. Why would you assume my students would have anything to do with adding anything not relating to geisha? They are only adding valid information from reliable sources. The NZ issues cannot possibly be represented fairly unless you include 15 years worth of material and if you are not going to do that you should remove the current information because it is only a tiny piece of it and unfair to include it. It is local news only, it is many years old, it is an ongoing situation that can harm a living person's life and it has nothing to do with the reason I am on Wikipedia, and therefore should be removed.
This article is full and I mean FULL of extremely negative information about a named person without appropriate citations. 92.24.246.11 ( talk) 19:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
This article Boss Hog may contain one or more mistakes about this post-punk band's first show. It states that Boss Hogg formed in 1989, and that singer Jon Spencer performed all of that first show nude! It also mentions that the band performed an early show as a last minute addition to a high profile show at CBGBs. I am a photographer who took pictures of Boss Hogg playing such a show, opening for Rapeman at CBGBs, in September 1988. Spencer was fully clothed. If this is helpful I can provide the photos and a picture of my contemporary notes on the photos....best, Pat Blashill Roland154 ( talk) 07:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I have now found another source that claims singer Cristina Martinez played the first show naked! I'm more interested in trying top find out if the date the band formed was sometime in 1989, which would mean the notes I took back then are wrong. I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia, so what sort of source would be considered acceptable? Would it have to be a magazine or newspaper article from back in the day? best, ----Pat Blashill Roland154
can u help me with this what should i add and is cite given is fine or should i put more ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyisback11188 ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Michelle Gurevich ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The IP editor 46.97.170.112 introduces information that is not directly emphasized in the source. This may be a slip of the spot in the publication. I believe that this can be added only after a few repetitions in authoritative sources. Jaguarnik's editing must be canceled. — Alexey Tourbaevsky, cheloVechek / talk 02:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Section started by now blocked sock and replies have been to their comments, so no need to continue discussion for now. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This BLP needs attention. There is little info on the work by the subject. I mentioned he has recently published a book incorporating AI in his drug discovery platform. The book was reviewed by Robert Huber, a Nobel laureate expert in structural biology. My edit got reverted with the statement "WP is not Goodreads". This BLP is completely out of balance. It mentions 4 papers challenged over a decade ago. Papers often get challenged in science. That is not notable. I am hesitant to make more changes until there is some feedback. KentQuaker ( talk) 22:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
|
I noticed an editor continues to add unproven allegations to the page of Isa Ali Ibrahim to the extent that the additions seem to defeat the purposes for an autobiography of a living person. This is demonstrated by writing an unproven allegation section as the majority content of the autobiography. The guidelines stipulates that potentially libelous content or fake news be avoided to prevent defamation of character. I have repeatedly edited to provide an objective summary, however there seems to be a false propaganda narrative by User: Watercheetah99 and some other users to drive a propaganda against a living person. I have previously engaged Dewritech and WikiDan61 of whih we agreed an article is a mere highlight of a persons life and not every achievement or controversy the person has ever had in his life. I hereby report that users should be refrained from adding potentially libelous content or unproven allegations that defames the character of a living person and adds no value to readers or the article and or biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullomayo ( talk • contribs)
John McGuirk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The page for John McGuirk, available at John_McGuirk, currently lists him as the editor of a far-right website. There are 3 references given for that, none of those pages call Gript far right. One does call Gript 'alt right' but that source is a pseudoanonymous blog which is not a member of the Irish Press Council nor generally regarded as reputable - mainstream national Irish press, including RTE, the Irish Times, Prime Time, and the Journal.ie have discussed Gript and John McGuirk without classing them as far-right. I have attempted to fix the issue, and class Gript as 'right-wing' instead, which is also arguable but at least, in my view, defensible, but those changes have been repeatedly reverted by the user who added the initial claim. As the description of John McGuirk as the editor of a far-right website appears to be, on the face of it, defamatory, and is currently not backed up by sources, I wanted to flag it here to see if we can resolve the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualgrasp ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
far-right publication. It also calls McGuirk a
Far-right commentator, but we're not using it to make that claim.
alt-right website. The alt-right is part of the far-right, and The Beacon's own subheading is
reporting on the far right.
In the US, far-right talking points have been popularised through an eco-system of influencers and partisan media outlets who relay the message in milder terms. In Ireland, those echoing the far-right message include parties like Renua and the alternative media outlets Gript and The Burkean...Gript and The Burkean primarily produce opinion pieces while positioning themselves as an alternative to mainstream journalism. It also includes a screenshot of McGuirk tweeting a Gript article using the manipulation tactics that it just discussed. The article itself is titled "How the far-right incite hatred".
This biographical article about a living person reads suspiciously like an autobiography intended to court a favorable public opinion in lieu of an actual trial in an actual court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lineardyna ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Bruno Bernard (writer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I semi-protected this page in response to a request at RFPP. IP addresses were removing sourced information about fraud and those sources also indicate that he has used false academic titles. The article survived an AfD in 2018 as no consensus and apparently the deletion on French Wikipedia involved legal threats. I'd like more eyes on this bio and consideration of whether it is viable. Fences& Windows 23:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a single sourced statement: Coval was removed from his position as Executive Director at Young Chicago Authors because of allegations that he had not properly followed up on sexual assaults committed by teaching artists hired by the organization.
[1] that seems to be causing a problem with an SPA who is reverting it. The sourcing for the single sentence looks pretty good, and the sentence itself is concise and neutrally worded. I've reached out on the talk page and the editor's talk page with no success. Any extra eyes on this would be appreciated, thanks.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 14:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
References
I have doubts about including a number of contentious claims sourced to something like strana.ua, pravda.com.ua or Morning Star (see Morning Star in Perennial_sources), like in these edits [8], [9]. This may be also an issue of due weight. The disagreements were discussed on article talk page, for example here. Some help from uninvolved contributors would be appreciated. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I've removed content from Toshihiro Nagoshi's page crediting Nagoshi's involvement with various games due to the use of sources that have been established as unreliable in the WP:VG/S. I've also removed other content in the page for similar reasons and detailed the issue in the relevant talk page. Despite it being a clear violation of WP:V and, as far as I understand it, violating WP:BLP, it has been reverted twice - and without adjustments or changes to the disputed sources.
The first editor, who contributed about half of the items of contention, claims other developer pages being similarly lacking in proper citation/sourcing as an excuse for reversion. The second claims that removal of the content is a perversion of BLP guidelines because it 'applies to contentious or controversial material.' and that 'Nagoshi is not going to sue for defamation over Wikipedia stating he worked on some games and joined the board of Sega.' For my part, I don't see other pages failing to meet policy as an excuse. Additionally, I consider the information contentious -both as a result of the back and forth and inherently due to not meeting verifiability- and recognize the WP:BLP policy as being applicable regardless of the tone or potential consequences of the content's inclusion by way of the following portion:
"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
I'm not interested in dragging the matter out with a reversion back-and-forth or making an argument out of it, and I would really appreciate an administrator with greater understanding of these sorts of issues to help resolve the matter decisively before it gets to that. If I've misunderstood the policy in my application, I'd appreciate things being set straight, but my current understanding is that this is in fact a violation. Advice and resolution would be valuable, as they'd inform future steps I may take in the pursuit of preventing these issues in the future and clearing up the ones that are present where the pages/project of my interest is concerned.
Thank you very much for your time in advance. Fact Scanner ( talk) 18:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The articles on Wikipedia, both in Spanish and in English, about Gustavo Petro, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, Iván Duque, the Farc, the m19, the parapolitics and the Wikiproyecto Colombia, all of them LIVING PERSONS or ongoing matters of world or national interest, have abundant false, doubtful, disputed statements or with biased or doubtful sources. For example these:
(Please SEMI-PROTECT them and correct them)
In summary, and in order not to repeat what some others have already said in the respective discussion pages, in the Wikipedia pages referring to Gustavo Petro and other pages and projects cited above, the pages are significantly biased towards Alvaro Uribe's opponents, even in pages that do not deal with or have nothing to do with Alvaro Uribe (such as Gustavo Petro's), with sources carefully selected to only support such opponents, often very doubtful, unobjective or biased, with phrases such as: "These revelations opened the doors of a strong social sanction to Uribe in Colombia by a sector of public opinion, and placed him in the sights of the ICC with the more than 250 processes in the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation that exist against him, and that, for different reasons, including corruption of the national powers", " Petro revealed that Uribe's presidential campaign in 2002 had received financial support from Enilse López, known such as La Gata, later convicted of ties to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, "etc., etc., etc. (I will not repeat).
Getting to the point of almost calling Uribe a "murderer", "genocidal", "terrorist", "corrupt", "paramilitary", "drug trafficker", "narco-paramilitary", BOTH ON THE PAGES IN ENGLISH AND IN SPANISH, even though sometimes not using those words, as he is presented as directly related to “human rights abuses” and he is also presented as solely responsible for the violence, corruption and deaths that occurred throughout the Colombian Armed Conflict.
Forgetting or omitting that: 1) Up to now none of the investigations that the Prosecutor's Office has made or is doing, has found any evidence that he has been personally involved and has not gone to criminal trial, except for that of these days of "manipulation of witnesses ”, which is ongoing without sentencing yet, 2) He did not have any public office or had anything to do with the Armed Conflict in the first two decades until 1981, and 3) They omit the massive human rights violations, deaths, drug trafficking, kidnappings and torture committed by guerrilla groups outside the law that, although pardoned, were admitted by such groups in the 1989 and 2016 Peace Accords.
President Ivan Duque is presented as if he were Alvaro Uribe's “puppet” and he is also held directly and personally responsible for all the human rights violations and violence that are taking place in Colombia.
Even in the pages on Alvaro Uribe it is mentioned that he has about 28 proceedings against in the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, taking as a source a journalistic note, but when the public database of the judicial branch of Colombia is accessed, on Consultation of processes, no such processes are observed. (In the Colombian journalistic media, false news is very frequent, towards or against all the parties involved)
More or less the same happens in the Wikipedia pages that make some reference to the 2021 PROTESTS in Colombia, very biased towards the opposition, BOTH ON THE PAGES IN ENGLISH AND IN SPANISH, where the state, the police and the army are presented as the ONLY human rights violators (when the objective reality is that more than ten policemen and military have already died in the protests, and tens of thousands of small merchants or shopkeepers have lost everything due to vandalism), echoing, or taking sources that echo, what seems to be a massive campaign of fake news and misinformation referring not only to the STRIKE but to previous times of the Armed Conflict and the presidency of Alvaro Uribe and Ivan Duque, and where many of these fake news and false videos (even from Amnesty International !!!, or Cnn or Dw, who would believe it) were actually taken in Venezuela but they are presented as if they had taken place in Colombia during the 2021 PROTESTS. This massive campaign of false news and videos and disinformation, is evidenced in serious sources such as:
The Fake News generated during the National Protests
The fake pictures, videos and news about the 2021 strikes
At least 23 fake news have been detected during the protests
Victor Muñoz DAPRE’s Director, denies decree ordering state of emergency
These iconic buildings in the world were not lit in support of Colombia during the protests
The explosion of unverified information circulating on the media during the protests
National Protests live: the ongoing protests on May 5th
Colombia Check independent verification site
False, Young man was not burned by Esmad in Floridablanca, Santander
Duque didn’t twit that if misinformation persists he’ll cancel Facebook
Video of Young man assaulted by the police in Floridablanca is real but he was not murdered
New video of policemen inhaling a presumed drug is not in Colombia but in Chile
The one in the picture is not the Esmad’s policeman reported for taking part in an assault
Police’s Ad offering reward for presumed vandals of the sacks of April 28th is false
Video of clashes between police and army is not of April 28th protests nor in Colombia
Colombia is not the only country to propose Tax Reform amidst the outbreak
Maria Fernanda Cabal did not say coffee is not to have breakfast or dinner but for visitors
Note that in Colombia it is very risky to take journalistic notes as a source, sometimes even from supposedly "serious" or "respectable" entities such as El Tiempo or Semana, and much less opinion notes, since, as can be seen in Colombia for more than ten years, impressive amounts of fake news have been circulating. However, those are most of the sources given for the Wikipedia pages mentioned at the beginning, even on the Wikipedia Pages in English.
If little of what is written in Colombia, with direct knowledge of the situation, is serious or objective, much less what is written on foreign media, including Amnesty International, CNN or DW. Not one news magazine has been left uncriticized for this in decades. Note also that credible or objective sources are so rare and occasional in Colombia, even in the supposedly “academic” sphere, that if strict criteria are used, almost nothing could be written about Colombia!
No, I am neither an uribista nor a leftist, I am a responsible and conscientious citizen who is trapped, as you surely know, in a country where everyone’s spirits are so heated and violence has been happening for so long, that it is no exaggeration to say that "half of Colombia wants to kill and hang the other half of Colombia." And that is clearly observed in the 2021 PROTESTS, where it can be said that “everyone hates everyone”.
It is assumed that Wikipedia, AND MORE IN ENGLISH, is a serious and ENCYCLOPEDIC website, for which it has no presentation that in such articles on Petro, Uribe, Duque, guerrillas, parapolitics or the Colombia Wikiproject, in Spanish and in ENGLISH, many statements are made, risky and controversial at best, implying that Uribe and Duque or the police and the army would be "murderers", "genocidal", "terrorists", "paramilitaries", "abusers of human rights ”,“ corrupt ”,“ corruption in the branches of power ”, etc., etc., etc.
Most people do not verify the facts or if what is said is true or not, and simply believe what Wikipedia says, and more being an encyclopedia.
Please, Librarians and Wikipedia editors:
Every time on one of your pages, whether in Spanish or in English, these types of statements are sneaked in, not very truthful and that could be seen as an incitement to hatred and violence, indeed half of Colombia wants to kill the other half, there are people dying!!
It is not an exaggeration to say that when a single one of these statements creeps in, or echoes a possibly false journalistic note, at least one person dies in Colombia!
Please, I beg you:
Semi-protect all those pages referring to Colombia, have the maximum possible responsibility with the wording and all statements and sources, and please proceed to correct all those pages urgently.
Thank you. Carlosverano92 ( talk) 01:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
TruthBuster21223 recently added this content to the Owen Benjamin article about a property dispute between the article subject and his neighbors. One of the sources cited is a self-published website by Mike Weland ( "Kootenai Valley Times" about page), which does not seem reliable under WP:BLPSPS. The other source ( link) does not mention a "cult" or "'Aryan Style' compound" allegation, and appears to address the issue as a zoning dispute between neighbors. I thought this looked clearly like a BLP violation, but Drmies disagreed with my opinion (see User talk:Drmies#Request for help), and I wanted to bring it here for additional opinions. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 22:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I made a
bold edit yesterday based on a comment by Cullen328 at
RSN, who noted that the
Ruby Ridge incident occurred in the same county. Given that additional context, I think it could be appropriate to include this content in some way on Benjamin's biography, along with directly mention the Ruby Ridge incident as is done in the more reliable source. I changed the sentence in the article to say: "In 2021, residents of Boundary County filed a complaint with the county commissioners over allegations that Benjamin had violated zoning provisions and was forming a "
Ruby Ridge style" compound on his property in the neighborhood.
" I would certainly feel more comfortable on a BLP if the issue was more than neighbors filing a complaint to the county (such as the county actually finding a zoning violation), but I think given the context about Benjamin as well as Boundary County, that this more neutrally-worded sentence would be appropriate. Based on this discussion and the one at RSN, it seems like there is a mixed consensus forming about whether the other source is self-published or reliable enough to use for a
contentious label like "cult", but the new content is also supported entirely by the stronger source. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 17:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
While there's a potential story here that he is developing a compound, we're going off a story based on neighbor complaint, not actual reliable sources that have reviewed the site to make that determination.Not sure if I have you right, but there's no doubt that Benjamin is building a compound, only doubt as to his purpose in doing so and the nature of that compound. For what it's worth, there are a lot of dogwhistle terms on the website Benjamin is soliciting donations on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
pointing to the recent AE thread on the AP2 area as referenceNot for nothing, but "recent AE thread on the AP2 area" is more of a category than a single thread.
Reposting. The subsection [11] contains controversial claims supported with three weak citations. One (from reason.com) is a third-hand repetition of statements from an anonymous blog. Another, from economist.com, quotes someone telling office gossip that he heard about another organization. The third from spectator.org, cites a comment box. Am I right in thinking that these are all not RS? If this material does not belong in the article, can the article be protected to stop repeated attempts to add it, and can the claims be removed from edit history? This sourcing dispute has run for years. Bistropha ( talk) 22:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I know the person who bothered to correct the original article devoted a lot of time and effort to it, but I kindly note that it still has issues.
The article has a number of dubious or disputed statements and several unreliable sources, none of them scholar or academic. ENCYCLOPEDIC articles must meet a minimum of requirements as well as their sources.
Here the detail:
(SEMI-PROTECT page, correct it)
1) A part of the article is a translation of the one in spanish, or based on it, with somewhat similarly unreliable sources or biased statements, generally in favor of the subject. It is important to say that the article in spanish at Gustavo Petro with discussion at Talk:Gustavo Petro has been discussed to favor a certain public image for the subject, or part of it even written by himself under a presumed anonymous account, which, if proven, would violate Wikipedia’s policies and rules.
2) In summary, the article in English at Gustavo Petro, besides biased in favor of the subject and against former president Uribe, uses sources that limit themselves to repeating, quoting or misquoting other secondary sources, most of them in turn doing exactly that or merely echoing rumors, political campaigns or advertising, with almost none of them based on serious journalistic work with real proof nor performing a verification, particularly in the sections Lead, “early life”, “m19 militancy”, “education” and “early political career”.
3) The Lead section and the sections “early life”, “m19 militancy”, “education” and “early political career”, give very few sources for each statement, typically none or just one, perhaps two each, all of them either foreign newsmagazines that lack first-hand knowledge on Colombia, or local sources that are clearly praising the subject and are his sympathizers, like:
a) RCN, which is known as opposition media that praises Petro against the government, except “La Silla Vacía”, which is more or less reliable.
b) Bloomberg’s source, though “Bloomberg”, lacks direct knowledge of anything colombian, limiting itself to compiling or repeating unverified third party versions.
c) Semana’s source ( Gustavo Petro progressist does not do any kind of first-hand verification or research, limiting itself to repeating what others say, so do the Rosario University source Profile of the new mayor, whose link is now dead (Petro never studied at the Rosario University), and Moloka’s source ( Gustavo Petro’s Resume ), which is but the Resume submitted by the own subject when he ran for mayor of Bogota.
d) The source City Mayors – Mayors of the Month is a foreign one, lacking first-hand knowledge (or verification) on Colombia, compiling secondary sources without citing them, in a tone clearly biased towards the subject, praising him, favoring left-wings mayors as “the best” or “greener”, calling his recall a “sack” by the Inspector General, and Colombia’s democratically-elected government “undemocratic” simply because it is not left-wing and because it is pro-US.
e) Those sections “lead”, “early life”, “m19 militancy”, “education” and “early political career”, have no notary sources or academic or reliable source of such statements. The sources cited for those sections in the article in spanish are even worse: newspapers or websites of doubtful reputation, or known in Colombia for fake news or paid political advertising by many different political parties opposing each other; even El Espectador does not have a lot of reputation or credibility.
4) Those unreliable sources claim he has a variety of Masters’ and PhD degrees, but in fact, as this source shows Petro’s fake titles, Petro was alleged (and partially shown) not to have at least one or two of those degrees. The subject himself replied here Petro answers reservations about his academic degrees with his PARTIAL grade certificates, until a CERTAIN DATE, not until the end date, or certificates saying that he studied and passed the subjects but say nothing about the thesis work nor dissertation nor graduation. The subject claimed “that was everything showing his studies”, failing to show any DEGREE DIPLOMA that effectively shows he indeed graduated, including Master’s or PhD’s Diplomas in Economics, which leaves only his word, political advertising and rumors about his Master’s and PhD’s. In that last article, written by himself, the subject admitted to not having finished his PhD as well as not having graduated as Master’s in Economics from the Pontifical Xaverian University. He even admits not knowing about or not caring about Econometrics, a key part of today’s scientific Economics. At the end of the article, he himself admits to having started those studies and to not having finished them.
5) The Lead section says “Petro served as a senator as a member of the Alternative Democratic Pole party following the 2006 legislative elections with the second largest vote in the country”, using a source which is deleted on Wikinoticias, and the article in spanish claims it was the third largest vote, but actually Gustavo Petro was just FIFTH, as shown in Senadores Electos 2006 Colombia and Conformation of the Senate of the Republic.
6) In the sections “Early Life” and “m19 militancy”, the source Colombia Politics is an unreliable one, widely known as an opposition non-government organization that criticizes Alvaro Uribe in favor of his opponents (like the subject Gustavo Petro), with no direct or first-hand knowledge of the situation in Colombia, with biased or unfounded statements, which, on their webpage, show tendentious or belligerent tone about the 2021 Colombian protests, calling the police and the army, basically, “violent” “murderers”. [ http://www.colombia-politics.com/aboutus/ Colombia Politics – About As)
7) Most of the sources used are sympathetic or biased towards the subject (Gustavo Petro), except a few things like Bogotá’s waste collection scandal or the recall, there are few sources critical to the subject.
8) Sympathetic towards the subject, the article makes no mention of the over 78 trials and judiciary processes where he has been denounced or sued (including criminal, supreme court, council of state, civil, human rights, etc.), which can be seen on the public database of Colombia’s Judiciary Branch at Historical Query of Trials and Processes – Colombia’s Judiciary Branch, writing “Gustavo Petro Urrego” in the name field, choosing “Todos los procesos” and leaving the other fields blank. There it can be seen that most of those trials have happened recently or are ongoing right now (much later than his m19 militancy) and are related to presumed corruption, damages caused by his repeated incitements to violent protests and strikes, calumny & libel & false accusations, his role or presumed incompetence as mayor of Bogota, the damages of his waste collection scandal, etc., etc., etc.
9) The section “Opposition to the Uribe government” says: “During a two-hour speech he [Petro] revealed a variety of documents demonstrating the relationship between members of the Colombian military, the current political leadership, narcotraffickers and paramilitary groups. Petro also criticized the actions of Álvaro Uribe as Governor of Antioquia Department during the CONVIVIR years, and presented an old photograph of Álvaro Uribe's brother, Santiago, alongside Colombian drug trafficker Fabio Ochoa Vázquez”. Such statements are INACCURATE and TENDENTIOUS: Petro intended to directly blame Uribe for everything, but he could never show a direct nor personal involvement of president Uribe (“the current political leadership”) with narcotrafficking or paramilitary groups or the Convivir, only involvement of other politicians (some even in opposition to Uribe), or that of his brother, never Uribe himself.
10) This is supported by A) Uribe didn’t undergo any impeachment process for these allegations, B) Colombia’s Nations’s General Attorney Office (which by law is quite independent from the Executive) investigated all those claims and evidence, during and after Uribe’s tenure, and shelved the matters, finding no merit to go to a criminal trial, as can be seen in the public databases of the General Attorney Office and the Judiciary Branch at Query of Complaints and Ex Officio Reports – Nation’s General Attorney Office and Historical query of trials and processes – Colombia’s Judiciary Branch. The quoted sentences need to be reworded and the word “demonstrating” has to be changed for “alleging”.
11) As these sources Petro has to rectify accusations against Uribe and Petro must retract say, Uribe filed a tutelary action against Petro, and won, for violation of the rights to honor and good name, dignity and presumption of innocence, with the Third Criminal Court of the Circuit dismissing all the “evidence” presented by Petro during the two-hour speech, and ordering Petro to rectify all his accusations within 48 hours, and also ordering: “en futuras entrevistas, o en comentarios que realice a través de redes sociales se abstenga de usar afirmaciones categóricas de comportamientos delictivos en contra del accionante " (that translates as “in future interviews, o social network comments, to abstain from making categorical statements about criminal behavior against the plaintiff”)
12) "Senator Petro alleged that the AUC financially contributed to the presidential campaign of Álvaro Uribe in 2002. Uribe refuted these statements by Petro but, during his presidential reelection campaign in 2006, admitted to having received financial support from Enilse López": the article’s subject (Gustavo Petro) stated that, but the wording is wrong, INACCURATE and TENDENTIOUS, since it implies that Uribe himself received the money for his own benefit, and:
a) As the article’s only source for this statement Gata encerrada ) stated, it was his CAMPAIGN who received a DONATION, and political campaigns have LEGAL STATUS (as a LEGAL ENTITY) separate from those of the candidates as private, natural citizens, just like a company is legally different and separate from each of its owners throughout the world. The source also states that there was no BAD FAITH implied, it was a common donation for a political campaign, like any other, and neither La Gata nor president Uribe demanded anything in return for giving or receiving the money.
b) In principle, there is no legal issue with campaigns receiving donations from questioned persons, since all Constitutions in the world guarantee PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE until proven guilty, and no investigation or prosecution had yet been done against La Gata in 2002. President Uribe never made any attempt to interfere or influence the investigations the Prosecutor’s Office was doing against La Gata and such office is by law quite independent from the Executive branch.
c) The multiple investigations by the Nation’s General Attorney Office to Uribe when president and after leaving office, found no proof that the money was ever something more than a usual, simple donation to a political campaign. THE ARTICLE HAS TO CLARIFY THAT, since it is, on the contrary, implying that Uribe himself received money from a drug dealer and paramilitary, in BAD FAITH and for personal benefit, in exchange for favors. Historical trial query – Colombia’s Judicial Branch ; Query of Criminal Complaints and Reports – Colombia’s Nation’s General Attorney Office ).
13) Contrary to Petro’s accusations, it was president Uribe who authored the Ley de Justicia y Paz in 2005 bringing paramilitary groups to justice and jail ( Ley de Justicia y Paz ), who asked for the capture of the remaining paramilitary groups ( Uribe demands capture of remaining paramilitaries, Uribe demands capture of remaining paramilitaries ), and who created a new Search Block to capture them ( Nine ex-paramilitaries captured.
14) This article is so sympathetic towards the subject (Gustavo Petro) that it doesn’t mention the different accusations of murder, assassination and kidnapping that were made against the subject during his m19 militancy (it only mentions rebellion, conspiracy and carrying of arms), though pardoned in the 1989 and 2016 Peace Agreements, neither does it mention anything of his role in the planning of Palace of Justice Siege as one of the foremost leaders of m19, for which he was being investigated by the General Attorney Office at the moment of the 1989 Peace Accord, as can be seen at Query of Complaints and Ex Officio Reports – Nation’s General Attorney Office. “Pardoned” does not mean those didn’t happen, only that they were not punished.
15) The article does not mention either the repeated, irresponsible, incendiary and often unfounded accusations the subject (Gustavo Petro) has been making for years towards traditional politicians almost indiscriminately, claiming to have “proofs”, as a political and publicitary strategy to gain sympathies and followers, as seen not only in his:
a) (dismissed) attacks to president Uribe, but also in:
b) accusing the prosecution of paramilitary infiltration when he learned that he was being investigated for trying to infiltrate it ( Fiscal dice que el infiltrado es Petro ),
c) as seen in inciting protests in Bogotá when he was recalled claiming a COUP D’ETAT ( Petro, Coup, Protests ),
d) as seen in him pressing the Prosecutor’s office to prosecute those who recalled him in retaliation ( Petro, Basuras ),
e) as seen in repeated claims to have been threatened to death by presumptly extinct paramilitary group AGUILAS NEGRAS ( [17], Petro’s claims before CIDH ), who have been considered by the Colombian Authorities to be extinct and rather replaced by low-level criminal groups, as shown in ( Neoparamilitarism?, Petro and Cepeda denounce threats, Planflets named after Black Eagles ).
f) as seen in claiming that the two officers asked their IDs more or less near his mother’s house ( Militarymen were performing verification activities: army ) were actually threatening his family or himself to death,
g) as seen in his claims during the 2010 presidential campaign that his aim was to “remove organized crime from power”, calling president Uribe “organized crime”, despite Petro himself being seen as a “murderer” by a segment of the population and despite the Third Court of the Circuit in 2007 ordering him to abstain from public criminal accusations against president Uribe, in Petro has to rectify accusations against Uribe and Petro must retract,
h) or as seen in his inciting of the 2021, and 2019-2020 massive street riots in Colombia ( What happens in the Protests is Petro’s responsibility, Petro calls Football fans to be part of the protests ),
i) or as seen in his repeated but unproven claims that Ivan Duque won the 2018 presidential elections by means of FRAUD ( Petro denies Ivan Duque as president,
j) or in his claims that he is going to criminally report his supporter, mayor of Bogota Claudia Lopez ( Petro threatens to file criminal trial against Claudia Lopez ),
k) or as seen in his claims, again, of COUP D’ETAT when the National Electoral Council, following the law, revoked the legal status of his political movement Colombia Humana because of extremely low vote in the 2018 Legislative Elections ( CNE denies legal status to Colombia Humana ), which does not prevent him from running for president in 2022…
(my God that guy Petro sounds like Trump!) (everything that does not favor him is a coup d’etat or a conspiracy)
16) The two officers Petro claimed were “spying on him” or “trying to kill his family”, were not captured nor detained, only asked their IDs, neither were they too close to his family’s home, and the army officially answered that they were investigating another, unrelated matter of intelligence (verification), as the source ( Militarymen were performing verification activities: army ) says.
17) Most of those “death threats” Petro talks about, have been investigated by the Nation’s General Attorney Office (which is quite independent from the Executive branch), so far having found no proof or evidence, or not being directly targeted at Petro, and hence shelving them and not going to criminal trial, despite death threats being a criminal offense in Colombia, as can be seen both in the public databases of the General Attorney Office and the Judiciary Branch at Query of Complaints and Ex Officio Reports – Nation’s General Attorney Office and Historical query of trials and processes – Colombia’s Judiciary Branch.
18) Furthermore, the BLACK EAGLES are considered by the Colombian Authorities to be extinct by the dates Petro claimed to have been threatened, and rather replaced by low-level criminal groups, as shown in ( Neoparamilitarism?, Petro and Cepeda denounce threats, Planflets named after Black Eagles ).
19) When asked about Petro’s death threats, Colonel Jimmy Perez Baena, commander in charge of the police, answered that such AGUILAS NEGRAS no longer exist, that it is other criminal bands who have taken their name, devoted to drug trafficking and in coalition with remnants of FARC, and that a number of people had been captured and made available to the Prosecution, engaged in selective homicides, who were found weapons, ammunition and pamphlets alluding to both social cleansing groups and the FARC (another guerrilla group supposed to be sympathetic to Petro), detracting from the possibility that the colombian right-wing is somehow involved in the threats, as shown in ( Neoparamilitarism?, Petro and Cepeda denounce threats, Planflets named after Black Eagles ).
20) “A lawsuit has been filed by citizens against Duque alleging bribery and fraud. The News chain Wradio made public the law suit July 11, which was presented to the CNE (Consejo Nacional Electoral, National Electoral Council, by its acronym in Spanish).[36] The state of the law suit will be defined by the Magistrado Alberto Yepes”, with the source Elections sued, but it was not presented to the CNE but to the Consejo de Estado, and the wording is INACCURATE and TENDENTIOUS: that source and the lawsuit do not mention “bribery” nor “fraud”, instead focusing on the fact that the Consejo Nacional Electoral did not allow the inscription of the party “Integración Nacionalista Radical Internacional”, and also on an alleged double-militancy incurred in by elected Vice-president Martha Lucia Ramirez.
21) Based on those allegations, that lawsuit took place and the highest instance, the Consejo de Estado, sentenced in favor of current president Ivan Duque Marquez and current Vice-president Martha Lucia Ramirez, as can be seen in: ( Pretensions rejected, double militancy denied ), where Petro and the citizens demanded “Que mediante sentencia sea declarada la nulidad del acto de elección popular efectuado el 17 de junio de 2018, en desarrollo de la segunda vuelta de la elección presidencial de nuestro país”, “En consecuencia, que se disponga la cancelación de las credenciales de Presidente y Vicepresidente que se hubiesen otorgado a los Doctores Iván Duque Márquez y Martha Lucía Ramírez Blanco” (“that by means of a sentence nullity of the act of popular election performed on June 17th, 2018, during the run-off of the presidential elections, be declared”, “Consequently, order the cancellation of the credentials of President and Vice President that had been granted to Doctors Iván Duque Márquez and Martha Lucía Ramírez Blanco”), where the sentence says: “Deniéganse las pretensiones de la demanda de conformidad con lo expuesto en la parte motiva de esta providencia” (“The pretensions of the lawsuit are denied according to what is stated in the motive part of this ruling”).
Please, proceed to correct all those above-mentioned 21 points.
The correction is urgent, critical and necessary, given the heated environment in Colombia right now, where hatred floods everything and where Wikipedia is taken as the referent to claim former president Uribe is “a murderer” and “a drug dealer”, which is the apparent implication of the article as it is right now.
Thank you, critic1234567 Critic1234567 ( talk) 02:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Critic1234567: You've written a lot, and it's unlikely anyone is going to look into every point. I suggest you concentrate on the urgent issues. From a very very quick skim through what you wrote, there are some obvious problems with your proposal.
For 8, 10, maybe 12, 14 and 21, your source is some .gov.co site. An official government website is generally fairly useless for anything but very basic information (like when someone was elected to office) with a controversial political figure. Secondary sources like Bloomberg are required. This is especially the case if you are linking to a court document or a official government press release. We cannot mention any legal cases or outcomes which have not been covered in reliable secondary sources.
For 15 since I don't understand Spanish, I would not be able to look into these examples, but I wonder if your sources support your claim. For example for 15 c, I looked at a machine translation of the BBC source and do not see any evidence of "as seen in inciting protests in Bogotá when he was recalled". I do see he called it a coup, but I don't even see any evidence that his description was a particular controversial or notable part of the dispute. Especially not that it was part of "repeated, irresponsible, incendiary and often unfounded accusations". Your personal belief it was such is not sufficient, we need sources discussing how he regularly makes such statements. To be clear, this means sources which simply mentions a statement which you find " irresponsible, incendiary and ..... unfounded". The source needs to actually describe it as such if we are going to describe his statements as such in the article. If we don't have that, we could mention some of his statements without describing them negatively, but we would still need some evidence from sources that those statements of his were particularly significant since most politicians say a lot of things all the time and we're never going to cover all of them.
Finally the choice of Colombian sources vs non Colombian sources is complicated. While lacking reporters on the ground in Colombia can be limiting, we expect quality reliable sources to be able to partly make up for it by assessing and reporting what other sources they have vetted and trust have told them. The state of press freedom in Colombia is fairly low, so we also have to take care when relying on Colombian sources, as User:Carlosverano92 mentioned above. On the whole, while we sometimes may rely on Colombian sources, in other cases quality non Colombian sources may actually be a better idea especially with extremely contentious subjects. Note I'm not saying this necessarily applies to Bloomberg.
These aren't very nice people, but starting someone's entry with "There have been rumours"? Doug Weller talk 08:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The band Stallion mentioned on the 1976 line-up page is not the american Stallion. Stallion who played at the festival were from Hastings E.Sussex England and were the winners of the MelodyMaker rock contest of that year with part of the prize for winning was to play at Reading festival. I tried to change the link but the text went to the wrong place! Surely the Reading festival archives should have the correct information somewhere or MelodyMaker can prove that Stallion (from Hastings) played that gig? No disrespect to the american Stallion but it is wrong to claim that they played that gig at Reading. Could someone please chack this out. Thank you, Digger Stallion (Hastings) roadie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.200 ( talk • contribs)
An IP claiming to be the subject needs help from somebody who can be nice, tactful, encouraging and helpful without going flame-thrower. ... and who knows how to handle this. thanks. - Roxy . wooF 20:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The underlying issue came to my attention at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Dave Bautista. The issue was the birthplace and the height of a former professional wrestler. The birthplace issue was resolved and my concern is with the associated height (and weight) issues, which apply to many professional wrestler BLPs. Discussion of this issue is ongoing at Talk:Dave Bautista#Birth place error and at User talk:InedibleHulk#Dave Bautista and User talk: Cullen328#Is seeming a bit taller harmful to a BLP in Batista's position?. It seems that this template allows display of "Billed height" and "Billed weight" parameters, which are routinely cited to web pages controlled by the WWE or other professional wrestling businesses, which are pretty much the opposite of reliable sources, since they routinely exaggerate height, weight and every other fact about their performers. So, living people have false heights and weights cited to sources known to lie constantly. Professional wrestling is an entertainment subculture built around the concept of kayfabe, which means that people who make their living from professional wrestling are expected to lie constantly and consistently about personalities, backgrounds, rivalries, heights and weights. That's an interesting sociological phenomenon but it cannot possibly be acceptable to present this type of "in universe" content in a neutral encyclopedia, cited to sources that all sane people know are unreliable. When were unreliable sources ever acceptable in a BLP? Well, back in the Wild West days of fourteen plus years ago when the BLP policy hadn't yet been written, and this policy violating template was created. The problem emerged only when the representative of a living person called the matter to our attention. I think that we need firm consensus that professional wrestling articles are not exempt from Wikipedia's core content policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, and that all unreliable sources and any content cited to unreliable sources should be removed promptly from professional wrestling articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
As an editor who primarily focuses on professional wrestling articles, I have some insight to provide. As you all know, professional wrestling is a strange universe and performing art form. Unlike other forms of entertainment such as cinema and novels, the line is frequently blurred between characters, fiction, and reality due to the nature of kayfabe interacting frequently with the real world. The infobox we speak of is not necessarily the main biographical information infobox, but rather a sub infobox entitled "professional wrestling information", which states quick facts both kayfabe (billed from/billed height) and actual information (trained by, debut, retired, etc). For instance, a wrestler may be born in one city (listed in primary infobox) but might be billed as being from another city or even a fictional place (such as "Wherever he damn well pleases" or "From the bottom of the sea" or "From Gotham") as part of his persona. Such information is considered to be important identifying characteristics of their character relevant for professional wrestling coverage on Wikipedia, and tends to be included because of the promotion saying so (whether online or during ring announcements during a wrestler's entrance). The heights might be accurate or they might be exaggerated as a part of a character as dictated by a professional wrestling company such as WWE in order to make their character appear to be more credible of a threat. It is long acknowledged that the heights stated by the company might be exaggerated, and therefore statements of actual heights and weights are likely from unreliable sources, and in such a case, listing the exaggerated height from a reliable primary source is acceptable due to the nature of kayfabe listing "professional wrestling information" and the way kayfabe interacts with reality. For instance, Adam Cole is billed as being 6'0, but is widely and infamously rumored in the wrestling community to be much shorter due to things like pictures taken with fans who are shorter than 6'0 being of comparable height to Cole. Additionally, I can compare this to a phenomenon seen in actual sports competition. Until the NBA banned this practice, coaches, players, and basketball player development executives in the NBA are known to bump up (or even down) players listed heights by a few inches in order to justify marketing them to play a certain position normally played by taller or shorter players. For instance, Kobe Bryant was listed as 6'6 despite being 6'4 to better justify him being a shooting guard and Kevin Durant listed himself as 6'9 despite being 6'10 (or alternatively 7'0 in shoes) in order for him to play small forward rather than as center. In sports, height is important to list for various reasons, and teams sometimes state a wrong height for their personal benefit. However, it still is sourced as accurate for purposes of biography, as it comes from authoritative bodies. In regards to wrestling, it does not constitute a violation of BLP due to the height never implying to be accurate, and professional wrestling articles look at kayfabe from an outside point of view, such as when explaining storylines and listing billed height. In sports it's listed height, in professional wrestling it's billed height. Slightly different terms but same concept, for slightly different reasons but for very similar purposes intended to benefit the involved parties. Maybe I'd recommend making it more clear that the height is of the character and not of the actual person somehow? Because clearly it doesn't intend to deceive. It strives to accurately reflect the wrestling character as it is presented. Due to the nature of kayfabe these billed heights of the characters that the wrestling promotions promote sometimes gets misconstrued as promoting false information regarding the actual persons itself. DrewieStewie ( talk) 10:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
As others have said above, I see no issue with us including "in-universe" billed height. There is no claim on our part that these are meant to be realistic, and I certainly don't agree with the idea that the use of the word "billed" qualifies as WP:WEASEL. Now, if OP wanted to add an "actual height" field I don't think I'd oppose it, but I certainly don't think that kayfabe billed heights and weights are in any way a BLP violation. — Czello 12:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Allegedly well over 400 lbas his billed weight... — Czello 12:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree with those above that at no pin to are we claiming these billed heights and weights are the living person's actual figures, and that's made plainly clear by the "billed" being included on the parameter. Gotta remember, these articles are as much about the kayfabe character (or succession thereof for those who have had long careers) as the real-world person. oknazevad ( talk) 12:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree that as long as it is clear that we're talking "billed" or other delineation as to state that this is not what "reality" is saying but what the wrestling promotional material is saying, that's fine. (I'd preferably like to see a color bar above that information as to break where everything below it is the "billed" personality and everything above it is from the infobox person proper, but the proper labels help to avoid that as a necessity). -- Masem ( t) 15:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Cullen 328 seems to be confused about the word "unreliable". Nobody is claiming that the information is accurate. But billed height, weight, and hometown are defining characteristics of wrestlers--just watch the introduction to absolutely every match. For what it's worth, McFarland's Biographical Dictionary of Professional Wrestling states that he is 6'6" and 325 pounds. Anyhow, I don't see the problem here. There is an actual height in the infobox and a billed height below. If a reliable source could be given for actual weight, I'm sure that could be added as well. 13:29, 18 May 2021 (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.
Per @ Cullen328, Firefangledfeathers, and Zaereth: - it is not apparent that "billed" sufficiently conveys the fictional aspect of height / weight / hometown being advertised by the pro-wrestling company. As such, I would like to formally propose MjolnirPants' idea that we edit Template:Infobox professional wrestler's display, changing (1) "Billed height" to "Character's height", changing (2) "Billed weight" to "Character's weight", and changing "Billed from" to "Character's hometown". This will better inform readers that this is not the actual height / weight / hometown of these professional wrestlers. starship .paint ( exalt) 02:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I see that the information is something that readers may want, but I also see that it's easy for readers, and editors, to have no idea that "billed" means "make believe" in the context of the height and weight. I propose that we change it to
Kayfabe weight,
Kayfabe height, and
Kayfabe hometown. Kayfabe is a strange enough word where if you don't know what it means you'll at least hover over the wikilink and see In professional wrestling, kayfabe /ˈkeɪfeɪb/ (also called work or worked), as a noun, is the portrayal of staged events within the industry as "real" or "true"
. It is far less likely than "billed" to be mistaken for real life and we can wikilink directly to the article that explains the concept to non-wrestling fans who may be looking at these articles.
"Billed" in this context means exactly what it says: the height/weight by which the performer is "advertise{d} by a bill or public notice". We aren't saying Batista etc *is* a certain height, we are saying he is *billed* as being that height.— Czello 12:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Professional wrestling is an entertainment subculture built around the concept of kayfabe, which means that people who make their living from professional wrestling are expected to lie constantly and consistently about personalities, backgrounds, rivalries, heights and weights. That's an interesting sociological phenomenon but it cannot possibly be acceptable to present this type of "in universe" content in a neutral encyclopedia, cited to sources that all sane people know are unreliable.I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think his issue is with the existence of kayfabe parameters in the infobox and how we source them -- not a confusion about whether or not they're real. — Czello 12:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate some guidance in this process. I acknowledged from the beginning of my edit request that I work with Dave Bautista. In addition to that, I am his oldest childhood friend and am simply trying to correct an error in his birthplace. I'm not sure how doing that could raise any conflict of interest, but I would like to certify here that I am not being paid directly or indirectly to try to correct this error.on COIN. Without doing any outing, the combination of those and access to the internet should clarify. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
"billed height" -wrestling
and you'll find books using the term in other contexts.
Levivich
harass/
hound 17:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
If the lying concept of "billed height" and "billed weight" has any place on Wikipedia, it should be because actually reliable sources independent of WWE choose to cover it.A search of Google Books yields Sisterhood of the Squared Circle ( ECW Press), Historical Dictionary of Wrestling ( Scarecrow Press), Biographical Dictionary of Professional Wrestling, 2d Ed. ( McFarland & Company), and Legends of Pro Wrestling ( Skyhorse Publishing), among others. Levivich harass/ hound 04:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
the undertaker heightand marvel at how it feeds back incorrect information sourced to Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 19:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I was alerted to this article through this article talking about biographic changes in our article on the show. Looking over the content, it seems to me that all the tracking of the contestants' lives is a major BLP problem for people who aren't really public figures, even if they volunteered to be temporarily in the spotlight on this sort of show. I don't imagine that we can reach a consensus to eliminate all the details about the participants, but it seems to me that it ought to be considerably reduced. Mangoe ( talk) 16:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The editor User_talk:71.65.65.144 has been repeatedly adding unfounded claims that the subject is part of a "smear campaign". Upon request for citation, the editor added some links to non-neutral sources and a news article that doesn't back up the claims. The editor has been warned multiple times on their talk page and has recently deleted the last warning. I believe the editor to be obviously vandalizing Wikipedia. Roper Klacks ( talk) 20:48, 31 May 2021 (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.
Katherine Maher ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Reads like an advertisement complete with twitter link. Not a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:8808:2C00:D97A:224:D9CF:CD16 ( talk) 06:50, 30 May 2021 (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.
Not a notable person. /info/en/?search=VM_Brasseur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:8808:2C00:D97A:224:D9CF:CD16 ( talk) 06:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Mark E. Curry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This person is a notorious person who keeps editing his profile. There are several articles written about his exploitative nature. https://theintercept.com/2021/05/31/payday-lender-native-american-tribe-american-web-loan/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawman01 ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
There's an edit war going on. Controversial info about a living person is getting included, with a sole source being a website called popmatters.com. I don't think that this tabloid type source is sufficiently reliable for such controversial info in a BLP article. I removed all BLP violations at the moment, but protection might be needed. Grand master 16:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
What should happen with this BLP? The only references that I can see are either broken or trivial ( "Producers are John G. Lenic and Kaleena Kiff through their Trinity Works Entertainment banner"). I clicked many of the blue links in the Filmography section and found that "Kiff" is mentioned in less than a quarter of them. Thoughts? Johnuniq ( talk) 07:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The article hasn't credited the time Britt Ekland dated Sammy Davis Jr., the fact which was fully reported by world celebrities media in early 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.33.141.132 ( talk • contribs)
Andrew Pessin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone keeps repeatedly adding false, misleading, and defamatory material about Andrew Pessin, maliciously charging him as "well known for Islamophobia" based on distortion from various sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miranda6391 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Ed Henry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) "alleged affairs" are not well sourced entries and they are being used as defamatory on this person ( Ed Henry).
Entries in his career area were pejorative misrepresentations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zxbailey15:35, 5 June 2021 ( talk • contribs)
It appears there are several frivolous claims on this article with no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.50.16 ( talk) 10:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Jahrein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jahrein a few weeks ago made a statement during his Twitch stream on Israel and Palestine conflict. His statements were edited by unreliable pro-government sources. Now a misleading text is added to the relevant article by User:Adigabrek. Although I had removed problematic text, he reverted my edits. This is a violation of WP:BLP. Not exactly for these websites but there is a there is a noticeboard discussion that states Turkish news sites are generally unreliable. [35]
The sources used in the article:
-- V. E. ( talk) 17:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Visnelma: and @ Adigabrek:, I have removed the "Hostility with Gaga Bulut" and "Jerusalem controversy" sections because all the sources use "allegedly" which is not acceptable for controversial claims per BLP standards. That said, the very brief discussion at RSN linked above cannot be considered to stand for a proposition that the sites quoted are considered unreliable by a broad consensus. Please discuss these reliability and BLP issues on the article talk instead of engaging an edit war. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Crazy Legs (dancer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article could do with some eyes. 92.24.246.11 ( talk) 01:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Christopher Massimine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I stumbled across this by accident as I've never heard of the subject. The article is poorly written in a number of respects, but there are now many new users who are fighting over certain material, and the present state of the article with respect to BLP violations is awful. As I attempt to follow it, there are at least two main disputes, whether Massimine was an associate producer of the Broadway play American Idiot, and whether he in fact did work for clients as an independent producer. As a result, we have such wonderful language in the article as:
"Massimine claims to have earned a Tony Award nomination for his work as a producer on American Idiot (musical) (although this has not been independently verified), produced concerts for major label artists, and claims to have developed high-impact promotional campaigns in recorded music, retail, and video gaming, yet many of the people he has named as past clients have denied knowing Massimine and insist that he did no work on their behalf." (footnotes omitted)
There is also one more issue at the end of the article:
"On October 16, 2019, a press release announced he was selected by the "NPAA" as Humanitarian of the Year. According to multiple news reports in June of 2021, there is no evidence of the existence of an organization known as the "NPAA" outside of the self-published press release announcing the award." (footnotes omitted)
There has been some discussion on the article Talk page about these issues, most of it by the newly created accounts.
There is also a disturbing statement on the userpage of one of the newly created accounts, Sophistrate:
"I used to publish/edit under the name Atomicskier, but recently took a renewed interest in Wikipedia after discovering that someone was using it as one of his many online vehicles to defraud employers. It has now become my personal mission to make sure this abuse of Wikipedia and its mission is rectified."
To date, Sophistrate has edited only the Massimine article. Indeed, this all started with the user's first edit attempting clumsily to have the article speedy deleted. The article before that point had nothing negative in it; in fact, it was a bit of a puff piece.
Hopefully, some more BLP-experienced users will address these issues. I'm not necessarily saying that some - or even all - of the negative aspects of the article are untrue, but we have to have strong, reliable sources to back them up, and we have to express them very differently from the way they are expressed now.
And then there's the MOS issues and that dreadful infobox ...-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)