![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
21stCenturyBuoy, who has only ever edited this article, is continually adding material suggesting that Galloway deliberately misled Parliament. The evidence he cites does not appear to establish this defamatory, and apparently libellous claim. RolandR ( talk) 14:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
On various occasions has the management of artist Robbi McMillen contacted Wikipedia in order to have all metion of him removed from this website. As of yet, no such changes have been made. McMillen and his management demand that such pages be deleted, and that any pages about him must be removed until he is 18 years of age - we would not like this site, under reputation to cause any legal or moral damage, or damage to the artist's personal life. If confirmation is required, please email dan.casey'AT'robbimcmillen.com
All articles in all languages or containing mention of Robbi McMillen must be deleted. This is a request from his management and from his family. All pages, including those in Gaelic and his discography must be removed or a legal representative will contact Wikipedia. If you are in any doubt, please contact his management through his website.
Also, please note that Robbi's management are his family and a member of the family's legal team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.166.73 ( talk • contribs) 6 January 2008
For confirmation, please feel free to email his management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.120.246 ( talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
User: Wasted Time R ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is preventing me from making edits removing impertinent information. The article is infringing on a few rules and all my edits are being undone by him.
Rule: Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Instead, relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article.
Rule:NPOV
Rule: Brevity
Regarding the claims of trivia, nothing I have included in this article is trivial. Every piece of material and every piece of detail goes towards describing the full character of the biographical subject. His family's naval heritage is a key aspect of his life, as a read of Faith of My Fathers and outside biographies readily reveals, and was of operational significance in terms of his educational struggles and his time as a POW. His Academy demerits are part and whole of a personality that continues to affect his political stances and behaviors today. His superstitions are frequently noted in the press and are part of depicting his full character. Wasted Time R ( talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the claims of POV, the 'missteps' in the article are all conceded by McCain himself, as the article makes clear. The "maverick" persona is one that is described by all biographies and newspapers profiles; you can hardly escape it. I don't know how Yialanliu gets a "deranged" depiction out of all this; most people reading this article would probably consider McCain heroic. If anything, I've short-changed criticisms of him. Wasted Time R ( talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the length, yes, the article's long. But he's had a long career; he's been a nationally visible figure since 1967. In writing this article, I haven't paid any attention to the George W. Bush article, so I can't comment on that, but this article does touch on the same elements and key episodes of his career that several biographies do as well as the multi-part Arizona Republic series that's frequently cited. Wasted Time R ( talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
An edit war is ongoing at Elizabeth Loftus. The dispute is over what details concerning academic articles published by Loftus should be included in the article. My position is that the articles are not pertinent to her biography, but I'm trying not to enter into the edit warring myself. -- Donald Albury 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where to ask this, so I'm asking it here. On Talk:Banu Qurayza, Tariq Ramadan has been alleged of various things, e.g. "bigotry, antisemitism, and glorification of mass murder". While I'm grateful that this has stopped, there are still allegations that he is an "Islamist". This is quite a controversial allegation.
My question is: is it alright to make such statements about a living person on a talk page, especially if they are a bit off topic?
Wikipedia:Avoiding harm seems to suggest that the answer is no. Bless sins ( talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There are some articles that were deleted recently, were many of {{ afd}} participants justified delete opinions based on their perception those articles violated BLP.
In particular they characterized "Summary of Evidence" memos that contained the allegations against these individuals as "primary sources" -- and thus noncompliant with BLP.
Since the {{ afd}}s were closed as delete I took a closer look at our definition of the difference between a primary and a secondary source.
These "Summary of Evidence" memos, are, as the name says, summaries. The authors compiled information from multiple documents, produced by multiple agencies.
To my way of thinking they constitute a canonical example of "secondary sources". I am considering requesting an undeletion review. First I thought I would ask for some opinions.
I already asked, over on primary source, or secondary source?
If you have thoughts on this, and time to offer them, it probably makes sense to offer them there. Thanks!
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Related to the question above, I have also asked a related question, over on WP:RS/Noticeboard -- under the heading What constitutes an "independent third party source"?
Some of those who had a concern that those "Summary of Evidence" memos were "primary sources" also voiced a concern that they weren't from an "independent, third party source".
As with the question whether these memos are "primaary sources", or "secondary sources", I think it would be best if anyone here who has an opinion puts it over on WP:RS/Noticeboard, where it was first raised. So, briefly, it seems to me that the arguments to suppress the use of these sources, because they weren't "independent" are based on unsubstantiated "gut feelings". It seems to me these arguments aren't based on anything that complies with WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:VER.
My thanks, in advance, to anyone who cares to offer their thoughts on these two questions!
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Users have removed outdated media speculation however other users insist on keeping the speculation current in an attempt to further damage Laming's reputation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 ( talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried this on the BLP talk page but not a lot of activity occurs there so I will try here.
It looks like people are trying to use this for people that have died or recently died as seen in Talk:Heath Ledger. Since this specifically about the living some feedback on this would be appreciated. -- UKPhoenix79 ( talk) 20:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
An IP editor has been persistently inserting mounds of negative information into the biographies of Mark Steyn and Niall Ferguson, and edit-warring it in against a number of other editors. A quick read shows that at least some of it is sourced to blogs and personal websites. Based on the editing style and the continual promotion of Johann Hari I'm guessing it's David r from meth productions ( talk · contribs). I've removed the material and semi-protected first and protected the second for now; if it is David r from meth productions and he logs in and continues to insert this material, I might have to full protect the first too. Alternatively, I could start blocking the editor, but I'm hoping that protection will calm things down for now. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There is an insistence on including the term Fascism in the info box. This is a term frequently used against the party by critics and it is sourced. However, the term is not discussed in the main text (where it certainly should be), and there is no statement that the Party promotes itself under this term, so there would be divergence of viewpoints by different analysts as to its applicability. Used in the infobox without any wider context, it stands as a definitive editorial statement which reflects on any individuals in the Party and particularly those mentioned by name in the article. I believe this contravenes the need for caution mandated by WP:BLP, and have pointed that out on the talk page to no avail. The sources provided are authors, not an official body. The BNP are not a prescribed party, but hold local government office. This should not be taken in any way as a reflection of my own views on the Party. Tyrenius ( talk) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comment that you link to is an endorsement of the point that this term should be examined in the article, but not stated in the infobox. Tyrenius ( talk) 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think BLP applies to political organisation by dint of not being biography of living persons - it only intersects where living persons are mentioned in the political party's write-up. As far as it goes, I supprot "Fascism" being in the info box and in the article, and I am prepared to go along with "Denied by BNP", but would ask for a BNP citation to that end.-- Red Deathy ( talk) 08:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
On the Medved page, he is listed as a "self identifying homosexual". This is false and slanderous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.224.17 ( talk) 01:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This edit is sourced to a mainstream sports columnist, which might satisfy reliability but might still be of concern per WP:NPF. I'd appreciate it if someone would take a look. alanyst / talk/ 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm requesting another look at this. I've had past conflict with the editor who is re-adding the material so I think he might take it the wrong way if I were directly involved in fixing the BLP issues. Is there anyone who can help with this? alanyst / talk/ 17:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no reliable biographical evidence available to substantiate the claim that she is in fact of Somali heritage. The only information widely reported is her home country(Russia)and city of birth (Perm). This wikipedia entry seems to be the only evidence people are able to refer to as evidence of any Somali heritage. The claim of Somali heritage has no verifiable basis, aside from claims based on a mystery interview that has never been provided.
Hi, I'm concerned about the repeated insertion of unsubstantiated claims that Abu El Haj slandered an archaeologist on both this page and the page for facts on the ground. This text is inserted in a separate section on both pages, but the source of the claim seems to be a separate writer and whose accusations are not supported by the person supposedly being slandered by Abu El Haj. The inclusion on Wikipedia of potentially false claims that Abu El Haj slandered another academic could ITSELF be considered as slander, and so it is potentially libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.68.32 ( talk) 00:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
All are {{ blpdispute}}d, please look into this. Thanks, Solumeiras ( talk) 14:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Michelesinclair ( talk · contribs) created the page Michele Sinclair several days ago. I ran across it when it was slapped with a copyvio tag, as the text was a direct copy of what was on romancewiki, and also of text that appeared on various other websites. I cleaned up the article to rely only on the one source I could find about the subject and deleted the information on future works, and left a message on the talk page of the user to explain why I did that along with a link to WP:COI. Said user reverted my changes, so I reverted them back, and then today a random IP 67.34.42.168 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) added back in the same romancewiki/copyrighted nonsense, deleting what was there. I suspect the IP and the user are the same, but I also am pretty sure it is the subject of the article, so I am not sure what to do about this. Even if she owns the copyright to the text, the information she keeps adding to the articleis not encyclopedic. I could have a checkuser run and get her blocked for repeatedly adding copyrighted text, but I'm not sure that's the best way to go with the subject of the article. For now, I've got the page watchlisted and will revert the copyvio when I see it. Advice on what else (if anything) to do would be very welcome!! Karanacs ( talk) 03:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed both a "criticism" section that contained one unsourced criticism, as well as vague complaints that were not sourced to any actual critics but was basically original research. As well, I removed a seriously gratuitous red-baiting section under the heading "Ideology" which does not discuss Gonzalez' ideology at all, but simply was put in for sensationalism and well-poisoning. User Griot has been serially reverting attempted fixes on this a number of other Green Party related pages, offering false claims I've reliable sourcing and equally and demonstrably false claims of consensus in previous discussions. He often reverts contra numerous editors and admits a long standing personal grudge against Ralph Nader. I'd appreciate a look at the Matt Gonzalez page and its talk page. I am resisting being provoked by this editor. Boodlesthecat ( talk) 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to request some extra eyeballs at Natalee Holloway disappearance, a page I just moved from Natalee Holloway. Thanks. Mira Gambolputty ( talk) 03:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to request some extra eyeballs at Natalee Holloway disappearance, a page I just moved from Natalee Holloway. It is not a biography, and it has been returned to Natalee Holloway in violation of WP:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event. AuburnPilot, please let this request stay at the bottom of this section so that others will check it instead of suspecting the usual drama. This is core WP:BLP. What do you have to lose? If I'm wrong, others will inform me. You have not provided me with a single argument in a whole string of edits. Thank you. Mira Gambolputty ( talk) 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Mira Gambolputty and a few other accounts controlled by the same person(s) seem to have retired. Ben jiboi 16:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I have suggested per the category living persons that she be removed from that category since she is listed under the disappeared persons category. There was BLP concerns about monitoring this article that was discussed. I was told to take it up with the "BLP patrolers" who ever they might be. Can this category please be removed. There seems to be plenty of eyes watching this article to help avoid any BLP issues as well as all other policy and guideline disputes. Thank you. -- 24.250.59.250 ( talk) 19:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure this isn't the proper noticeboard, but I'm also not sure which one would be. There is an editor who is on an article creation spree using obituaries as the starting point. Recent examples include Jennifer Davidson, Beto Carrero, Lovie Yancey, Shell Kepler, Bernie Boston, Andrey Kurennoy and so forth. Many other examples can be found here. Some of these articles have nothing more than the obit as a source (and some of his other articles don't have any sources at all). This seems to be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia is not a memorial if not it's absolute letter. Any thoughts? Pairadox ( talk) 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes Will but you wouldn't even need to elicit V policy, N would be enough to scuttle articles on non-entities. Wjhonson ( talk) 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This article has been the frequent target of a lot of nonsense editing. I reverted the trash to a mini-stub, but none of what's there is sourced, and the nonsense editing continues. The article needs a lot of eyes due to the repeated vandalism. If there were still a BJAODN, the crap that was in the article would fit, though it would obviously fail BLP. Corvus cornix talk 22:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
He is a pacifist who was kidnapped in Iraq, and supposedly rescued by a commando operation (although in all probability, ransom was paid.) He stated that he would rather have died than been rescued by violence. Rightwing commentators made a lot of noise about how ungrateful he was for that, and how awful he was to refuse to co-operate with the Iraqi investigation because he believed it was corrupt and anyway he wouldn't co-operate with a death penalty case, etc. That POV keeps creeping in as objective fact to his biography. And just in general there are a lot of uncited statements including controversial quotes. For some reason the other 3 kidnap victims don't attract the same vitriol. Anyway, keep an eye out. < eleland/ talk edits> 11:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Myrna Williams (politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There are three statements towards the end of the article:
The second statement seems to have a reliable source and is not too controversial. However the first and third statements seem controversial and have the source of americanmafia.com which does not seem a sufficiently reliable source to back up these allegations. I do not want to change this myself as I have being involved in removing a PROD tag and commenting on an AFD for a related article. Random Fixer Of Things ( talk) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the article. I just got this message. I will email him to see if he has a specific complaint. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This question is now the subject of an active RFC at Talk:Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns. Because this conversation is referenced there, I am not collapsing it. Please add further commentary there.
He has called Nader "Bush's Useful Idiot," [1] myopic, [2] and a deluded megalomaniac. [3]
Does this article need every byte of hostile verbiage ever tossed at Nader, or can we draw a line at gratuitous and malicious insults like the above that don't seem to add much to the subject or Wikipedia, other than a peek into Alterman's mindset. Boodlesthecat ( talk) 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
For context, here is the full quote:
I include the full quote here because the short snippet quoted above needs to be viewed in context. Alterman criticized Nader prior to the election; the other quotes are followup to his analyses of Nader's campaigns. Feedler ( talk) 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the quote is quite okay. We're dealing with a presidential candidate here who better have a tough hide. Griot ( talk) 23:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Relatively new users appear to be writing an autobiography. Was cleaned up once, but is now full of citations to blogs. This seems to be the last version without blogs. Some of the refs added after that may be good, but it's going to take a bit for someone to sort out. Gimmetrow 00:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
One editor in particular deleted citations from Diane Francis based on the fact the citations had the word 'blog' in the url. "Blog" in this case seems to be more of a newspaper marketing ploy than anything else. Here is another example of a "Blog" attached to a newspaper: Freakonomics
My point is the interpretation of WP:RS is too narrow in these cases.
Who Diane Francis is:
Diane Francis, Editor-at-Large of the Financial Post, is an entrepreneur, author, broadcaster, speaker and columnist. She became a columnist with the Financial Post in 1987, joined its Board of Directors in 1988 and became its Editor from 1991 to 1998 when the paper was bought and incorporated into the National Post. Diane has been a columnist for 25 years with the Toronto Star, Maclean's, the Southam newspaper chain and Sun newspaper chain as well as a regular broadcast commentator on business and politics.'
IMO Diane Francis answers to someone within the the National Post organization she works for should therefore be considered a reliable source in the same way as any other reporter in a reputable newspaper. I am seeking comments from other editors. DSatYVR ( talk) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Diane Francis is certainly a reliable source. In my opinion, however, Wikipedia an WP:RS in particular needs to be updated to reflect the realities of 2008. While it used to be generally an accurate stereotype to consider blogs as unreliable diary-like creations with no accountability, more and more blogs are being considered RS as more and more of them are being put together with the same sort of due diligence as "traditional" journalism. The above referenced Diane Francis blog is a prime example of this. I'm not saying all blogs should be rubber stamped, but I do feel restricting acceptability to those with third-party publication is simply not realistic in 2008. 23skidoo ( talk) 07:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Editor David Shankbone has removed reference to Michael Lucas having been a prostitute and substituted the comparatively benign term "escort" in its place. The source cited clearly states: "Lucas then worked as a hustler -- earning money through prostitution..." Wikipedia defines hustler in this sense as a male prostitute. Shankbone has also removed reference to Lucas's real last name being Bregman. The source cited clearly states: "Lucas was born Andrei Treivas Bregman in Moscow in 1972." There are many other sources on the internet supporting the facts that Lucas worked as a prostitute and that his real last name is Bregman. Coincidentally, the changes Shankbone has made were specifically requested by Lucas on the bio's talkpage. -- 72.68.122.108 ( talk) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing that resolved flag with a comment: the resolution at COIN was to refer the IP editor here. The editor proceeded instead to AN and was again referred here. The merits of the BLP argument haven't actually been addressed yet, and this is the place for it. Please do not trap this person in a Catch-22. There actually is an issue worthy of examination here: did David Shankbone pursue too conservative an interpretation of BLP? The use of prostitute in the article is arguable on the basis of multiple reliable sources. I do not endorse this editor's use of inappropriate fora or refusal to use a registered account or stable IP address, but the issue he or she raises actually does deserve examination and this is the proper place to examine it. Durova Charge! 23:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is you have one person behind an IP who is evading detection by using a range of IPs (who are so familiar with Wikipedia rules, guidelines and administrative pages that they may be a banned user - I assume NO good faith). They do not deserve our attention, and if you'd like to see some of their handiwork you can go here ( [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] et. al.). Regarding Durova's allusion to an substantive issue, that was already addressed at COIN. I will quote Becksguy, who hit the nail on the head:
Several points made in response to the nomination: (1) To characterize this substitution of terms as WP:OR is an unreasonable and unsupported attempt to apply the concepts of OR. Escort means prostitute (as does hustler, rent boy, and several other terms, depending on the genders of the provider and client), and escort is the term generally used in the industry, so it's simply not OR to use that term instead of the legalistic term prostitute. For example, escorts is the only listing category used for that profession in newspapers, magazines, and on-line. If the cited sources support Lucas being a prostitute, they necessarily support his being an escort, as the terms mean the same, so there is no evidence of "planting" OR. (2) Further, in terms of labeling, we routinely use, for example, gay instead of the legalistic term homosexual, African-American instead of Colored or Negro, and other preferred terms of identity, per WP:MOS, unless in direct quotations. Why pick on the world's oldest profession? (3) Also, the actual label used in one source above, Yale Daily News, is "hustler", not "prostitute", as in: "Lucas then worked as a hustler -- earning money through prostitution to open up his own porn production company in New York City." The term prostitution in this citation is used in the sense of source of income, not a label for a person and the actual word "prostitute" was not used. (4) I don't see this as WP:COI either. Claiming that there is a COI because Shankbone removed sourced content and replaced it with unsourced content at Lucas's behest is also unreasonable and unsupported, since it remains fully sourced, as explained above, and there was absolutely no material change in the content or slant as a result of this word substitution. (5) Endorse closure as not supported. — Becksguy (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Clearly this person has an issue with Michael Lucas, and we need no indulge them. --David Shankbone 00:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
IP Blocked - the 72.68.0.0/16 IP range is blocked for 72 hrs due to ongoing, widespread harassment of David Shankbone originating from differing IP addresses in that netblock. I had already blocked 3 addresses individually for 72 hrs, I am extending this to the whole range at this point. This campaign of harassment is unacceptable behavior, whoever it is who's doing it. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 00:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I found the following sources that reference Lucas's work as a prostitute:
- Wall Street Journal
[10]
- glbtjews.com
[11]
- amazon.com
[12] (see Editorial Reviews from Booklist)
- AVN Media Network
[13]
- and the article sourced in the bio itself
[14].
And the following sources reference Lucas as "Andrei Treivas Bregman":
- Gay.com
[15]
- Advocate.com
[16]
- Wall Street Journal Blog
[17]
- NYTimes
[18]
- BUTT magazine
[19]
- Lucas's own blog
[20]
- United States District Court
[21]
- and the article sourced in the bio itself
[22].
These show that Lucas was a prostitute and that his real name is Andrei Treivas Bregman. -- 72.76.94.214 ( talk) 02:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous IP editing Huma Abedin insists that Woman's Day is a reliable source. I do not believe is sufficiently reliable per BLP standards as it is a sensationalist gossip magazine of the same time as OK!. The important claim - Abedin's alleged romantic relationship with presidential candidate Hillary Clinton - is already supported by the reputable broadsheet The Times. As I have reverted several times to enforce WP:BLP in spite of WP:3RR, I would like expert attention to be directed at the sourcing of this article. Thanks in advance, Skomorokh confer 09:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore I believe that fact Clinton agree to be interviewed for the piece adds to it's credibility.
I would also add that it makes no statement either way as to it fact or fiction it states the allegation was made Clintons response and a third parties (Renta) statement.
It adds no weight to either side but advises the reader that the story was published.
I would also state that wikipedia has many other articles which contain such information including Bill Clintons sexual misconduct allegations for example
Woman´s Day has almost 2.5 million readers, mostly women, who are of all ages and socio-economic groups. They live in cities, suburbs and regions. They are interested in their homes, families, careers and leisure time. They want to be healthy, fashionable, entertained and informed, to have fun, to know what´s going on in the world, what celebrities are up to and what´s new in health, nutrition, beauty, fashion, fitness and food. They want budget-conscious fashion, five-minute beauty routines, nutritious meals in 15 minutes, easy fitness ideas and helpful advice on life´s little problems. They enter contests in their thousands, write, fax and e-mail hundreds of letters every week, share secrets, advice, worries and joys. Woman´s Day gives its readers what they want. from ACP—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 ( talk) 10:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Q.
Was Clinton intervied in the times article ? Was Renta interviewed in the times article ?
There are millions of exapmle though out wikipedia were more then one source is nothed and i beleave they ofer different information! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.220.6.59 (
talk)
10:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Fancy has little to do with fact! In the Vouge article did Clinton speak of her warm and memories Of the time she and Bill spent in australia ? I fail to see all the fuss why are you so determined to remove what is simply information that there was such a story printed in woman's day ? What is you motivation ? Why do you seek repress a mater of fact ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 ( talk) 07:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As I have stated I am not asserting anything the information I have contributed is a fact which is on December 10 2007 there was an article which stated the following ! Such information is contained extensively throughout wikipedia. I think you have Woman’s Day confused with New Weekly and FYI Australia has its own version of OK magazine
Australian weekly magazine Woman's Day subsequently ran a story titled "Hillary Clintons Gay Scandal" which stated "Hillary Clinton has been accused of having an affair with Huma Abedin". Clinton replied "It's not true, but it's something I have no control over" So close are the two women they even holiday together. "They are lucky to have found each other" Fashion designer Oscar de la Renta is quoted as saying in the piece after hosting the two on holiday at his Dominican Republic home
In regards to the revert you continue to change it how many reverts do you have ? The mater was put here to be decided upon. A presidential candidate has no right to special treatment! Article states Hillary Clinton speaks to our own Angela Mollard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 ( talk) 11:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The Times reported in November 2007 that a dirty tricks campaign was underway intimating that Abedin and Clinton were engaged in a lesbian affair.[3] Australian weekly magazine Woman's Day subsequently ran a story titled "Hillary Clintons Gay Scandal" which stated "Hillary Clinton has been accused of having an affair with Huma Abedin". Clinton replied "It's not true, but it's something I have no control over" So close are the two women they even holiday together. "They are lucky to have found each other" Fashion designer Oscar de la Renta is quoted as saying in the piece after hosting the two on holiday at his Dominican Republic home.[4]
While the mater is being delt with you and your friends continue to change it ! Look at how the article is now and always was structured. I fail to she your point ? you do not make a case and just change it ! why ? please note i fixed spelling due to your reverts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 ( talk) 12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I would draw to everyones attention that you have made a mistake or misinformed readers as the page you refer to is not infact the front page I would also point out that the story you point to does contain the name of the writer as has been discussed above. i would ask you to withdraw your mistaken or missleading statements thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 ( talk) 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
21stCenturyBuoy, who has only ever edited this article, is continually adding material suggesting that Galloway deliberately misled Parliament. The evidence he cites does not appear to establish this defamatory, and apparently libellous claim. RolandR ( talk) 14:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
On various occasions has the management of artist Robbi McMillen contacted Wikipedia in order to have all metion of him removed from this website. As of yet, no such changes have been made. McMillen and his management demand that such pages be deleted, and that any pages about him must be removed until he is 18 years of age - we would not like this site, under reputation to cause any legal or moral damage, or damage to the artist's personal life. If confirmation is required, please email dan.casey'AT'robbimcmillen.com
All articles in all languages or containing mention of Robbi McMillen must be deleted. This is a request from his management and from his family. All pages, including those in Gaelic and his discography must be removed or a legal representative will contact Wikipedia. If you are in any doubt, please contact his management through his website.
Also, please note that Robbi's management are his family and a member of the family's legal team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.166.73 ( talk • contribs) 6 January 2008
For confirmation, please feel free to email his management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.120.246 ( talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
User: Wasted Time R ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is preventing me from making edits removing impertinent information. The article is infringing on a few rules and all my edits are being undone by him.
Rule: Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Instead, relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article.
Rule:NPOV
Rule: Brevity
Regarding the claims of trivia, nothing I have included in this article is trivial. Every piece of material and every piece of detail goes towards describing the full character of the biographical subject. His family's naval heritage is a key aspect of his life, as a read of Faith of My Fathers and outside biographies readily reveals, and was of operational significance in terms of his educational struggles and his time as a POW. His Academy demerits are part and whole of a personality that continues to affect his political stances and behaviors today. His superstitions are frequently noted in the press and are part of depicting his full character. Wasted Time R ( talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the claims of POV, the 'missteps' in the article are all conceded by McCain himself, as the article makes clear. The "maverick" persona is one that is described by all biographies and newspapers profiles; you can hardly escape it. I don't know how Yialanliu gets a "deranged" depiction out of all this; most people reading this article would probably consider McCain heroic. If anything, I've short-changed criticisms of him. Wasted Time R ( talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the length, yes, the article's long. But he's had a long career; he's been a nationally visible figure since 1967. In writing this article, I haven't paid any attention to the George W. Bush article, so I can't comment on that, but this article does touch on the same elements and key episodes of his career that several biographies do as well as the multi-part Arizona Republic series that's frequently cited. Wasted Time R ( talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
An edit war is ongoing at Elizabeth Loftus. The dispute is over what details concerning academic articles published by Loftus should be included in the article. My position is that the articles are not pertinent to her biography, but I'm trying not to enter into the edit warring myself. -- Donald Albury 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where to ask this, so I'm asking it here. On Talk:Banu Qurayza, Tariq Ramadan has been alleged of various things, e.g. "bigotry, antisemitism, and glorification of mass murder". While I'm grateful that this has stopped, there are still allegations that he is an "Islamist". This is quite a controversial allegation.
My question is: is it alright to make such statements about a living person on a talk page, especially if they are a bit off topic?
Wikipedia:Avoiding harm seems to suggest that the answer is no. Bless sins ( talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There are some articles that were deleted recently, were many of {{ afd}} participants justified delete opinions based on their perception those articles violated BLP.
In particular they characterized "Summary of Evidence" memos that contained the allegations against these individuals as "primary sources" -- and thus noncompliant with BLP.
Since the {{ afd}}s were closed as delete I took a closer look at our definition of the difference between a primary and a secondary source.
These "Summary of Evidence" memos, are, as the name says, summaries. The authors compiled information from multiple documents, produced by multiple agencies.
To my way of thinking they constitute a canonical example of "secondary sources". I am considering requesting an undeletion review. First I thought I would ask for some opinions.
I already asked, over on primary source, or secondary source?
If you have thoughts on this, and time to offer them, it probably makes sense to offer them there. Thanks!
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Related to the question above, I have also asked a related question, over on WP:RS/Noticeboard -- under the heading What constitutes an "independent third party source"?
Some of those who had a concern that those "Summary of Evidence" memos were "primary sources" also voiced a concern that they weren't from an "independent, third party source".
As with the question whether these memos are "primaary sources", or "secondary sources", I think it would be best if anyone here who has an opinion puts it over on WP:RS/Noticeboard, where it was first raised. So, briefly, it seems to me that the arguments to suppress the use of these sources, because they weren't "independent" are based on unsubstantiated "gut feelings". It seems to me these arguments aren't based on anything that complies with WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:VER.
My thanks, in advance, to anyone who cares to offer their thoughts on these two questions!
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Users have removed outdated media speculation however other users insist on keeping the speculation current in an attempt to further damage Laming's reputation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 ( talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried this on the BLP talk page but not a lot of activity occurs there so I will try here.
It looks like people are trying to use this for people that have died or recently died as seen in Talk:Heath Ledger. Since this specifically about the living some feedback on this would be appreciated. -- UKPhoenix79 ( talk) 20:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
An IP editor has been persistently inserting mounds of negative information into the biographies of Mark Steyn and Niall Ferguson, and edit-warring it in against a number of other editors. A quick read shows that at least some of it is sourced to blogs and personal websites. Based on the editing style and the continual promotion of Johann Hari I'm guessing it's David r from meth productions ( talk · contribs). I've removed the material and semi-protected first and protected the second for now; if it is David r from meth productions and he logs in and continues to insert this material, I might have to full protect the first too. Alternatively, I could start blocking the editor, but I'm hoping that protection will calm things down for now. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There is an insistence on including the term Fascism in the info box. This is a term frequently used against the party by critics and it is sourced. However, the term is not discussed in the main text (where it certainly should be), and there is no statement that the Party promotes itself under this term, so there would be divergence of viewpoints by different analysts as to its applicability. Used in the infobox without any wider context, it stands as a definitive editorial statement which reflects on any individuals in the Party and particularly those mentioned by name in the article. I believe this contravenes the need for caution mandated by WP:BLP, and have pointed that out on the talk page to no avail. The sources provided are authors, not an official body. The BNP are not a prescribed party, but hold local government office. This should not be taken in any way as a reflection of my own views on the Party. Tyrenius ( talk) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comment that you link to is an endorsement of the point that this term should be examined in the article, but not stated in the infobox. Tyrenius ( talk) 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think BLP applies to political organisation by dint of not being biography of living persons - it only intersects where living persons are mentioned in the political party's write-up. As far as it goes, I supprot "Fascism" being in the info box and in the article, and I am prepared to go along with "Denied by BNP", but would ask for a BNP citation to that end.-- Red Deathy ( talk) 08:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
On the Medved page, he is listed as a "self identifying homosexual". This is false and slanderous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.224.17 ( talk) 01:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This edit is sourced to a mainstream sports columnist, which might satisfy reliability but might still be of concern per WP:NPF. I'd appreciate it if someone would take a look. alanyst / talk/ 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm requesting another look at this. I've had past conflict with the editor who is re-adding the material so I think he might take it the wrong way if I were directly involved in fixing the BLP issues. Is there anyone who can help with this? alanyst / talk/ 17:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no reliable biographical evidence available to substantiate the claim that she is in fact of Somali heritage. The only information widely reported is her home country(Russia)and city of birth (Perm). This wikipedia entry seems to be the only evidence people are able to refer to as evidence of any Somali heritage. The claim of Somali heritage has no verifiable basis, aside from claims based on a mystery interview that has never been provided.
Hi, I'm concerned about the repeated insertion of unsubstantiated claims that Abu El Haj slandered an archaeologist on both this page and the page for facts on the ground. This text is inserted in a separate section on both pages, but the source of the claim seems to be a separate writer and whose accusations are not supported by the person supposedly being slandered by Abu El Haj. The inclusion on Wikipedia of potentially false claims that Abu El Haj slandered another academic could ITSELF be considered as slander, and so it is potentially libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.68.32 ( talk) 00:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
All are {{ blpdispute}}d, please look into this. Thanks, Solumeiras ( talk) 14:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Michelesinclair ( talk · contribs) created the page Michele Sinclair several days ago. I ran across it when it was slapped with a copyvio tag, as the text was a direct copy of what was on romancewiki, and also of text that appeared on various other websites. I cleaned up the article to rely only on the one source I could find about the subject and deleted the information on future works, and left a message on the talk page of the user to explain why I did that along with a link to WP:COI. Said user reverted my changes, so I reverted them back, and then today a random IP 67.34.42.168 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) added back in the same romancewiki/copyrighted nonsense, deleting what was there. I suspect the IP and the user are the same, but I also am pretty sure it is the subject of the article, so I am not sure what to do about this. Even if she owns the copyright to the text, the information she keeps adding to the articleis not encyclopedic. I could have a checkuser run and get her blocked for repeatedly adding copyrighted text, but I'm not sure that's the best way to go with the subject of the article. For now, I've got the page watchlisted and will revert the copyvio when I see it. Advice on what else (if anything) to do would be very welcome!! Karanacs ( talk) 03:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed both a "criticism" section that contained one unsourced criticism, as well as vague complaints that were not sourced to any actual critics but was basically original research. As well, I removed a seriously gratuitous red-baiting section under the heading "Ideology" which does not discuss Gonzalez' ideology at all, but simply was put in for sensationalism and well-poisoning. User Griot has been serially reverting attempted fixes on this a number of other Green Party related pages, offering false claims I've reliable sourcing and equally and demonstrably false claims of consensus in previous discussions. He often reverts contra numerous editors and admits a long standing personal grudge against Ralph Nader. I'd appreciate a look at the Matt Gonzalez page and its talk page. I am resisting being provoked by this editor. Boodlesthecat ( talk) 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to request some extra eyeballs at Natalee Holloway disappearance, a page I just moved from Natalee Holloway. Thanks. Mira Gambolputty ( talk) 03:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to request some extra eyeballs at Natalee Holloway disappearance, a page I just moved from Natalee Holloway. It is not a biography, and it has been returned to Natalee Holloway in violation of WP:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event. AuburnPilot, please let this request stay at the bottom of this section so that others will check it instead of suspecting the usual drama. This is core WP:BLP. What do you have to lose? If I'm wrong, others will inform me. You have not provided me with a single argument in a whole string of edits. Thank you. Mira Gambolputty ( talk) 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Mira Gambolputty and a few other accounts controlled by the same person(s) seem to have retired. Ben jiboi 16:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I have suggested per the category living persons that she be removed from that category since she is listed under the disappeared persons category. There was BLP concerns about monitoring this article that was discussed. I was told to take it up with the "BLP patrolers" who ever they might be. Can this category please be removed. There seems to be plenty of eyes watching this article to help avoid any BLP issues as well as all other policy and guideline disputes. Thank you. -- 24.250.59.250 ( talk) 19:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure this isn't the proper noticeboard, but I'm also not sure which one would be. There is an editor who is on an article creation spree using obituaries as the starting point. Recent examples include Jennifer Davidson, Beto Carrero, Lovie Yancey, Shell Kepler, Bernie Boston, Andrey Kurennoy and so forth. Many other examples can be found here. Some of these articles have nothing more than the obit as a source (and some of his other articles don't have any sources at all). This seems to be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia is not a memorial if not it's absolute letter. Any thoughts? Pairadox ( talk) 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes Will but you wouldn't even need to elicit V policy, N would be enough to scuttle articles on non-entities. Wjhonson ( talk) 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This article has been the frequent target of a lot of nonsense editing. I reverted the trash to a mini-stub, but none of what's there is sourced, and the nonsense editing continues. The article needs a lot of eyes due to the repeated vandalism. If there were still a BJAODN, the crap that was in the article would fit, though it would obviously fail BLP. Corvus cornix talk 22:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
He is a pacifist who was kidnapped in Iraq, and supposedly rescued by a commando operation (although in all probability, ransom was paid.) He stated that he would rather have died than been rescued by violence. Rightwing commentators made a lot of noise about how ungrateful he was for that, and how awful he was to refuse to co-operate with the Iraqi investigation because he believed it was corrupt and anyway he wouldn't co-operate with a death penalty case, etc. That POV keeps creeping in as objective fact to his biography. And just in general there are a lot of uncited statements including controversial quotes. For some reason the other 3 kidnap victims don't attract the same vitriol. Anyway, keep an eye out. < eleland/ talk edits> 11:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Myrna Williams (politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There are three statements towards the end of the article:
The second statement seems to have a reliable source and is not too controversial. However the first and third statements seem controversial and have the source of americanmafia.com which does not seem a sufficiently reliable source to back up these allegations. I do not want to change this myself as I have being involved in removing a PROD tag and commenting on an AFD for a related article. Random Fixer Of Things ( talk) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the article. I just got this message. I will email him to see if he has a specific complaint. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This question is now the subject of an active RFC at Talk:Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns. Because this conversation is referenced there, I am not collapsing it. Please add further commentary there.
He has called Nader "Bush's Useful Idiot," [1] myopic, [2] and a deluded megalomaniac. [3]
Does this article need every byte of hostile verbiage ever tossed at Nader, or can we draw a line at gratuitous and malicious insults like the above that don't seem to add much to the subject or Wikipedia, other than a peek into Alterman's mindset. Boodlesthecat ( talk) 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
For context, here is the full quote:
I include the full quote here because the short snippet quoted above needs to be viewed in context. Alterman criticized Nader prior to the election; the other quotes are followup to his analyses of Nader's campaigns. Feedler ( talk) 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the quote is quite okay. We're dealing with a presidential candidate here who better have a tough hide. Griot ( talk) 23:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Relatively new users appear to be writing an autobiography. Was cleaned up once, but is now full of citations to blogs. This seems to be the last version without blogs. Some of the refs added after that may be good, but it's going to take a bit for someone to sort out. Gimmetrow 00:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
One editor in particular deleted citations from Diane Francis based on the fact the citations had the word 'blog' in the url. "Blog" in this case seems to be more of a newspaper marketing ploy than anything else. Here is another example of a "Blog" attached to a newspaper: Freakonomics
My point is the interpretation of WP:RS is too narrow in these cases.
Who Diane Francis is:
Diane Francis, Editor-at-Large of the Financial Post, is an entrepreneur, author, broadcaster, speaker and columnist. She became a columnist with the Financial Post in 1987, joined its Board of Directors in 1988 and became its Editor from 1991 to 1998 when the paper was bought and incorporated into the National Post. Diane has been a columnist for 25 years with the Toronto Star, Maclean's, the Southam newspaper chain and Sun newspaper chain as well as a regular broadcast commentator on business and politics.'
IMO Diane Francis answers to someone within the the National Post organization she works for should therefore be considered a reliable source in the same way as any other reporter in a reputable newspaper. I am seeking comments from other editors. DSatYVR ( talk) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Diane Francis is certainly a reliable source. In my opinion, however, Wikipedia an WP:RS in particular needs to be updated to reflect the realities of 2008. While it used to be generally an accurate stereotype to consider blogs as unreliable diary-like creations with no accountability, more and more blogs are being considered RS as more and more of them are being put together with the same sort of due diligence as "traditional" journalism. The above referenced Diane Francis blog is a prime example of this. I'm not saying all blogs should be rubber stamped, but I do feel restricting acceptability to those with third-party publication is simply not realistic in 2008. 23skidoo ( talk) 07:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Editor David Shankbone has removed reference to Michael Lucas having been a prostitute and substituted the comparatively benign term "escort" in its place. The source cited clearly states: "Lucas then worked as a hustler -- earning money through prostitution..." Wikipedia defines hustler in this sense as a male prostitute. Shankbone has also removed reference to Lucas's real last name being Bregman. The source cited clearly states: "Lucas was born Andrei Treivas Bregman in Moscow in 1972." There are many other sources on the internet supporting the facts that Lucas worked as a prostitute and that his real last name is Bregman. Coincidentally, the changes Shankbone has made were specifically requested by Lucas on the bio's talkpage. -- 72.68.122.108 ( talk) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing that resolved flag with a comment: the resolution at COIN was to refer the IP editor here. The editor proceeded instead to AN and was again referred here. The merits of the BLP argument haven't actually been addressed yet, and this is the place for it. Please do not trap this person in a Catch-22. There actually is an issue worthy of examination here: did David Shankbone pursue too conservative an interpretation of BLP? The use of prostitute in the article is arguable on the basis of multiple reliable sources. I do not endorse this editor's use of inappropriate fora or refusal to use a registered account or stable IP address, but the issue he or she raises actually does deserve examination and this is the proper place to examine it. Durova Charge! 23:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is you have one person behind an IP who is evading detection by using a range of IPs (who are so familiar with Wikipedia rules, guidelines and administrative pages that they may be a banned user - I assume NO good faith). They do not deserve our attention, and if you'd like to see some of their handiwork you can go here ( [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] et. al.). Regarding Durova's allusion to an substantive issue, that was already addressed at COIN. I will quote Becksguy, who hit the nail on the head:
Several points made in response to the nomination: (1) To characterize this substitution of terms as WP:OR is an unreasonable and unsupported attempt to apply the concepts of OR. Escort means prostitute (as does hustler, rent boy, and several other terms, depending on the genders of the provider and client), and escort is the term generally used in the industry, so it's simply not OR to use that term instead of the legalistic term prostitute. For example, escorts is the only listing category used for that profession in newspapers, magazines, and on-line. If the cited sources support Lucas being a prostitute, they necessarily support his being an escort, as the terms mean the same, so there is no evidence of "planting" OR. (2) Further, in terms of labeling, we routinely use, for example, gay instead of the legalistic term homosexual, African-American instead of Colored or Negro, and other preferred terms of identity, per WP:MOS, unless in direct quotations. Why pick on the world's oldest profession? (3) Also, the actual label used in one source above, Yale Daily News, is "hustler", not "prostitute", as in: "Lucas then worked as a hustler -- earning money through prostitution to open up his own porn production company in New York City." The term prostitution in this citation is used in the sense of source of income, not a label for a person and the actual word "prostitute" was not used. (4) I don't see this as WP:COI either. Claiming that there is a COI because Shankbone removed sourced content and replaced it with unsourced content at Lucas's behest is also unreasonable and unsupported, since it remains fully sourced, as explained above, and there was absolutely no material change in the content or slant as a result of this word substitution. (5) Endorse closure as not supported. — Becksguy (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Clearly this person has an issue with Michael Lucas, and we need no indulge them. --David Shankbone 00:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
IP Blocked - the 72.68.0.0/16 IP range is blocked for 72 hrs due to ongoing, widespread harassment of David Shankbone originating from differing IP addresses in that netblock. I had already blocked 3 addresses individually for 72 hrs, I am extending this to the whole range at this point. This campaign of harassment is unacceptable behavior, whoever it is who's doing it. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 00:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I found the following sources that reference Lucas's work as a prostitute:
- Wall Street Journal
[10]
- glbtjews.com
[11]
- amazon.com
[12] (see Editorial Reviews from Booklist)
- AVN Media Network
[13]
- and the article sourced in the bio itself
[14].
And the following sources reference Lucas as "Andrei Treivas Bregman":
- Gay.com
[15]
- Advocate.com
[16]
- Wall Street Journal Blog
[17]
- NYTimes
[18]
- BUTT magazine
[19]
- Lucas's own blog
[20]
- United States District Court
[21]
- and the article sourced in the bio itself
[22].
These show that Lucas was a prostitute and that his real name is Andrei Treivas Bregman. -- 72.76.94.214 ( talk) 02:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous IP editing Huma Abedin insists that Woman's Day is a reliable source. I do not believe is sufficiently reliable per BLP standards as it is a sensationalist gossip magazine of the same time as OK!. The important claim - Abedin's alleged romantic relationship with presidential candidate Hillary Clinton - is already supported by the reputable broadsheet The Times. As I have reverted several times to enforce WP:BLP in spite of WP:3RR, I would like expert attention to be directed at the sourcing of this article. Thanks in advance, Skomorokh confer 09:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore I believe that fact Clinton agree to be interviewed for the piece adds to it's credibility.
I would also add that it makes no statement either way as to it fact or fiction it states the allegation was made Clintons response and a third parties (Renta) statement.
It adds no weight to either side but advises the reader that the story was published.
I would also state that wikipedia has many other articles which contain such information including Bill Clintons sexual misconduct allegations for example
Woman´s Day has almost 2.5 million readers, mostly women, who are of all ages and socio-economic groups. They live in cities, suburbs and regions. They are interested in their homes, families, careers and leisure time. They want to be healthy, fashionable, entertained and informed, to have fun, to know what´s going on in the world, what celebrities are up to and what´s new in health, nutrition, beauty, fashion, fitness and food. They want budget-conscious fashion, five-minute beauty routines, nutritious meals in 15 minutes, easy fitness ideas and helpful advice on life´s little problems. They enter contests in their thousands, write, fax and e-mail hundreds of letters every week, share secrets, advice, worries and joys. Woman´s Day gives its readers what they want. from ACP—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 ( talk) 10:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Q.
Was Clinton intervied in the times article ? Was Renta interviewed in the times article ?
There are millions of exapmle though out wikipedia were more then one source is nothed and i beleave they ofer different information! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.220.6.59 (
talk)
10:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Fancy has little to do with fact! In the Vouge article did Clinton speak of her warm and memories Of the time she and Bill spent in australia ? I fail to see all the fuss why are you so determined to remove what is simply information that there was such a story printed in woman's day ? What is you motivation ? Why do you seek repress a mater of fact ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 ( talk) 07:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As I have stated I am not asserting anything the information I have contributed is a fact which is on December 10 2007 there was an article which stated the following ! Such information is contained extensively throughout wikipedia. I think you have Woman’s Day confused with New Weekly and FYI Australia has its own version of OK magazine
Australian weekly magazine Woman's Day subsequently ran a story titled "Hillary Clintons Gay Scandal" which stated "Hillary Clinton has been accused of having an affair with Huma Abedin". Clinton replied "It's not true, but it's something I have no control over" So close are the two women they even holiday together. "They are lucky to have found each other" Fashion designer Oscar de la Renta is quoted as saying in the piece after hosting the two on holiday at his Dominican Republic home
In regards to the revert you continue to change it how many reverts do you have ? The mater was put here to be decided upon. A presidential candidate has no right to special treatment! Article states Hillary Clinton speaks to our own Angela Mollard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 ( talk) 11:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The Times reported in November 2007 that a dirty tricks campaign was underway intimating that Abedin and Clinton were engaged in a lesbian affair.[3] Australian weekly magazine Woman's Day subsequently ran a story titled "Hillary Clintons Gay Scandal" which stated "Hillary Clinton has been accused of having an affair with Huma Abedin". Clinton replied "It's not true, but it's something I have no control over" So close are the two women they even holiday together. "They are lucky to have found each other" Fashion designer Oscar de la Renta is quoted as saying in the piece after hosting the two on holiday at his Dominican Republic home.[4]
While the mater is being delt with you and your friends continue to change it ! Look at how the article is now and always was structured. I fail to she your point ? you do not make a case and just change it ! why ? please note i fixed spelling due to your reverts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 ( talk) 12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I would draw to everyones attention that you have made a mistake or misinformed readers as the page you refer to is not infact the front page I would also point out that the story you point to does contain the name of the writer as has been discussed above. i would ask you to withdraw your mistaken or missleading statements thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 ( talk) 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)