This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A question under WP:BLP arises in Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC regarding whether it is okay to repost in the biographies of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, election-related articles pertaining to Barack Obama and the Obama-Ayers controversy, and in the Weathermen article itself, characterizations made by some that the 1960s and 1970s actions of the Weather Underground Organization constitute terrorism. This affects a number of people who are productive members of society today but who participated in radical US youth movements in the 1960s and 70s. Some feel that calling living people former terorists is a pejorative epithet that is inherently subjective (absent being on any official list) and a BLP violation; others that these people are well known and the accusations of being terrorists are well sourced (i.e. they fit the BLP exception). At the RfC there has been some question (e.g. here as to what BLP really means, so any guidance there would be helpful. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
At Grand Orient of the United States of America there is a persistent wish to insert the word "fraudulent" about claims made by the founders about the membership of the group. It is sourced from another, personal, web page. The claim, that they have fewer members than they claim, is common and perhaps should be reported, but the way in which the word "fraudulent" is used - particularly when used about identifiable individuals - disturbs me. Could we have an opinion on this? JASpencer ( talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
If this is not the correct place to ask whether an article has BLP issues, would someone please point us in the correct direction? This has to be resolved. Blueboar ( talk) 21:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me (and point me in the right direction) if someone has done this before, have we given thought to a nicely worded welcome template for newish users who are editing BLP articles, explaining why reliable sourcing is important, and if they have any can they please add, or otherwise not add the material, with sorta nice wording like "imagine this was wirtten about you/your sister/brother etc" and highlighting the imporantce of referencing? Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
http://biography.jrank.org/pages/3187/P-rez-Eddie-Alberto-1957-Political-Leader.html
http://www.hartford.gov/Government/mayor/biography.asp
https://www.cpbn.org/program/where-we-live/episode/mayor-eddie-perez
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/rankings/influential_hispanics/2007/9/26/the_stars_align_the_100_most.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.107.151 ( talk • contribs)
I have continued this discussion on the article's talk page. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 14:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A persistent and aptly named editor wishes to add a link and a description of a YouTube video featuring Kamla having a "hissy fit" on the air. The editor clearly wishes to use this trivial incident to paint the subject in an embarrassing light. Also, the video is unauthorized/copyrighted. I'm not going to edit war over this, but this is plainly inappropriate.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 03:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I blocked indef and reverted, I first warned him but seeing the name... Secret account 17:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Would appreciate input about this edit, its deletion rationale was BLP: [5]: "His historical work has, however, been described as politically motivated [6] and as displaying elements of conspiracy theory. [7]" The sources are Rice University and CESNUR. Novickas ( talk) 17:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
There is some Major vandalism to this guys page.
Harold Holt is categorised as in the mutually exclusive Category:1967 deaths (which doesn't get BLP protection) and in Category:Disappeared people (which does get BLP protection). At what point of certainty (apart from waiting until 1908 + 123 = 2031) do we consign someone from disappeared to dead? Was there another article a few months ago that faced this dilemma? Andjam ( talk) 10:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This article, about the Insurance Commissioner-elect of the State of Delaware, was edited several times by ElizabethGabriel, an editor whose only edits have been to this article, and who inserted unsourced and potentially libelous content.
It was then reverted to a bare-bones stub, then re-edited with less controversial but still factually dubious and potentially libelous material.
The current incarnation of the article is better than the versions created by ElizabethGabriel, but still has serious problems. Two citations were made to unsourced statements in the Delawareliberal.net blog: one citing an unreferenced statement by a Republican group that Stewart falsified her employment background and was employed as a security guard at a Lowe's store at the time of the election and another from an admittedly anonymous source that Stewart was "unemployed or working as a store clerk for most of the last 10 years", that she does not own a business, and that "She can only speak from prepared scripts, and she can’t write, either". (Admittedly, the article does not claim that Stewart cannot write or speak other than from prepared scripts.)
The article also contains unsourced claims: (1) that Stewart "Karen Weldin Stewart has long been peripherally involved in Democratic politics" in Delaware, (2) that she won the election "with only a high-school diploma, a mere two years of community college, and little business experience", (3) that she was "confronted late in her campaign with evidence of her acceptance of campaign contributions from the insurance industry and its lawyers", and (4) that she was elected to office "despite having the lowest percentage for any Democrat running for state-office." - Sensor ( talk) 15:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This editor has previously been warned for posting non-cited and accusatory allegations. The following language was previously removed on the grounds of being accusatory, non-cited, and non-notable. The same editor has since posted it to the article again.
I will not engage in an edit war over, so I kindly seek your assistance in this matter. // Brycetom ( talk) 16:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Gordon Ramsay ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Assistance is needed in regards to the recent affair allegation raised against the subject of the article. Discussion on the talk page is unable to resolve the ongoing issue, and I request assistance in preventing further BLP violations. Knowledgeum : Talk 21:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
User IP 124.177.112.110 is re-adding the same paragraph of page Andrew_Hidalgo continually, which is unreferenced and probably libelous ("has several piercings in interesting places."). I'm not going to revert anymore, I need some others to look at his edits and help sort this out. tedder ( talk) 13:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is full of unreferenced statements about Martin, from problems getting a raise to an alleged arrest. Am I wrong in thinking quite a bit of it should go? dougweller ( talk) 19:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Claims she married Daniel Jayan a producer on Asianet in 2008. This is not true.
This article uses a Norwegian newsarticle as reference, even though Larsen's not named in this article. - Mr. Hill ( talk) 22:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
One editor commented on my talk page that these edits should be removed from the history. Per the WP:BLP policy, only users with oversight privilege can do this. Please see these policies for more information on how to make such a request. -- Ryan Delaney talk 14:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Barkha Dutt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) More eyes please, especially edits made by Nilakar ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is ignoring blp warnings, putting back unsourced claims without sources, adding blogs referencing vandalaized versions of articles as sources, removing reliable sourced claims, the whole shebang. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-05 t13:30z
I posted this here a few days ago. It seems to have been archived with no discussion and, of course, no resolution. I am bringing it back. - Jmabel | Talk 17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Restored
End restored
User Czbiker has identified himself as Karl Shuker and has expressed concern about repeated vandalism/libel to the Karl Shuker article that has eminated over a period of months from the above IP address ( for example). It appears that the majority of the edits from that IP editor have been of a disruptive nature and the editor has recieved a number of warnings about such behavior. Has the situation reached the point that the IP can be blocked? -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The page How to Break a Terrorist: The US Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq had someone add what purported to be the author's name. The person named contacted oversight, concerned for their safety; I zapped the edit. But if people could keep an eye on the article, delete purported names and notify oversight of said deleted revs, that would be very helpful. Might be worth keeping an eye on Matthew Alexander (the pseudonym of the book's author) as well - David Gerard ( talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I just moved the article to How to Break a Terrorist - sorry if this messes with anyone's watch list. Wikidemon ( talk) 23:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
While wandering through a list of B-movie actors I stumbled upon a Dovie Beams, a very minor actress who evidently is famous solely for her allegedly having an affair with Ferdnand Marcos. I have placed a "notable" tag on it but request that the article be examined by other editors as to its notability and whehter there are other BLP issues. Stetsonharry ( talk) 22:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The article has a total of about 1200 words, of which about 730 are just criticism. It has two pictures, one is the picture of his party flag and other a group of guys protesting him for the terrorist attack happened recently in Mumbai. The terrorist attack was neither perpetrated nor supported by him or his party. For some background, Raj was involved in 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra.
Political protests against leaders are natural in politics and therefore, the picture appears to be irrelevant and adds undue negative significance against the subject. Adding that negative image while the article doesnt even have the subject's image along with the huge quantity of criticism in the article appears to violate WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and therefore WP:BLP. The related conversation can be followed here in the article talk page. Thanks for your opinion. Docku: What up? 23:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This article needs eyes. There are a lot of external battles intruding. [8] [9] I have removed both these edits. Ty 00:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
How appropriate do you think it is to categorize this spy under Category:Turkish criminals? If you read the article, you'll see that he was convicted for fraud -- some say as a result of a deliberate "mistake". His crime is notable, because his testimony taken during the detainment was responsible for the uncovering of a criminal gang called Ergenekon. I wrote the article myself and I am having second thoughts about the appropriateness of that particular category. -- Adoniscik( t, c) 15:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Martin Bryant is desperately in need of references and proper sourcing - It has references, but they are not inline. WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to barge back in here -- but Joe the Plumber has an editor determined that the occupation of a plumber is "plumbing" and issuing 3RR warnings about it. Following WP guidelines, I am therefore asking once more (sigh) whether Joe's occupation is "plumber", "plumbing", "illegal plumber", "plumber's ass" (actually proposed), "unlicensed plumber", "turd-gurgler" (also proposed) or whatever. Thanks in advance! Collect ( talk) 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) The current text does a good job of explaining who he is and why he is notable. However, I think it should begin with his correct name. "Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher came to prominence as Joe the Plumber during the Obama campaign...". This is more in line with MoS. Further down we find out exactly what his day job involves. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been removing "spouse" and "domesticpartner" from the infobox after a complaint to the foundation, because the first wasn't sourced and the 2nd is contradicted by a new ref. User:Emerson7 ( see messages removed from talk page) has been putting back unsourced and contradicted info and calling my edits contentious, so I'd like someone else to apply BLP there. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-07 t03:58z
An IP editor, 68.12.36.69 ( talk · contribs) has been added unsourced contentious material to this article, and keeps replacing it after reverting and after blocks. Can someone please keep an eye on it as I am taking a wikibreak, and deal appropriately? The editor's other edits may be worth scrutiny also. Thanks. dougweller ( talk) 16:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Freddie Hubbard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Just an alert that there are email rumors about Freddie Hubbard being in poor health, and the article has been edited to reflect these reports (and I reverted). I have yet to see an actual news article (or other reliable source) that mentions it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The wiki entry for maryland Governor Martin O'Malley is chock full of sensational text and potentially libelous statements starrfaithfull Starrfaithfull ( talk) 20:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Poorly sourced political and biographical entry; could use additional references and watchlisting from BLP-savvy editors. Skomorokh 01:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This page, which I first looked at after a message here, is still highly problematic. Very controversial writer. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This article has a number of issues, as evinced by the "article issues" template at its top. "Events in which Guujaaw was involved" has some entries that may be valid if cited and explained, others seem trivial; "books that mention Guujaaw" has ben deleted, another books section remains. I'll leave it to experienced BLP editors/admins to clean this up; I've made enough enemies LOL. Guujaaw is a major First Nations leader in British Columbia and appears to have edited this article himself, though much of his POV/resume content has been changed/taken out. Still more work to do, but lots seems like "fluff". And see edit history re things taken out that will probably be put back in at some point and have to be taken out again.... Skookum1 ( talk) 14:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Shlomo Sand ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A single-purpose account, which I strongly suspect to be yet another appearance of the Runtshit vandal, has been repeatedly adding to this article defamatory remarks, citing a hostile article in an extremely unreliable POV blog. The main allegation does not even appear in the source cited. Please could an uninvolved editor or admin take a look at this, and help maintain a neutral POV with proper sourcing. RolandR ( talk) 15:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Alleged gangster, no references. Db template removed by admin. Mjroots ( talk) 18:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please figure out what to do with the article Dasiy Evans? The name is a misspelling of Daisy Evans (which redirects to S Club Juniors, a girl band of which Dasiy/Daisy is a member). The article isn't referenced, could use a complete rewrite, and a merge (or deletion) seems appropriate. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 02:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Nancy Wu ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Looks like we need a big-time translation into English. I tried to roll back previous edits, but the Chinese characters are still there. What should I do???? Willking1979 ( talk) 03:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
This article has WP:BLP issues in naming and describing relatively unknown individuals who are criminals. Refer to Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_names. Similarly this article as well 2007 triple homicide in Easton, Pennsylvania. Michellecrisp ( talk) 05:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
On seven different occasions, an editor calling himself John Riemann Soong has inserted the same list of derogatory and unsourced statements regarding Dr. Sax, such as that Dr. Sax is a proponent of "sexual dimorphism in language ability." Mr. Soong -- and another editor named DarwinPeacock with a suspiciously similar POV -- continue to post the same derogatory allegations, always unsourced. Because this is a low-traffic site, this vandalism may go undetected and/or risk an editor violating the three-revert rule to reverse the vandalism. Can Soong and DarwinPeacock be blocked from editing this page? Otherwise there is a risk of an unproductive edit war. Fritzvonturin ( talk) 23:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is the edits of single-purpose-account Fritzvonturin ( talk · contribs), such as this, which really need the scrutiny. I note, in regard to the "suspiciously similar", that when one is pushing bias in Wikipedia, accusations of "everyone else is biased" are not unusual. Uncle G ( talk) 11:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Maureen Colquhoun ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Possible conflict of interest edit by Heaneypeter. User posted a statement by Peter Heaney from the Labour Party. Willking1979 ( talk) 15:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
Please note that all information on the biography page of Victor Halberstadt (
Victor Halberstadt) is actually information about Hans Wijers, the CEO of AkzoNobel. We would appreciate it if this information would be corrected. We prefer not to edit this page ourselves as we are not experts on Victor Halberstadt.
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Bram Koster Manager of Digital Communications AkzoNobel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.95.32.9 ( talk) 14:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
What is the current rule about using media matters or newsbusters as sources? Both are very partisan but are being used in bios. Fru23 ( talk) 01:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Fru, could you point me to where you made an effort on an article talk page to engage editors in a constructive, collaborative way? I think that you may find that other editors respond well to thoughtful and reasonable discussion, and less so to variations on "IFYOUREVERTMYEDITSYOURAPOVPUSHERANDIMGOINGTOANOTHERARTICLETOPUSHMYPOVJUSTLIKEYOUDO!" Rasmquire, to name just one editor you have made a habit of attacking, has expressed on numerous occasions that he would be interested in hearing your case for removing or reworking sections of the O'Reilly article. I would be interested as well. You may even find that if you present a good case, others will agree with you and you can build a consensus. I see your current approach doing little to benefit much of anyone right now. To the original question, we should be careful about using partisan outlets as sources. If they are sourcing factual material, it is probably better to seek out a different outlet. If it's sourcing opinion, it could be appropriate to provide a richer background or to report on an especially noteworthy issue. Again, this means that issues like this benefit from reasoned discussion, not uncivil attacks. Croctotheface ( talk) 04:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Please show me when I have attack someone. Fru23 ( talk) 13:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Trying not to look at all the tangential stuff above ... If I had my druthers, no blatantly partisan sources would be utile. All they manage to do is furnish reasons for adding POV material in large heaps of compostable verbiage. Granted, I would have fairly boring stuff in articles, but the fact is that most articles on most people should be boring. I would hope that someday the era of yellow e-jounalism would go away. For now -- it looks like the game of "I have more sources for this stuff than you have for that stuff, and they are worded more sensationally" is the rule.
Collect (
talk)
15:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
To answer the question of whatever happened to "Praise of O'Reilly", technically it can and should go into this article. I wish more editors understood that criticism does not always have to mean negative and unfavorable coverage. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to encourage CIreland to read Wikipedia:Summary style and come to an understanding of how we address large topics on Wikipedia. "Criticism of" articles generally aren't "POV-forks"; they are a perfectly natural result of summary-style article building. We have a Criticism of Windows Vista article because there's been so much of it over the last two years that would overwhelm the Windows Vista article. Huge articles are discouraged for both technical and usability reasons, so we split the content out. It's also generally a sign that the matter of criticising a topic or person has become so widepsread that it has, in and of itself, become a noteworthy topic, and thus, Wikipedia needs an article on it. Whenever I hear someone like CIreland claim tha "all Criticism of... articles must be deleted", I wonder what it is, exactly, they're trying to accomplish, other than to do damage the encyclopedia. Warren -talk- 19:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that there is a topic ban discussion concerning Fru23, on WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is this suddenly about O'Reilly and me? Stay on topic. Fru23 ( talk) 20:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Kilfeno ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor would like to add to the Dov Hikind bio that the Catholic League considered his protests against the movie Passion of the Christ to be "anti-Catholic, incendiary and ruthless". Kilfeno's source is a Catholic League newsletter of some sort in which it lists all the protesters (around 50) and announces that the campaign against the film has been unseemly and ruthless while admitting that it was not anti-Catholic.
Thanks for your input, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It would be a very broad interpretation of BLP to take it to mean that we cannot describe criticism of someone's ideas. This could effectively make all living persons advocating any position immune to criticism in Wikipedia articles. It is not the spirit of the BLP policy to provide people with a shield from us ever reporting controversies surrounding their published opinions. To give you an idea of what I mean, consider the difference between an article that says, alternately:
These are very different indeed, and one is a BLP problem, whereas the other isn't. We can argue merits of whether the Catholic League is notable enough to deserve mention, but that is a content dispute, not a BLP issue. -- Ryan Delaney talk 20:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
An IP user has included this offensive image, a number of times, into the article: Image:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg. This seems to be a clear BLP violation, and the user has ignored requests not to return the image [12]. Is there a way to block the image itself from WP articles? It is very offensive. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a new editor that has added this [15]. A little attention would be appreciated. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Madoff has apparently confessed directly to the FBI to a $50 billion Ponzi scheme. It's clear that both Madoff and many of his victims are Jewish, and I've argued on the talk page that this has a place in this article. However, it's clear that some editors are using this article for anti-semetic propaganda (I can provide diffs if you want). In particular, use of the star of David symbol (✡) is completely out of place here. Could some uninvolved users keep an eye on this article. It's clear that some mention of Judaism is fine but that some users want to abuse the religion and Wikipedia policy. A good deal of judgment is involved.
Thanks for any help.
Smallbones ( talk) 00:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing BLP dispute at Yip Pin Xiu. The dispute is about whether the article should include her birth date and Chinese name. I believe that, since she is a minor and non-public figure, BLP mandates that we respect her privacy and exclude both her birth date and Chinese name from the article (though including her Chinese name is not as dangerous as including her birth date). Jacklee believes that since one reliable online reference mentions her birth date and at least three mention her Chinese name, including such information does not violate BLP. Neither of us really understand BLP; in fact, an article he wrote recently received a BLP complaint. Thus we need several editors who are familiar with the BLP policy to give their input and help us resolve the dispute. Thanks. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 12:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Janet Napolitano ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- IP editor 70.160.129.216 keeps adding/restoring unsourced material about hearsay? joke? something about Napolitano's sexual orientation. This continues after several warnings. CRETOG8( t/ c) 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Jason.cinema is attempting to add a biased 'Criticism' section to Diablo Cody's article, as evidenced here, with only a couple of blogs as references. I removed it but he just reinstated it again. Granted, I don't doubt Cody has received a bit of flack for her "honest to blog"s, but considering that her first film had a 93% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and she won "Best Screenplay" in the Oscars, a section with nothing but criticism sourced just by blogs seems a little unwarranted.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 20:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe that at least some of Drawn Some's recent edits to Majora Carter constitute a BLP issue. Since I had earlier tried to modify what I considered Drawn Some's inaccurate representation in this article of what a New York Times profile said, and was simply reverted by Drawn Some, I'm bringing the matter here for a third party to look at. Also, I would note that Drawn Some has latched on to (and, in my view exaggerated) just about the only negative in that New York Times profile of Carter, which does not suggest to me a particularly appropriate use of sources.
By the way, also, possibly not a BLP issue, but I also find the removal of the phrase "environmental justice"—the usual name of the movement with which she is identified—from the article, also suggests to me an animus against its subject. - Jmabel | Talk 22:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I also now see that this same editor earlier made major deletions from the article. Rhere was undoubtedly an excessive listing of awards in the article, but eliminating these completely seems to me equally excessive. It would seem to me that things such as having won a MacArthur fellowship, the Distinguished Alumni Award from her alma mater, and the New York Post Liberty Medal for Lifetime Achievement belong in an encyclopedia article. - Jmabel | Talk 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Multiple edits to alter nickname and to alter parts of biography in derogatory manner. See recent edit list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.165.172 ( talk • contribs)
Opinions offered as fact without the most basic of sources regarding Walsh's liturgical, theological and canonical position. Nonsense comparing his presidency of St. Malachy's Grammar school to 'a totalitarian state', again without any evidence. The unsubstantiated/impossible to quantify claim that his retirement came as a relief to the majority of the diocese's clergy and laity.
In short, potentially libellous. Most certainly offensive and moronic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
The article Jack Baker (activist) is currently a single-editor magnum opus written by User:Baker's Friend which appears to be an NPOV-free zone; it also makes numerous statements about other living people which I am concerned may raise WP:BLP issues. Just to give you a flavor of the article, it has subheadings like "Bigotry", "Trickery", "Abuse of Power" and "Justices compete for public flattery".
Although it contains vast numbers of cites, many of them do not directly support the substance of the statements being made, instead only supporting some tangential point. This article is so vast, and so full of contentious statements, that I can't see how to fix it other than more-or-less completely deleting it and starting again. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate that the redirect page for convicted child molester Craig Roger Gregerson has a category for his religion? His religion is not even mentioned in the article to which the redirect links. - Jmabel | Talk 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with an IP editor who insists on inserting problematic material and linking to a blog as reference. We are not technically in a WP:3RR situation because we are evidently in different time-zones. Also, I do not know if it is related, but we have had problems in the past with aggressive edit-warring from another user with the same 71.200. IP prefix. Ohconfucius ( talk) 03:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Recently, an editor added the following text to the article on journalist Muntadhar al Zaidi, who is currently being held by Iraqi authorities for throwing two of his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush:
According to ABC World News, following the incident, al Zaidi's cameraman stated that just before throwing his shoes, al Zaidi handed him a note reading, "It's glorious to die a martyr."[24]
The reference goes to an ABC news video. Concurrently, a Newsbusters blog carried a transcript of the news story. [16]. Here is the text from this transcript:
The shoe thrower himself hasn't lost any relatives, though his family says he was kidnapped once by militants. His cameraman said that just before he got up he handed him this note saying, "It's glorious to die a martyr." He survived, of course, and his story may live on as well. Jim Sciutto, ABC News, London.
Out of the thousand(s) of news articles on Muntadhar al Zaidi, only one claims that this "note" exists, namely the one above, ABC News. Jim Sciutto makes a strange claim here, making it sound like the source for Zaidi's kidnapping in 2007 was his family, which is bizarre. The 2007 kidnapping claim has nothing to do with his family, and was announced by Iraq's Journalistic Freedoms Observatory (NGO that monitors violations against journalists in Iraq) and covered by major news outlets around the world (including Reuters, Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post, and many others). It was even published in a report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I don't understand how ABC News could cast doubt on this claim by attributing it to his "family". Perhaps they made an honest mistake.
When ABC says that the shoe thrower hasn't lost any relatives, they also appear to ignore the fact that many sources mention that his family was arrested during the regime of Saddam Hussein.
To summarize, I am concerned that this note has not been corroborated by any other news sources and about the accuracy of ABC News. To date, no other news agency has reported on it. Unless we have corroborating sources, keeping ABC's unique claim in the article (combined with a distortion about his kidnapping) introduces a bias of some kind that could pose a threat to any fair trial he might receive, or even his safety. Could I get some feedback on this, please? Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight says the following:
Corroboration—Do the conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination. Undisputed corroboration among high-reliability sources can help establish something as a fact rather than an opinion.
Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 10:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I just found this languishing in articles to be wikified since July 2007. Subject is a pathologist whose professional work has been called into question by the courts. No references, only some ELs. Will need quite a lot of attention. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
One of the problems with the by-default invisibility of these data is that edits like the above go unnoticed for months. Please be aware of this type of BLP vandalism. Uncle G ( talk) 02:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing BLP dispute with the Jaclyn Reding article since September 2007. Original research ( [17]), one dubious foreign language source ( [18]), and a blog ( [19]) have been the rational for adding the supposed maiden name of the author in addition to a bunch of poorly worded family history. The only English source for the maiden name is Fantastic Fiction which is not reliable and the previously mentioned blog which is still depending on OR to make the connection between the maiden name and the married name. The other info can't be sourced in English that I've found. -- ImmortalGoddezz ( t/ c) 19:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to bring your attention to the Swami Shyam article which contains some sensitive material. The newspaper article cited here [22] seems a little incongruous with the content posted. As your policy on biographies of living persons is quite a high priority I thought an admin should have a look. In particular, the Globe and Mail article makes no mention of abuse towards minors. AaronCarson ( talk) 03:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
In reading WP:BLP Privacy of Personal info: "Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted."
My question is whether this is an absolute prohibition, i.e should "should not" be read as "may not"?
Bernard Madoff's addresses have been released by reliable sources, eg times online (Times of London). When a major fraud like this is alleged, I think it's important that people know that the alleged perp has some assets, so a general description of them seems reasonable. IMHO the addresses don't add much of anything to the article, except perhaps a very faint smell of a lynch mob. So I looked up the policy, and to my reading, the addresses should be deleted. Several others disagree. Let's follow the noticeboard's advice.
Thanks for any help.
Smallbones ( talk) 19:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone that can read Korea please write some more about her career, so that the article is less biased towards the adultery case. All English sources I found focus on the adultery case. Xasodfuih ( talk) 10:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Sources are problematic, because they are taken out of context like this one [23] referring to an event solved in year 2000 as an "ongoing controvercy". Highly critical quotes are from anonymous sources or non-english sorces. I have been trying to debat the questionable sources, remove them when no answer came and argue why I did this. They are however replaced. True there is controversies, but it seems unfit to say that someone calls him "a self-promoting schmuck and quasi-cult leader" without even knowing who said that.
I tried to ask the editor in question to cooperate to find reliable sources, both in my edit comments, on his discussion page and on the talk page. He gives no response to this Siru108 ( talk) 13:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, based on a conversation on Jimmy Wales's talk page:
Your feedback is appreciated. rootology ( C)( T) 19:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Much negative unsourced content; can someone familiar with show or actor try to sort out fact from fiction here? Kablammo ( talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Entry seems to have a great deal of negative unsourced material. 98.14.164.155 ( talk) 06:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Possible COI by User:Mikebaker20. Unsure if it is the same Mike Baker as in the article, but worth looking into. // Willking1979 ( talk) 20:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Paradiso ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Biography of an alleged mobster who allegedly wants his daughter killed, etc. 62.147.36.69 ( talk) 20:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This editor makes inappropriate comments about (living) researchers and professionals with whom the editor personally disagrees about sexuality. The garbage in the articles usually gets cleaned up, but the comments on the talk page, such as today's "Bailey was a sex addict and purposely chose a gay sex bar to do his research on transsexuals because it was where he knew he would find sex and fetishs there" usually don't. The editor appears impervious to subtle hints, persistent in this behavior, and of course I'm not sufficiently dedicated to the Bailey-hating camp for my opinion about rude remarks against him to be of the least value to the editor. Would someone unrelated please take a look from an impartial perspective and consider an appropriate level of education or warning for the user? Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I am restoring the following because it was not addressed; it was not even in any way responded to, and as far as I can tell wasn't even copied to the archive page. - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe that at least some of Drawn Some's recent edits to Majora Carter constitute a BLP issue. Since I had earlier tried to modify what I considered Drawn Some's inaccurate representation in this article of what a New York Times profile said, and was simply reverted by Drawn Some, I'm bringing the matter here for a third party to look at. Also, I would note that Drawn Some has latched on to (and, in my view exaggerated) just about the only negative in that New York Times profile of Carter, which does not suggest to me a particularly appropriate use of sources.
By the way, also, possibly not a BLP issue, but I also find the removal of the phrase "environmental justice"—the usual name of the movement with which she is identified—from the article, also suggests to me an animus against its subject. - Jmabel | Talk 22:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I also now see that this same editor earlier made major deletions from the article. There was undoubtedly an excessive listing of awards in the article, but eliminating these completely seems to me equally excessive. It would seem to me that things such as having won a MacArthur fellowship, the Distinguished Alumni Award from her alma mater, and the New York Post Liberty Medal for Lifetime Achievement belong in an encyclopedia article. - Jmabel | Talk 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Over at Martin D. Weiss, a newbie editor (from uploads at commons presumably close to the subject) has removed a section about some 'Securities and Exchange Commission' stuff previously added by an anon. (Its also possible that they are the same person, since the pix uploaded on commons were added to the article here by anon).
Could someone please review the insertion / removal and make a call as whether the material should be kept or not? I'm willing to clean it up and do the sources legwork if its decided that the material should be kept in substance. -- Fullstop ( talk) 18:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned over the section David_Miscavige#Treatment_of_staff. This is sourced to a podcast by Tom Smith that may have been broadcast by a college radio station (see article talk page). It is not hosted on the station's official site, however. The content is corroborated to some extent by an article in a minor alternative weekly, The Portland Mercury. While the author of that article is named, I note that according to our article on it, the Portland Mercury's most popular feature is one "in which local readers are encouraged to submit anonymous, usually impassioned, and often incendiary letters to the city at large". Apart from that, I cannot find any coverage of these allegations of Miscavige beating people up in more reputable news media. In fact, on the whole Internet, I get only 91 google hits for Jeff Hawkins + David Miscavige, and almost all of them are to anti-Scientology forums and sites.
Are the sources reliable enough for BLP, given the nature of the allegations? Is inclusion of this material due weight? Jayen 466 10:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I think they should be taken out. It doesn't feel right, maybe someone is trying to discredit him to try to take his job. Redddogg ( talk) 04:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Joseph Paul Franklin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Several serious criminal accusations without references. He has committed several murders, but this still needs more cleaning up to source all the negative stuff.-- chaser - t 08:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Diane Cibrian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I have deleted Diane Cibrian as there is no version of that article that does not violate WP:Copyright or WP:BLP. Requesting review of action. // MBisanz talk 22:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
author Chrisjnelson has been repeatedly using hear say and personal interest to revert and change articles especially that of an article of living person, Kyle Eckel
use of selective news reports are strung together to make untruths seem true
as under bio of living persons a description should be left as relevant facts, not personal interests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.8.36 ( talk) 22:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
user: Mynameinc is abusing power by blocking pages for constructive edits notably under the article Kyle Eckel
the author is allowing an untruth to continuously be posted within this article as its attempted to be removed. the author, Mynameinc, is threatening "blocking" to keep correct edits to continue
as under bio of living persons rules and US law stringing together several news articles to make an untruth seem true is both against wikipedia rules and US law. Also relevant facts pertaining to "Kyle Eckel" do not include selective news articles relating to irrelevant instances such as an accusation which was administered and than dropped in a months time
such persistance will not be tolerated under US law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.8.36 ( talk) 22:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Shame on the administrator, Toddst1 who both reverted a BLP removal as if it were vandalism and then blocked the complainant, and shame on the several administrators at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal Threat? who totally ignored the BLP issue in favour of blocking the complaint.
Looking at the article, and then at the sources, I find that the negative content is not in any way supported by the sources. Indeed, at least one of the sources says outright that it was unable to find out why this person and the Navy parted company. A negative original conclusion is being synthesized from sources that do not state that conclusion, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. I note that discussion on the talk page has been on-going since March 2007, and not a single editor, let alone Mukadderat or any of the editors who re-inserted this unsourced negative biographical material no fewer than nine times in the past 24 hours, has justified its inclusion with a source that actually provides reliable and explicit information on this subject.
Mukadderat, it is not the 68.163.8.36's job to explain why the material should not be included, not least because that has been explained here on this noticeboard, on the talk page of the article, and in edit summaries, several times over the past two years. It is, per the burden of proof outlined in the Verifiability policy, Toddst1, Mynameinc, Pharaoh of the Wizards, HexaChord, Chrisjnelson, and others that have to justify their additions of it; and that furthermore have to justify their use of vandalism rollback tools against edits whose summaries explicitly state that the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies.
And we do not simply "ignore" complaints made at this noticeboard that a biography of a living person contains factually inaccurate and defamatory material.
Accordingly, I have removed the material, and protected the article from editing, on BLP grounds. Any further re-insertion of this material by any party without a proper supporting source will result in a summary removal of their editing privileges. Uncle G ( talk) 05:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
A series of users whom I suspect are sock puppets for the subject of the article (or someone close to him) have been making a long-running series of edits to Tony Hendra that are problematic from a POV standpoint. It's tricky, though, in that one of the main points of contention is the media coverage that appeared a few years ago when the subject's daughter alleged that he had sexually abused her as a child.
I'm interested in others' views on this. See Talk:Tony Hendra for more detail. Thanks. -- John Callender ( talk) 17:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Rawal80 [26] added two BLP violations to the Daniel Pipes article, which I reverted, but at least one has been restored to the article. Some administrative attention may be necessary. [27] [28] [29] Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 22:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
So far, I have twice reverted changes by User:Muppet5150 to this biography of a living person. I have discussed the reversions I made in the article's talk page and Muppet5150's talk page in great detail regarding concerns for their repeated inclusion of information that violates both the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of Living Persons Wikipedia Policy, but they keep re-introducing their additions without further discussion.
Specifically, this person has included seemingly tabloid-esque comments about the article's subject and sensitive information about the notable person's relatives (full names, location, myspace, employers) that are in no way relevative to the actual notability of the person. Despite the request to discuss this on the talk page and the editor's user account talk page, they continue to revert the article to include their inappropriate edits.
I took the liberty of reaching out to the subject of the article who also shared concerns for the information in question and was grateful for Wikipedia's actions in removing them as per wikipedia BLP policy (but the editor [[User::Muppet5150]] keeps returning them anyway).
I should also note that the article seems to note that "Muppet" is the name of the subject's frequently discussed pet. And as per wikipedia, 5150 is California code for "involuntary psychiatric incarceration". It is VERY disconcerting that someone making these edits (even if the information is "on record" in some way through the radio show's archives and other sources) has a username that combines these two elements. Cordell ( talk) 00:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Dave Albo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Davealbo has made 15 edits to this article over 3.5 months. He refers to it as "my site entry," and reverts any modifications that are critical of him as "vandalism," sometimes replacing the whole article with the content of his campaign webpage. He's been warned by several users over several months that his modifications violate COI standards. I've been trying to clean up the entry, but I fear I'm making it worse with the ping-pong edits. (I have my own COI: I'm a Democrat, and Del. Albo is a Republican. FWIW.) I don't think that I should continue to work with Del. Albo on this problem, since clearly I'm not doing a very good job.
N.B.: I posted about this problem 27 days ago to the COI noticeboard, but unfortunately nothing came of it. The edits continue. -- WaldoJ ( talk) 04:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Americangrantedasylumnetherlands ( talk · contribs) (possibly Holly Ann Collins herself) makes several unsourced and very serious allegations against the former husband of Holly Ann Collins, such as child abuse. The user subpage is the userfied version of an article that has been merged into Right of asylum following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Ann Collins. I'm not sure whether WP:BLP covers user subpages though. Also given my prior involvement in the AFD, I prefer not to be bold. Aecis·(away) talk 13:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del ( | [[Talk:Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In the past few days several removal and readditions ( original addition, removal, + , -(with a warning), +, -(with warning), +, -(second warning), + have occured around a rumor that the articles author became inapropriate with underaged individuals. This sort of addition of material has previously been removed and purged from the talk page by user:Sarcasticidealist [30], but I would now like to bring this up to the noticeboard so this sort of blp violation can be stopped hopefully once and for all (although the red and green on my watchlist is quite appropriate for this time of year). Knowledgeum : Talk 07:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Unreferenced and not notable??? One of the policies said to bring it up here. Ariconte ( talk) 08:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Information is completely incorrect and untrue, unreferenced and not notable 26 December —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.24.189 ( talk) 12:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Lute88 brands several living Russian authors as anti-semitic conspiracy theorists and proponents of blood libel, providing no references or fake reference to Simon Reznik article. This is very serious and unsubstantiated allegations about living persons. Please take notice. DonaldDuck ( talk) 01:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I am the subject of the living persons biography on this page. It has been repeatedly and regularly vandalized, notably by someone using the login Omownyc. I have reason to believe this person is either an ex-boyfriend, or someone who wants me to think it is my ex-boyfriend, from college, because the login name is the same as the backward spelling of Mowo, the nickname for Mocean Worker, the ex who is now a well-known electronica DJ who lives in NYC, his favorite city. If it is Mowo, that would mean he has held a nearly 20-year grudge against me for breaking up with him when I was 22. If it is not Mowo, it is someone with a sick obsession with me who is trying to "frame" him. Either way, it is pathetic and time-consuming, and you do wonder how anyone has that sort of time to waste on a daily basis. Then you wonder just what sort of person has that sort of time to waste, and you wonder if you ought to get a restraining order. Anyway.
Regardless of who it is, the vandalism must stop. Libelous information continues to be added to my profile, in spite of my attempts to remove them. I have also written a statement and published it on my personal blog, at alisavaldesrodriguez.com, to set the record straight on all of the issues that continue to be inserted into the biography. Among the untrue statements are: that I am bisexual (I'm not, I am straight); that I suffer from bipolar disorder (I do not); that I was born into a middle-class family (I was born into a poor family); that I was "blacklisted" by a resignation letter I supposedly wrote to the LA Times (both facts untrue). Some of this information has appeared, either because of wikipedia or because of the "editor"'s relationship to certain bloggers, on the Internet, but this does not make it "sourced". I am the source, and I am setting the record straight here. The libel and attempts to defame my character must stop.
I understand the preference on wikipedia NOT to have the subject of an article correct that article, and I admire this policy. But in the case of these continued assaults upon my character, I have no choice but to continue to undo the nearly daily hack job by omownyc and whatever other name this same person (I believe it to be only one person) decides to create for their efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.186.62 ( talk) 17:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
This article needs experienced BLP attention, and I am about to go out of town and do not want to involve myself in it. I am not a usual editor of the page, so I have no horse in this race. This is the problem: the subject, on at least two occasions, has made unequivocal, declarative and emotive statements about herself that she later retracted. AVR feels this clears up the matter, but these statements were heavily reported, and in the context of her work. Here are two examples:
An IP claiming to be AVR is making legal threats all over the talk page if these topics are covered. I have e-mailed privately with AVR, who contacted me first, explaining all of these issues, but it wasn't particularly productive. I don't have time or desire to involve myself in figuring out how to handle this. In my opinion, this is an article subject whitewashing heavily reported issues, and if they are incorrect, at the very least making such claims as bipolar and bisexuality in such contexts itself deserves mention, as I'm sure Wikipedia editors can't be the only ones confused. --David Shankbone 20:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth.
Robert Campeau ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My Bio is becoming a mess with people adding to and subtracting my post.
and since I am the person in question I'd like this stopped.
It was and always was a simple Bio not a day to day play by play of post by anyone and everyone.
Thanks
Paul Shanklin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankintank ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Freddie Hubbard (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) We previously went through this on
Dec. 1. The subject has reportedly been in poor health. I'm seeing "confirmed" reports on the internet (email, message boards) yet none of these actualy cite an obituary, press release, article etc. --
Gyrofrog
(talk)
18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Can others take a look at 2008 Israel–Hezbollah prisoner swap and its recent editing history? Kuntar was convicted for murders in an Israeli military court, yet edits noting the top-secret nature of his conviction and the lack of forensic evidence for his conviction have been repeatedly silenced by "Rami R." And this is so in an article that makes repeated references to Kuntar's guilt, even to the point of impugning the reception he received in the Arab world ("Mona Charen wrote: 'What can you say about a people who welcome a child murderer as a hero?'"). Such selective editing is not libelous, but incendiary and contributes to cross-cultural misunderstandings, rather than efforts to bridge differences. Slandering Kuntar in a medium in which he cannot respond does not help. -- 71.204.151.224 09:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Eric Lerner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is coverage of Eric Lerner's political activities a violation of Wikipedia:NPF#People_who_are_relatively_unknown_.28Non_public_figure_.3D_NPF.29? Recently it came up because it turns out he belonged to an organization headed by Lyndon LaRouche. There is a thread on WP:RSN about whether we've reliably sourced this to a Dennis King book (I believe we have), but the BLP issue may trump this. However, I'm of the opinion that if we remove the LaRouche association, we probably should remove all political activity because Lerner simply isn't known for this.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 12:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the material in question:
In the 1970s, Lerner became involved in the National Caucus of Labor Committees, an offshoot of the Columbia University Students for a Democratic Society. [1]
Lerner has been involved in political activism. He has sought civil rights protection for immigrants as a member and spokesman for the New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee. [2] [3] According to investigative journalist Dennis King, Lerner is a "former LaRouchian". [1]
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
Here is the discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Fred Talk 15:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've commented and proposed some language on
RSN. I'm not convinced that this material needs to be included, and my proposed language is intended to be an accurate compromise in the dispute over how the section should read if its included.
Avruch
T
15:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Edits made to the biography of William Timmons appear to be in violation of WP:BLP guidelines, and a subsequent content dispute requires outside intervention. The current profile references a recent Huffington Post online article which alleges that Timmons lobbied on behalf of Saddam Hussein alongside Samir Vincent, and Tongsun Park, both of whom were tried and convicted in the Oil-for-Food scandal during the Gulf War in the 1990's (Timmons' was not involved in the trial, much less convicted) [1] . The genesis of the current controversy was an article “McCain taps Lobbyist for Transition” [2] by Michael Scherer in Time on September 12 which seems to have been designed to embarrass John McCain by linking him to Timmons, a lobbyist with former client Freddie Mac. Scherer did, however, write that Timmons was not heading the transition effort, despite rumors (John Lehman was named to lead the transition, not Timmons). The following day the Democratic National Committee picked up the story about the lobbyist, transition, and Freddie Mac. On September 14 the Barack Obama campaign issued a public memorandum “Lobbyist-Run White House” [3] which grossly corrupted Scherer’s story. On September 17 the Obama campaign ran a 30-second television advertisement with the same charges. Jonathan Salant of Bloomberg.com had an article on September 23 claiming Timmons was planning the McCain transition and again linked him to Freddie Mac [4]. Mr. Salant admitted that the campaign wouldn’t confirm Timmons’ role, however. Murray Waas then wrote in the Huffington Post of October 14 “McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam in Lobbying Effort.”
Waas, a freelance online journalist, stated that Timmons told authorities that he was unaware of particular activities, and “investigators were unable to uncover any evidence to contradict that claim.” The implication is that Timmons was aware but the government just couldn’t prove it. Regarding illegal profit from oil-for-food contracts Mr. Waas wrote, “in which Timmons was not involved.” Federal prosecutors, FBI, and United Nations investigators certainly would have charged Mr. Timmons with violations if there was any hint of illegality. But there was none! Perhaps the most telling argument for any objective observer is that neither the prosecutors or defendants called Timmons to testify in either one of the two trials or even required him to give depositions. It also is instructive that no mainstream media mentioned Timmons in their coverage of the trials.
Reliable source concerns aside, the free encyclopedia’s guidance is that biographies of living persons “must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject’s privacy…it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people’s lives” and “Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used.”
So Wikipedia editors should ask themselves what is the purpose of the Huffington Post article alleging illegal activities almost fifteen years ago? Is it a neutral point of view and does it meet standards of verifiability? Is it contentious material and poorly sourced? What is the motive of those who continue to insist that false information be included in the biography? In short, does it deserve to be in a personal biography? I suggest this entry does not come close to meeting the standards of Wikipedia, defames a living person, and therefore should be removed.
References (1) “McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam in Lobbying Effort (2) McCain taps Lobbyist for Transition (3) White House (4) Transition Head Lobbied for Freddie Mac Before Takeover
Rtally3 ( talk) 02:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yasmin_Alibhai-Brown#BBC_debate_with_Sean_Gabb alleges certain inflammatory comments allegedly made by Ms. Ablibhai-Brown to Mr. Gabb, using as a source a (edited??) download of a BBC article on Gabb's organizations web site. The second paragraph is critical comments by Gabb about her which are published only on Gabb's group's website. I opined on poor referencing when I put in a tag, but I do have a bit of a conflict of interest being a libertarian who has edited their wikipedia article, so I may be a tad less reluctant to just delete whole section per BLP as I would be in other cases, not to mention get in a debate about it. If someone else could take a look and appropriate action I'd appreciate it. Thanks! CarolMooreDC ( talk) 01:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Roman Polanski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 1 editor feels strongly that the lead sentence needs to end in "film producer, and convicted child rapist." rather than simply at "film producer." Another has decided to restore the content as well.
I fear this is excessive, as this important event is covered both in the lead-in and the body, but I am in NO WAY an expert on BLP... but I fear them. I would like much more knowledgeable editors to give the addition a look over. I would also appreciate any feedback on this submission. I learn.
I "have no dog in this fight", only a concern, and thank whoever looks this over for their work. sinneed ( talk) 21:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Allegations of sex discrimination by a disgruntled former employee are being repeatedly added to this article and/or its accompanying Talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Cornelius_Plantinga&diff=261130575&oldid=261003727
At BLP it says "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The accusations are clearly intended to damage the reputation of Plantinga. These have been posted by two usernames: Hungaryson and Katharineamy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.148.55 ( talk) 22:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This is by no means the most serious violation of WP:BLP or of the spirit of WP:3RR. However, the persistent disruptive attempts by a single IP editor to insert a piece of unsourced information into the article, while ignoring requests, whether in the edit summary, or in the talk page of the said user, was annoying to start with, but is beginning to get tiring. Any suggestions would be welcome on what can be done about this... Ohconfucius ( talk) 02:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion on the implementation of a 'trial' configuration of FlaggedRevisions on en.wiki has now reached the 'straw poll' stage. All editors are invited to read the proposal and discussion and to participate in the straw poll. Happy‑ melon 17:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
On the above article, I wish to include his original name - it is correctly cited - it is not OR, it is to me the same as including a maiden name for a married woman, or including an original name for a celebrity who uses a stage name. Are there any issues for using the original name in the lead (seeing that most wikipedia articles do so)
oh and as the president of south korea, he is a highly notable individual with information such as this being far from hidden from the public view
똥침 Sennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This is not a BLP issue. Melonbarmonster2 ( talk) 15:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems like this is something where there ought to be a Manual of Style determination - whether and how to use the Japanese name of a Korean citizen born in Japan, if its a common occurrence with a political background. Avruch T 15:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I've put a speedy deletion tag on this article, but I'd like second opinions. This article is one huge BLP violation, by listing several people who have not been charged with a crime, and for writing an article which violates WP:BLP1E. If he wasn't notable before his death, and just being general counsel for Radio Free Asia doesn't seem to make that notability standard, then he isn't notable after his death. Little Red Riding Hood talk 00:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this article is likely to be deleted at AfD if it cannot be significantly improved. Much more information needs to be included about the subject, if it can be found, in order to survive a deletion discussion. On the other hand, it is not a CSD candidate. The BLP issues should probably be dealt with by removing the other names, although they will still be available via the given references. Avruch T 00:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me after looking at this, that it's receiving substantial RS coverage:
That's all in addition to what's in the article currently. I don't normally go to "attack pages for speedy deletion" looking to get involved in an article rescue, but it's become clear to me that this is reasonably well sourced already, including the defendants' names, and has received significant RS coverage. Jclemens ( talk) 01:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
More data points:
Thus, it's abundantly clear that Price's name, and even his employer's name has been dragged through the mud already, by virtue of being the owner and resident of the house where Wone was found murdered, and over the last 2-3 months as he's faced criminal charges and a civil lawsuit in the matter. In all fairness, a small number of these hits are primarily in relation to a later burglary at the same residence, which bring up the murder. If that's not a clear case of an event which has traveled beyond the borders of WP:BLP1E, I'm not sure what is. Jclemens ( talk) 22:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Should add this: If it turns out that Eric Holder is in fact the attorney for Wone's widow, and he is appointed attorney general in a couple of weeks, that could make the whole issue a bit more high profile. Avruch T 22:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot of people inserting references that Griffin made a profane remark on television ( example). Right now the text of the remark is in the lead of the article. I'm not sure the incident is notable enough to be included at all. Kelly hi! 18:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There has been an unsourced claim in this article identifying the subject as a realtor of similar name/appearance. It was originally added by an SPA. The account's only edit. The edit included a link giving the subject's (supposedly) current workplace address, workplace phone, cell phone, etc. A few weeks ago, User:Epbr123 changed the article to make the privacy violating information more prominent and the workplace link more conspicuous. Although he did remove other unsourced statements. The named realtor whether or not she is this porn star has no notability as a realtor. There is no justification for including personal information like this. Either the bad edits should be oversighted or the article should be deleted and recreated to make this violation inaccessible. I deleted the info and link but it still sits in the article history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Biography on Jennifer Lopez is well written except for the fact that she comes from an area in the Bronx, Castle Hill area considered to be a middle class neighborhood for most Puerto Ricans. Castle Hill area is NOT considered the "South Bronx." I know that to be true because I come from the South Bronx myself. Therefore, Jennifer Lopez did NOT come from the South Bronx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickylizf ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
He is a clergyman in New York who is said to have called Oprah Winfrey a "Babylonian whore." People who know at least a little about the New Testament will understand that he was refering to the Whore of Babylon, not a literal whore, not Babylonian, and probably not even a woman. I don't know how to deal with this BLP-wise, especially since the source seemed to have not understood what he was talking about. (Note: Calling someone the Whore of Babylon is probably protected religious speech. Calling someone a whore could be slander.) Steve Dufour ( talk) 07:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This biography needs attention. I would gladly fix it if I knew what it was trying to express, but the grammar is so mangled that I do not understand it. Also, at least one fact is woefully out of date (chairmanship of an organisation). I have corrected that, but suspect other facts may similarly need correction MMGarth ( talk) 12:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a long-running edit war over accusations of living people committing crimes that has been just under the boil in this article since September 2008. More eyes are needed. Let's proactively head off the otherwise inevitable OTRS complaints. Thank you. Uncle G ( talk) 16:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Gentlemen:
An individual named Robert Boser, who purports to be an editor of Wikipedia, has posted, and continues to re-post, clearly defamatory material on the biography of John J. Nance, who, I can assure you, is very much alive. I am preparing for legal action against this individual but need Wikipedia's assistance in immediately halting the use of Wikipedia as the "publication" medium under the law. Please contact me at <email address removed> as soon as possible.
John J. Nance —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJNCOM ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The sources mentioned here are website news and only say that Rajmohan Pillai was convicted by a Special CBI Court. According to the law in India, he was eligible to appeal to a Superior_court and had done it already. This information was not available in the websites shown as references 3 including former bank official get jail but was present on the print editions of regional newspapers Malayala Manorama and Mathrubhoomi dated 12 December 2008. So at this point of time, we cannot conclude him as convicted as the case is still under consideration of a Superior_court. Doing so will be a violation of Biographies of living persons and also will be a personal harassment to Mr. Pillai. Request you to remove the defamatory portion from the page as early as possible. Please take a look at the diff in versions -- Z16bsr2 ( talk) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A question under WP:BLP arises in Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC regarding whether it is okay to repost in the biographies of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, election-related articles pertaining to Barack Obama and the Obama-Ayers controversy, and in the Weathermen article itself, characterizations made by some that the 1960s and 1970s actions of the Weather Underground Organization constitute terrorism. This affects a number of people who are productive members of society today but who participated in radical US youth movements in the 1960s and 70s. Some feel that calling living people former terorists is a pejorative epithet that is inherently subjective (absent being on any official list) and a BLP violation; others that these people are well known and the accusations of being terrorists are well sourced (i.e. they fit the BLP exception). At the RfC there has been some question (e.g. here as to what BLP really means, so any guidance there would be helpful. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
At Grand Orient of the United States of America there is a persistent wish to insert the word "fraudulent" about claims made by the founders about the membership of the group. It is sourced from another, personal, web page. The claim, that they have fewer members than they claim, is common and perhaps should be reported, but the way in which the word "fraudulent" is used - particularly when used about identifiable individuals - disturbs me. Could we have an opinion on this? JASpencer ( talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
If this is not the correct place to ask whether an article has BLP issues, would someone please point us in the correct direction? This has to be resolved. Blueboar ( talk) 21:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me (and point me in the right direction) if someone has done this before, have we given thought to a nicely worded welcome template for newish users who are editing BLP articles, explaining why reliable sourcing is important, and if they have any can they please add, or otherwise not add the material, with sorta nice wording like "imagine this was wirtten about you/your sister/brother etc" and highlighting the imporantce of referencing? Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
http://biography.jrank.org/pages/3187/P-rez-Eddie-Alberto-1957-Political-Leader.html
http://www.hartford.gov/Government/mayor/biography.asp
https://www.cpbn.org/program/where-we-live/episode/mayor-eddie-perez
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/rankings/influential_hispanics/2007/9/26/the_stars_align_the_100_most.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.107.151 ( talk • contribs)
I have continued this discussion on the article's talk page. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 14:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A persistent and aptly named editor wishes to add a link and a description of a YouTube video featuring Kamla having a "hissy fit" on the air. The editor clearly wishes to use this trivial incident to paint the subject in an embarrassing light. Also, the video is unauthorized/copyrighted. I'm not going to edit war over this, but this is plainly inappropriate.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 03:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I blocked indef and reverted, I first warned him but seeing the name... Secret account 17:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Would appreciate input about this edit, its deletion rationale was BLP: [5]: "His historical work has, however, been described as politically motivated [6] and as displaying elements of conspiracy theory. [7]" The sources are Rice University and CESNUR. Novickas ( talk) 17:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
There is some Major vandalism to this guys page.
Harold Holt is categorised as in the mutually exclusive Category:1967 deaths (which doesn't get BLP protection) and in Category:Disappeared people (which does get BLP protection). At what point of certainty (apart from waiting until 1908 + 123 = 2031) do we consign someone from disappeared to dead? Was there another article a few months ago that faced this dilemma? Andjam ( talk) 10:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This article, about the Insurance Commissioner-elect of the State of Delaware, was edited several times by ElizabethGabriel, an editor whose only edits have been to this article, and who inserted unsourced and potentially libelous content.
It was then reverted to a bare-bones stub, then re-edited with less controversial but still factually dubious and potentially libelous material.
The current incarnation of the article is better than the versions created by ElizabethGabriel, but still has serious problems. Two citations were made to unsourced statements in the Delawareliberal.net blog: one citing an unreferenced statement by a Republican group that Stewart falsified her employment background and was employed as a security guard at a Lowe's store at the time of the election and another from an admittedly anonymous source that Stewart was "unemployed or working as a store clerk for most of the last 10 years", that she does not own a business, and that "She can only speak from prepared scripts, and she can’t write, either". (Admittedly, the article does not claim that Stewart cannot write or speak other than from prepared scripts.)
The article also contains unsourced claims: (1) that Stewart "Karen Weldin Stewart has long been peripherally involved in Democratic politics" in Delaware, (2) that she won the election "with only a high-school diploma, a mere two years of community college, and little business experience", (3) that she was "confronted late in her campaign with evidence of her acceptance of campaign contributions from the insurance industry and its lawyers", and (4) that she was elected to office "despite having the lowest percentage for any Democrat running for state-office." - Sensor ( talk) 15:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This editor has previously been warned for posting non-cited and accusatory allegations. The following language was previously removed on the grounds of being accusatory, non-cited, and non-notable. The same editor has since posted it to the article again.
I will not engage in an edit war over, so I kindly seek your assistance in this matter. // Brycetom ( talk) 16:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Gordon Ramsay ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Assistance is needed in regards to the recent affair allegation raised against the subject of the article. Discussion on the talk page is unable to resolve the ongoing issue, and I request assistance in preventing further BLP violations. Knowledgeum : Talk 21:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
User IP 124.177.112.110 is re-adding the same paragraph of page Andrew_Hidalgo continually, which is unreferenced and probably libelous ("has several piercings in interesting places."). I'm not going to revert anymore, I need some others to look at his edits and help sort this out. tedder ( talk) 13:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is full of unreferenced statements about Martin, from problems getting a raise to an alleged arrest. Am I wrong in thinking quite a bit of it should go? dougweller ( talk) 19:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Claims she married Daniel Jayan a producer on Asianet in 2008. This is not true.
This article uses a Norwegian newsarticle as reference, even though Larsen's not named in this article. - Mr. Hill ( talk) 22:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
One editor commented on my talk page that these edits should be removed from the history. Per the WP:BLP policy, only users with oversight privilege can do this. Please see these policies for more information on how to make such a request. -- Ryan Delaney talk 14:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Barkha Dutt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) More eyes please, especially edits made by Nilakar ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is ignoring blp warnings, putting back unsourced claims without sources, adding blogs referencing vandalaized versions of articles as sources, removing reliable sourced claims, the whole shebang. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-05 t13:30z
I posted this here a few days ago. It seems to have been archived with no discussion and, of course, no resolution. I am bringing it back. - Jmabel | Talk 17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Restored
End restored
User Czbiker has identified himself as Karl Shuker and has expressed concern about repeated vandalism/libel to the Karl Shuker article that has eminated over a period of months from the above IP address ( for example). It appears that the majority of the edits from that IP editor have been of a disruptive nature and the editor has recieved a number of warnings about such behavior. Has the situation reached the point that the IP can be blocked? -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The page How to Break a Terrorist: The US Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq had someone add what purported to be the author's name. The person named contacted oversight, concerned for their safety; I zapped the edit. But if people could keep an eye on the article, delete purported names and notify oversight of said deleted revs, that would be very helpful. Might be worth keeping an eye on Matthew Alexander (the pseudonym of the book's author) as well - David Gerard ( talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I just moved the article to How to Break a Terrorist - sorry if this messes with anyone's watch list. Wikidemon ( talk) 23:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
While wandering through a list of B-movie actors I stumbled upon a Dovie Beams, a very minor actress who evidently is famous solely for her allegedly having an affair with Ferdnand Marcos. I have placed a "notable" tag on it but request that the article be examined by other editors as to its notability and whehter there are other BLP issues. Stetsonharry ( talk) 22:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The article has a total of about 1200 words, of which about 730 are just criticism. It has two pictures, one is the picture of his party flag and other a group of guys protesting him for the terrorist attack happened recently in Mumbai. The terrorist attack was neither perpetrated nor supported by him or his party. For some background, Raj was involved in 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra.
Political protests against leaders are natural in politics and therefore, the picture appears to be irrelevant and adds undue negative significance against the subject. Adding that negative image while the article doesnt even have the subject's image along with the huge quantity of criticism in the article appears to violate WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and therefore WP:BLP. The related conversation can be followed here in the article talk page. Thanks for your opinion. Docku: What up? 23:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This article needs eyes. There are a lot of external battles intruding. [8] [9] I have removed both these edits. Ty 00:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
How appropriate do you think it is to categorize this spy under Category:Turkish criminals? If you read the article, you'll see that he was convicted for fraud -- some say as a result of a deliberate "mistake". His crime is notable, because his testimony taken during the detainment was responsible for the uncovering of a criminal gang called Ergenekon. I wrote the article myself and I am having second thoughts about the appropriateness of that particular category. -- Adoniscik( t, c) 15:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Martin Bryant is desperately in need of references and proper sourcing - It has references, but they are not inline. WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to barge back in here -- but Joe the Plumber has an editor determined that the occupation of a plumber is "plumbing" and issuing 3RR warnings about it. Following WP guidelines, I am therefore asking once more (sigh) whether Joe's occupation is "plumber", "plumbing", "illegal plumber", "plumber's ass" (actually proposed), "unlicensed plumber", "turd-gurgler" (also proposed) or whatever. Thanks in advance! Collect ( talk) 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) The current text does a good job of explaining who he is and why he is notable. However, I think it should begin with his correct name. "Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher came to prominence as Joe the Plumber during the Obama campaign...". This is more in line with MoS. Further down we find out exactly what his day job involves. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been removing "spouse" and "domesticpartner" from the infobox after a complaint to the foundation, because the first wasn't sourced and the 2nd is contradicted by a new ref. User:Emerson7 ( see messages removed from talk page) has been putting back unsourced and contradicted info and calling my edits contentious, so I'd like someone else to apply BLP there. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-07 t03:58z
An IP editor, 68.12.36.69 ( talk · contribs) has been added unsourced contentious material to this article, and keeps replacing it after reverting and after blocks. Can someone please keep an eye on it as I am taking a wikibreak, and deal appropriately? The editor's other edits may be worth scrutiny also. Thanks. dougweller ( talk) 16:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Freddie Hubbard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Just an alert that there are email rumors about Freddie Hubbard being in poor health, and the article has been edited to reflect these reports (and I reverted). I have yet to see an actual news article (or other reliable source) that mentions it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The wiki entry for maryland Governor Martin O'Malley is chock full of sensational text and potentially libelous statements starrfaithfull Starrfaithfull ( talk) 20:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Poorly sourced political and biographical entry; could use additional references and watchlisting from BLP-savvy editors. Skomorokh 01:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This page, which I first looked at after a message here, is still highly problematic. Very controversial writer. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This article has a number of issues, as evinced by the "article issues" template at its top. "Events in which Guujaaw was involved" has some entries that may be valid if cited and explained, others seem trivial; "books that mention Guujaaw" has ben deleted, another books section remains. I'll leave it to experienced BLP editors/admins to clean this up; I've made enough enemies LOL. Guujaaw is a major First Nations leader in British Columbia and appears to have edited this article himself, though much of his POV/resume content has been changed/taken out. Still more work to do, but lots seems like "fluff". And see edit history re things taken out that will probably be put back in at some point and have to be taken out again.... Skookum1 ( talk) 14:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Shlomo Sand ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A single-purpose account, which I strongly suspect to be yet another appearance of the Runtshit vandal, has been repeatedly adding to this article defamatory remarks, citing a hostile article in an extremely unreliable POV blog. The main allegation does not even appear in the source cited. Please could an uninvolved editor or admin take a look at this, and help maintain a neutral POV with proper sourcing. RolandR ( talk) 15:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Alleged gangster, no references. Db template removed by admin. Mjroots ( talk) 18:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please figure out what to do with the article Dasiy Evans? The name is a misspelling of Daisy Evans (which redirects to S Club Juniors, a girl band of which Dasiy/Daisy is a member). The article isn't referenced, could use a complete rewrite, and a merge (or deletion) seems appropriate. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 02:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Nancy Wu ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Looks like we need a big-time translation into English. I tried to roll back previous edits, but the Chinese characters are still there. What should I do???? Willking1979 ( talk) 03:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
This article has WP:BLP issues in naming and describing relatively unknown individuals who are criminals. Refer to Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_names. Similarly this article as well 2007 triple homicide in Easton, Pennsylvania. Michellecrisp ( talk) 05:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
On seven different occasions, an editor calling himself John Riemann Soong has inserted the same list of derogatory and unsourced statements regarding Dr. Sax, such as that Dr. Sax is a proponent of "sexual dimorphism in language ability." Mr. Soong -- and another editor named DarwinPeacock with a suspiciously similar POV -- continue to post the same derogatory allegations, always unsourced. Because this is a low-traffic site, this vandalism may go undetected and/or risk an editor violating the three-revert rule to reverse the vandalism. Can Soong and DarwinPeacock be blocked from editing this page? Otherwise there is a risk of an unproductive edit war. Fritzvonturin ( talk) 23:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is the edits of single-purpose-account Fritzvonturin ( talk · contribs), such as this, which really need the scrutiny. I note, in regard to the "suspiciously similar", that when one is pushing bias in Wikipedia, accusations of "everyone else is biased" are not unusual. Uncle G ( talk) 11:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Maureen Colquhoun ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Possible conflict of interest edit by Heaneypeter. User posted a statement by Peter Heaney from the Labour Party. Willking1979 ( talk) 15:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
Please note that all information on the biography page of Victor Halberstadt (
Victor Halberstadt) is actually information about Hans Wijers, the CEO of AkzoNobel. We would appreciate it if this information would be corrected. We prefer not to edit this page ourselves as we are not experts on Victor Halberstadt.
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Bram Koster Manager of Digital Communications AkzoNobel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.95.32.9 ( talk) 14:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
What is the current rule about using media matters or newsbusters as sources? Both are very partisan but are being used in bios. Fru23 ( talk) 01:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Fru, could you point me to where you made an effort on an article talk page to engage editors in a constructive, collaborative way? I think that you may find that other editors respond well to thoughtful and reasonable discussion, and less so to variations on "IFYOUREVERTMYEDITSYOURAPOVPUSHERANDIMGOINGTOANOTHERARTICLETOPUSHMYPOVJUSTLIKEYOUDO!" Rasmquire, to name just one editor you have made a habit of attacking, has expressed on numerous occasions that he would be interested in hearing your case for removing or reworking sections of the O'Reilly article. I would be interested as well. You may even find that if you present a good case, others will agree with you and you can build a consensus. I see your current approach doing little to benefit much of anyone right now. To the original question, we should be careful about using partisan outlets as sources. If they are sourcing factual material, it is probably better to seek out a different outlet. If it's sourcing opinion, it could be appropriate to provide a richer background or to report on an especially noteworthy issue. Again, this means that issues like this benefit from reasoned discussion, not uncivil attacks. Croctotheface ( talk) 04:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Please show me when I have attack someone. Fru23 ( talk) 13:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Trying not to look at all the tangential stuff above ... If I had my druthers, no blatantly partisan sources would be utile. All they manage to do is furnish reasons for adding POV material in large heaps of compostable verbiage. Granted, I would have fairly boring stuff in articles, but the fact is that most articles on most people should be boring. I would hope that someday the era of yellow e-jounalism would go away. For now -- it looks like the game of "I have more sources for this stuff than you have for that stuff, and they are worded more sensationally" is the rule.
Collect (
talk)
15:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
To answer the question of whatever happened to "Praise of O'Reilly", technically it can and should go into this article. I wish more editors understood that criticism does not always have to mean negative and unfavorable coverage. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to encourage CIreland to read Wikipedia:Summary style and come to an understanding of how we address large topics on Wikipedia. "Criticism of" articles generally aren't "POV-forks"; they are a perfectly natural result of summary-style article building. We have a Criticism of Windows Vista article because there's been so much of it over the last two years that would overwhelm the Windows Vista article. Huge articles are discouraged for both technical and usability reasons, so we split the content out. It's also generally a sign that the matter of criticising a topic or person has become so widepsread that it has, in and of itself, become a noteworthy topic, and thus, Wikipedia needs an article on it. Whenever I hear someone like CIreland claim tha "all Criticism of... articles must be deleted", I wonder what it is, exactly, they're trying to accomplish, other than to do damage the encyclopedia. Warren -talk- 19:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that there is a topic ban discussion concerning Fru23, on WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is this suddenly about O'Reilly and me? Stay on topic. Fru23 ( talk) 20:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Kilfeno ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor would like to add to the Dov Hikind bio that the Catholic League considered his protests against the movie Passion of the Christ to be "anti-Catholic, incendiary and ruthless". Kilfeno's source is a Catholic League newsletter of some sort in which it lists all the protesters (around 50) and announces that the campaign against the film has been unseemly and ruthless while admitting that it was not anti-Catholic.
Thanks for your input, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It would be a very broad interpretation of BLP to take it to mean that we cannot describe criticism of someone's ideas. This could effectively make all living persons advocating any position immune to criticism in Wikipedia articles. It is not the spirit of the BLP policy to provide people with a shield from us ever reporting controversies surrounding their published opinions. To give you an idea of what I mean, consider the difference between an article that says, alternately:
These are very different indeed, and one is a BLP problem, whereas the other isn't. We can argue merits of whether the Catholic League is notable enough to deserve mention, but that is a content dispute, not a BLP issue. -- Ryan Delaney talk 20:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
An IP user has included this offensive image, a number of times, into the article: Image:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg. This seems to be a clear BLP violation, and the user has ignored requests not to return the image [12]. Is there a way to block the image itself from WP articles? It is very offensive. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a new editor that has added this [15]. A little attention would be appreciated. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Madoff has apparently confessed directly to the FBI to a $50 billion Ponzi scheme. It's clear that both Madoff and many of his victims are Jewish, and I've argued on the talk page that this has a place in this article. However, it's clear that some editors are using this article for anti-semetic propaganda (I can provide diffs if you want). In particular, use of the star of David symbol (✡) is completely out of place here. Could some uninvolved users keep an eye on this article. It's clear that some mention of Judaism is fine but that some users want to abuse the religion and Wikipedia policy. A good deal of judgment is involved.
Thanks for any help.
Smallbones ( talk) 00:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing BLP dispute at Yip Pin Xiu. The dispute is about whether the article should include her birth date and Chinese name. I believe that, since she is a minor and non-public figure, BLP mandates that we respect her privacy and exclude both her birth date and Chinese name from the article (though including her Chinese name is not as dangerous as including her birth date). Jacklee believes that since one reliable online reference mentions her birth date and at least three mention her Chinese name, including such information does not violate BLP. Neither of us really understand BLP; in fact, an article he wrote recently received a BLP complaint. Thus we need several editors who are familiar with the BLP policy to give their input and help us resolve the dispute. Thanks. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 12:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Janet Napolitano ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- IP editor 70.160.129.216 keeps adding/restoring unsourced material about hearsay? joke? something about Napolitano's sexual orientation. This continues after several warnings. CRETOG8( t/ c) 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Jason.cinema is attempting to add a biased 'Criticism' section to Diablo Cody's article, as evidenced here, with only a couple of blogs as references. I removed it but he just reinstated it again. Granted, I don't doubt Cody has received a bit of flack for her "honest to blog"s, but considering that her first film had a 93% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and she won "Best Screenplay" in the Oscars, a section with nothing but criticism sourced just by blogs seems a little unwarranted.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 20:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe that at least some of Drawn Some's recent edits to Majora Carter constitute a BLP issue. Since I had earlier tried to modify what I considered Drawn Some's inaccurate representation in this article of what a New York Times profile said, and was simply reverted by Drawn Some, I'm bringing the matter here for a third party to look at. Also, I would note that Drawn Some has latched on to (and, in my view exaggerated) just about the only negative in that New York Times profile of Carter, which does not suggest to me a particularly appropriate use of sources.
By the way, also, possibly not a BLP issue, but I also find the removal of the phrase "environmental justice"—the usual name of the movement with which she is identified—from the article, also suggests to me an animus against its subject. - Jmabel | Talk 22:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I also now see that this same editor earlier made major deletions from the article. Rhere was undoubtedly an excessive listing of awards in the article, but eliminating these completely seems to me equally excessive. It would seem to me that things such as having won a MacArthur fellowship, the Distinguished Alumni Award from her alma mater, and the New York Post Liberty Medal for Lifetime Achievement belong in an encyclopedia article. - Jmabel | Talk 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Multiple edits to alter nickname and to alter parts of biography in derogatory manner. See recent edit list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.165.172 ( talk • contribs)
Opinions offered as fact without the most basic of sources regarding Walsh's liturgical, theological and canonical position. Nonsense comparing his presidency of St. Malachy's Grammar school to 'a totalitarian state', again without any evidence. The unsubstantiated/impossible to quantify claim that his retirement came as a relief to the majority of the diocese's clergy and laity.
In short, potentially libellous. Most certainly offensive and moronic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
The article Jack Baker (activist) is currently a single-editor magnum opus written by User:Baker's Friend which appears to be an NPOV-free zone; it also makes numerous statements about other living people which I am concerned may raise WP:BLP issues. Just to give you a flavor of the article, it has subheadings like "Bigotry", "Trickery", "Abuse of Power" and "Justices compete for public flattery".
Although it contains vast numbers of cites, many of them do not directly support the substance of the statements being made, instead only supporting some tangential point. This article is so vast, and so full of contentious statements, that I can't see how to fix it other than more-or-less completely deleting it and starting again. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate that the redirect page for convicted child molester Craig Roger Gregerson has a category for his religion? His religion is not even mentioned in the article to which the redirect links. - Jmabel | Talk 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with an IP editor who insists on inserting problematic material and linking to a blog as reference. We are not technically in a WP:3RR situation because we are evidently in different time-zones. Also, I do not know if it is related, but we have had problems in the past with aggressive edit-warring from another user with the same 71.200. IP prefix. Ohconfucius ( talk) 03:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Recently, an editor added the following text to the article on journalist Muntadhar al Zaidi, who is currently being held by Iraqi authorities for throwing two of his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush:
According to ABC World News, following the incident, al Zaidi's cameraman stated that just before throwing his shoes, al Zaidi handed him a note reading, "It's glorious to die a martyr."[24]
The reference goes to an ABC news video. Concurrently, a Newsbusters blog carried a transcript of the news story. [16]. Here is the text from this transcript:
The shoe thrower himself hasn't lost any relatives, though his family says he was kidnapped once by militants. His cameraman said that just before he got up he handed him this note saying, "It's glorious to die a martyr." He survived, of course, and his story may live on as well. Jim Sciutto, ABC News, London.
Out of the thousand(s) of news articles on Muntadhar al Zaidi, only one claims that this "note" exists, namely the one above, ABC News. Jim Sciutto makes a strange claim here, making it sound like the source for Zaidi's kidnapping in 2007 was his family, which is bizarre. The 2007 kidnapping claim has nothing to do with his family, and was announced by Iraq's Journalistic Freedoms Observatory (NGO that monitors violations against journalists in Iraq) and covered by major news outlets around the world (including Reuters, Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post, and many others). It was even published in a report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I don't understand how ABC News could cast doubt on this claim by attributing it to his "family". Perhaps they made an honest mistake.
When ABC says that the shoe thrower hasn't lost any relatives, they also appear to ignore the fact that many sources mention that his family was arrested during the regime of Saddam Hussein.
To summarize, I am concerned that this note has not been corroborated by any other news sources and about the accuracy of ABC News. To date, no other news agency has reported on it. Unless we have corroborating sources, keeping ABC's unique claim in the article (combined with a distortion about his kidnapping) introduces a bias of some kind that could pose a threat to any fair trial he might receive, or even his safety. Could I get some feedback on this, please? Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight says the following:
Corroboration—Do the conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination. Undisputed corroboration among high-reliability sources can help establish something as a fact rather than an opinion.
Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 10:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I just found this languishing in articles to be wikified since July 2007. Subject is a pathologist whose professional work has been called into question by the courts. No references, only some ELs. Will need quite a lot of attention. Itsmejudith ( talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
One of the problems with the by-default invisibility of these data is that edits like the above go unnoticed for months. Please be aware of this type of BLP vandalism. Uncle G ( talk) 02:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing BLP dispute with the Jaclyn Reding article since September 2007. Original research ( [17]), one dubious foreign language source ( [18]), and a blog ( [19]) have been the rational for adding the supposed maiden name of the author in addition to a bunch of poorly worded family history. The only English source for the maiden name is Fantastic Fiction which is not reliable and the previously mentioned blog which is still depending on OR to make the connection between the maiden name and the married name. The other info can't be sourced in English that I've found. -- ImmortalGoddezz ( t/ c) 19:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to bring your attention to the Swami Shyam article which contains some sensitive material. The newspaper article cited here [22] seems a little incongruous with the content posted. As your policy on biographies of living persons is quite a high priority I thought an admin should have a look. In particular, the Globe and Mail article makes no mention of abuse towards minors. AaronCarson ( talk) 03:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
In reading WP:BLP Privacy of Personal info: "Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted."
My question is whether this is an absolute prohibition, i.e should "should not" be read as "may not"?
Bernard Madoff's addresses have been released by reliable sources, eg times online (Times of London). When a major fraud like this is alleged, I think it's important that people know that the alleged perp has some assets, so a general description of them seems reasonable. IMHO the addresses don't add much of anything to the article, except perhaps a very faint smell of a lynch mob. So I looked up the policy, and to my reading, the addresses should be deleted. Several others disagree. Let's follow the noticeboard's advice.
Thanks for any help.
Smallbones ( talk) 19:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone that can read Korea please write some more about her career, so that the article is less biased towards the adultery case. All English sources I found focus on the adultery case. Xasodfuih ( talk) 10:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Sources are problematic, because they are taken out of context like this one [23] referring to an event solved in year 2000 as an "ongoing controvercy". Highly critical quotes are from anonymous sources or non-english sorces. I have been trying to debat the questionable sources, remove them when no answer came and argue why I did this. They are however replaced. True there is controversies, but it seems unfit to say that someone calls him "a self-promoting schmuck and quasi-cult leader" without even knowing who said that.
I tried to ask the editor in question to cooperate to find reliable sources, both in my edit comments, on his discussion page and on the talk page. He gives no response to this Siru108 ( talk) 13:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, based on a conversation on Jimmy Wales's talk page:
Your feedback is appreciated. rootology ( C)( T) 19:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Much negative unsourced content; can someone familiar with show or actor try to sort out fact from fiction here? Kablammo ( talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Entry seems to have a great deal of negative unsourced material. 98.14.164.155 ( talk) 06:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Possible COI by User:Mikebaker20. Unsure if it is the same Mike Baker as in the article, but worth looking into. // Willking1979 ( talk) 20:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Paradiso ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Biography of an alleged mobster who allegedly wants his daughter killed, etc. 62.147.36.69 ( talk) 20:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This editor makes inappropriate comments about (living) researchers and professionals with whom the editor personally disagrees about sexuality. The garbage in the articles usually gets cleaned up, but the comments on the talk page, such as today's "Bailey was a sex addict and purposely chose a gay sex bar to do his research on transsexuals because it was where he knew he would find sex and fetishs there" usually don't. The editor appears impervious to subtle hints, persistent in this behavior, and of course I'm not sufficiently dedicated to the Bailey-hating camp for my opinion about rude remarks against him to be of the least value to the editor. Would someone unrelated please take a look from an impartial perspective and consider an appropriate level of education or warning for the user? Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I am restoring the following because it was not addressed; it was not even in any way responded to, and as far as I can tell wasn't even copied to the archive page. - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe that at least some of Drawn Some's recent edits to Majora Carter constitute a BLP issue. Since I had earlier tried to modify what I considered Drawn Some's inaccurate representation in this article of what a New York Times profile said, and was simply reverted by Drawn Some, I'm bringing the matter here for a third party to look at. Also, I would note that Drawn Some has latched on to (and, in my view exaggerated) just about the only negative in that New York Times profile of Carter, which does not suggest to me a particularly appropriate use of sources.
By the way, also, possibly not a BLP issue, but I also find the removal of the phrase "environmental justice"—the usual name of the movement with which she is identified—from the article, also suggests to me an animus against its subject. - Jmabel | Talk 22:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I also now see that this same editor earlier made major deletions from the article. There was undoubtedly an excessive listing of awards in the article, but eliminating these completely seems to me equally excessive. It would seem to me that things such as having won a MacArthur fellowship, the Distinguished Alumni Award from her alma mater, and the New York Post Liberty Medal for Lifetime Achievement belong in an encyclopedia article. - Jmabel | Talk 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Over at Martin D. Weiss, a newbie editor (from uploads at commons presumably close to the subject) has removed a section about some 'Securities and Exchange Commission' stuff previously added by an anon. (Its also possible that they are the same person, since the pix uploaded on commons were added to the article here by anon).
Could someone please review the insertion / removal and make a call as whether the material should be kept or not? I'm willing to clean it up and do the sources legwork if its decided that the material should be kept in substance. -- Fullstop ( talk) 18:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned over the section David_Miscavige#Treatment_of_staff. This is sourced to a podcast by Tom Smith that may have been broadcast by a college radio station (see article talk page). It is not hosted on the station's official site, however. The content is corroborated to some extent by an article in a minor alternative weekly, The Portland Mercury. While the author of that article is named, I note that according to our article on it, the Portland Mercury's most popular feature is one "in which local readers are encouraged to submit anonymous, usually impassioned, and often incendiary letters to the city at large". Apart from that, I cannot find any coverage of these allegations of Miscavige beating people up in more reputable news media. In fact, on the whole Internet, I get only 91 google hits for Jeff Hawkins + David Miscavige, and almost all of them are to anti-Scientology forums and sites.
Are the sources reliable enough for BLP, given the nature of the allegations? Is inclusion of this material due weight? Jayen 466 10:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I think they should be taken out. It doesn't feel right, maybe someone is trying to discredit him to try to take his job. Redddogg ( talk) 04:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Joseph Paul Franklin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Several serious criminal accusations without references. He has committed several murders, but this still needs more cleaning up to source all the negative stuff.-- chaser - t 08:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Diane Cibrian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I have deleted Diane Cibrian as there is no version of that article that does not violate WP:Copyright or WP:BLP. Requesting review of action. // MBisanz talk 22:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
author Chrisjnelson has been repeatedly using hear say and personal interest to revert and change articles especially that of an article of living person, Kyle Eckel
use of selective news reports are strung together to make untruths seem true
as under bio of living persons a description should be left as relevant facts, not personal interests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.8.36 ( talk) 22:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
user: Mynameinc is abusing power by blocking pages for constructive edits notably under the article Kyle Eckel
the author is allowing an untruth to continuously be posted within this article as its attempted to be removed. the author, Mynameinc, is threatening "blocking" to keep correct edits to continue
as under bio of living persons rules and US law stringing together several news articles to make an untruth seem true is both against wikipedia rules and US law. Also relevant facts pertaining to "Kyle Eckel" do not include selective news articles relating to irrelevant instances such as an accusation which was administered and than dropped in a months time
such persistance will not be tolerated under US law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.8.36 ( talk) 22:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Shame on the administrator, Toddst1 who both reverted a BLP removal as if it were vandalism and then blocked the complainant, and shame on the several administrators at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal Threat? who totally ignored the BLP issue in favour of blocking the complaint.
Looking at the article, and then at the sources, I find that the negative content is not in any way supported by the sources. Indeed, at least one of the sources says outright that it was unable to find out why this person and the Navy parted company. A negative original conclusion is being synthesized from sources that do not state that conclusion, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. I note that discussion on the talk page has been on-going since March 2007, and not a single editor, let alone Mukadderat or any of the editors who re-inserted this unsourced negative biographical material no fewer than nine times in the past 24 hours, has justified its inclusion with a source that actually provides reliable and explicit information on this subject.
Mukadderat, it is not the 68.163.8.36's job to explain why the material should not be included, not least because that has been explained here on this noticeboard, on the talk page of the article, and in edit summaries, several times over the past two years. It is, per the burden of proof outlined in the Verifiability policy, Toddst1, Mynameinc, Pharaoh of the Wizards, HexaChord, Chrisjnelson, and others that have to justify their additions of it; and that furthermore have to justify their use of vandalism rollback tools against edits whose summaries explicitly state that the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies.
And we do not simply "ignore" complaints made at this noticeboard that a biography of a living person contains factually inaccurate and defamatory material.
Accordingly, I have removed the material, and protected the article from editing, on BLP grounds. Any further re-insertion of this material by any party without a proper supporting source will result in a summary removal of their editing privileges. Uncle G ( talk) 05:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
A series of users whom I suspect are sock puppets for the subject of the article (or someone close to him) have been making a long-running series of edits to Tony Hendra that are problematic from a POV standpoint. It's tricky, though, in that one of the main points of contention is the media coverage that appeared a few years ago when the subject's daughter alleged that he had sexually abused her as a child.
I'm interested in others' views on this. See Talk:Tony Hendra for more detail. Thanks. -- John Callender ( talk) 17:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Rawal80 [26] added two BLP violations to the Daniel Pipes article, which I reverted, but at least one has been restored to the article. Some administrative attention may be necessary. [27] [28] [29] Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 22:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
So far, I have twice reverted changes by User:Muppet5150 to this biography of a living person. I have discussed the reversions I made in the article's talk page and Muppet5150's talk page in great detail regarding concerns for their repeated inclusion of information that violates both the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of Living Persons Wikipedia Policy, but they keep re-introducing their additions without further discussion.
Specifically, this person has included seemingly tabloid-esque comments about the article's subject and sensitive information about the notable person's relatives (full names, location, myspace, employers) that are in no way relevative to the actual notability of the person. Despite the request to discuss this on the talk page and the editor's user account talk page, they continue to revert the article to include their inappropriate edits.
I took the liberty of reaching out to the subject of the article who also shared concerns for the information in question and was grateful for Wikipedia's actions in removing them as per wikipedia BLP policy (but the editor [[User::Muppet5150]] keeps returning them anyway).
I should also note that the article seems to note that "Muppet" is the name of the subject's frequently discussed pet. And as per wikipedia, 5150 is California code for "involuntary psychiatric incarceration". It is VERY disconcerting that someone making these edits (even if the information is "on record" in some way through the radio show's archives and other sources) has a username that combines these two elements. Cordell ( talk) 00:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Dave Albo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Davealbo has made 15 edits to this article over 3.5 months. He refers to it as "my site entry," and reverts any modifications that are critical of him as "vandalism," sometimes replacing the whole article with the content of his campaign webpage. He's been warned by several users over several months that his modifications violate COI standards. I've been trying to clean up the entry, but I fear I'm making it worse with the ping-pong edits. (I have my own COI: I'm a Democrat, and Del. Albo is a Republican. FWIW.) I don't think that I should continue to work with Del. Albo on this problem, since clearly I'm not doing a very good job.
N.B.: I posted about this problem 27 days ago to the COI noticeboard, but unfortunately nothing came of it. The edits continue. -- WaldoJ ( talk) 04:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Americangrantedasylumnetherlands ( talk · contribs) (possibly Holly Ann Collins herself) makes several unsourced and very serious allegations against the former husband of Holly Ann Collins, such as child abuse. The user subpage is the userfied version of an article that has been merged into Right of asylum following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Ann Collins. I'm not sure whether WP:BLP covers user subpages though. Also given my prior involvement in the AFD, I prefer not to be bold. Aecis·(away) talk 13:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del ( | [[Talk:Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In the past few days several removal and readditions ( original addition, removal, + , -(with a warning), +, -(with warning), +, -(second warning), + have occured around a rumor that the articles author became inapropriate with underaged individuals. This sort of addition of material has previously been removed and purged from the talk page by user:Sarcasticidealist [30], but I would now like to bring this up to the noticeboard so this sort of blp violation can be stopped hopefully once and for all (although the red and green on my watchlist is quite appropriate for this time of year). Knowledgeum : Talk 07:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Unreferenced and not notable??? One of the policies said to bring it up here. Ariconte ( talk) 08:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Information is completely incorrect and untrue, unreferenced and not notable 26 December —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.24.189 ( talk) 12:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Lute88 brands several living Russian authors as anti-semitic conspiracy theorists and proponents of blood libel, providing no references or fake reference to Simon Reznik article. This is very serious and unsubstantiated allegations about living persons. Please take notice. DonaldDuck ( talk) 01:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I am the subject of the living persons biography on this page. It has been repeatedly and regularly vandalized, notably by someone using the login Omownyc. I have reason to believe this person is either an ex-boyfriend, or someone who wants me to think it is my ex-boyfriend, from college, because the login name is the same as the backward spelling of Mowo, the nickname for Mocean Worker, the ex who is now a well-known electronica DJ who lives in NYC, his favorite city. If it is Mowo, that would mean he has held a nearly 20-year grudge against me for breaking up with him when I was 22. If it is not Mowo, it is someone with a sick obsession with me who is trying to "frame" him. Either way, it is pathetic and time-consuming, and you do wonder how anyone has that sort of time to waste on a daily basis. Then you wonder just what sort of person has that sort of time to waste, and you wonder if you ought to get a restraining order. Anyway.
Regardless of who it is, the vandalism must stop. Libelous information continues to be added to my profile, in spite of my attempts to remove them. I have also written a statement and published it on my personal blog, at alisavaldesrodriguez.com, to set the record straight on all of the issues that continue to be inserted into the biography. Among the untrue statements are: that I am bisexual (I'm not, I am straight); that I suffer from bipolar disorder (I do not); that I was born into a middle-class family (I was born into a poor family); that I was "blacklisted" by a resignation letter I supposedly wrote to the LA Times (both facts untrue). Some of this information has appeared, either because of wikipedia or because of the "editor"'s relationship to certain bloggers, on the Internet, but this does not make it "sourced". I am the source, and I am setting the record straight here. The libel and attempts to defame my character must stop.
I understand the preference on wikipedia NOT to have the subject of an article correct that article, and I admire this policy. But in the case of these continued assaults upon my character, I have no choice but to continue to undo the nearly daily hack job by omownyc and whatever other name this same person (I believe it to be only one person) decides to create for their efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.186.62 ( talk) 17:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
This article needs experienced BLP attention, and I am about to go out of town and do not want to involve myself in it. I am not a usual editor of the page, so I have no horse in this race. This is the problem: the subject, on at least two occasions, has made unequivocal, declarative and emotive statements about herself that she later retracted. AVR feels this clears up the matter, but these statements were heavily reported, and in the context of her work. Here are two examples:
An IP claiming to be AVR is making legal threats all over the talk page if these topics are covered. I have e-mailed privately with AVR, who contacted me first, explaining all of these issues, but it wasn't particularly productive. I don't have time or desire to involve myself in figuring out how to handle this. In my opinion, this is an article subject whitewashing heavily reported issues, and if they are incorrect, at the very least making such claims as bipolar and bisexuality in such contexts itself deserves mention, as I'm sure Wikipedia editors can't be the only ones confused. --David Shankbone 20:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth.
Robert Campeau ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My Bio is becoming a mess with people adding to and subtracting my post.
and since I am the person in question I'd like this stopped.
It was and always was a simple Bio not a day to day play by play of post by anyone and everyone.
Thanks
Paul Shanklin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankintank ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Freddie Hubbard (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) We previously went through this on
Dec. 1. The subject has reportedly been in poor health. I'm seeing "confirmed" reports on the internet (email, message boards) yet none of these actualy cite an obituary, press release, article etc. --
Gyrofrog
(talk)
18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Can others take a look at 2008 Israel–Hezbollah prisoner swap and its recent editing history? Kuntar was convicted for murders in an Israeli military court, yet edits noting the top-secret nature of his conviction and the lack of forensic evidence for his conviction have been repeatedly silenced by "Rami R." And this is so in an article that makes repeated references to Kuntar's guilt, even to the point of impugning the reception he received in the Arab world ("Mona Charen wrote: 'What can you say about a people who welcome a child murderer as a hero?'"). Such selective editing is not libelous, but incendiary and contributes to cross-cultural misunderstandings, rather than efforts to bridge differences. Slandering Kuntar in a medium in which he cannot respond does not help. -- 71.204.151.224 09:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Eric Lerner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is coverage of Eric Lerner's political activities a violation of Wikipedia:NPF#People_who_are_relatively_unknown_.28Non_public_figure_.3D_NPF.29? Recently it came up because it turns out he belonged to an organization headed by Lyndon LaRouche. There is a thread on WP:RSN about whether we've reliably sourced this to a Dennis King book (I believe we have), but the BLP issue may trump this. However, I'm of the opinion that if we remove the LaRouche association, we probably should remove all political activity because Lerner simply isn't known for this.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 12:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the material in question:
In the 1970s, Lerner became involved in the National Caucus of Labor Committees, an offshoot of the Columbia University Students for a Democratic Society. [1]
Lerner has been involved in political activism. He has sought civil rights protection for immigrants as a member and spokesman for the New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee. [2] [3] According to investigative journalist Dennis King, Lerner is a "former LaRouchian". [1]
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
Here is the discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Fred Talk 15:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've commented and proposed some language on
RSN. I'm not convinced that this material needs to be included, and my proposed language is intended to be an accurate compromise in the dispute over how the section should read if its included.
Avruch
T
15:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Edits made to the biography of William Timmons appear to be in violation of WP:BLP guidelines, and a subsequent content dispute requires outside intervention. The current profile references a recent Huffington Post online article which alleges that Timmons lobbied on behalf of Saddam Hussein alongside Samir Vincent, and Tongsun Park, both of whom were tried and convicted in the Oil-for-Food scandal during the Gulf War in the 1990's (Timmons' was not involved in the trial, much less convicted) [1] . The genesis of the current controversy was an article “McCain taps Lobbyist for Transition” [2] by Michael Scherer in Time on September 12 which seems to have been designed to embarrass John McCain by linking him to Timmons, a lobbyist with former client Freddie Mac. Scherer did, however, write that Timmons was not heading the transition effort, despite rumors (John Lehman was named to lead the transition, not Timmons). The following day the Democratic National Committee picked up the story about the lobbyist, transition, and Freddie Mac. On September 14 the Barack Obama campaign issued a public memorandum “Lobbyist-Run White House” [3] which grossly corrupted Scherer’s story. On September 17 the Obama campaign ran a 30-second television advertisement with the same charges. Jonathan Salant of Bloomberg.com had an article on September 23 claiming Timmons was planning the McCain transition and again linked him to Freddie Mac [4]. Mr. Salant admitted that the campaign wouldn’t confirm Timmons’ role, however. Murray Waas then wrote in the Huffington Post of October 14 “McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam in Lobbying Effort.”
Waas, a freelance online journalist, stated that Timmons told authorities that he was unaware of particular activities, and “investigators were unable to uncover any evidence to contradict that claim.” The implication is that Timmons was aware but the government just couldn’t prove it. Regarding illegal profit from oil-for-food contracts Mr. Waas wrote, “in which Timmons was not involved.” Federal prosecutors, FBI, and United Nations investigators certainly would have charged Mr. Timmons with violations if there was any hint of illegality. But there was none! Perhaps the most telling argument for any objective observer is that neither the prosecutors or defendants called Timmons to testify in either one of the two trials or even required him to give depositions. It also is instructive that no mainstream media mentioned Timmons in their coverage of the trials.
Reliable source concerns aside, the free encyclopedia’s guidance is that biographies of living persons “must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject’s privacy…it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people’s lives” and “Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used.”
So Wikipedia editors should ask themselves what is the purpose of the Huffington Post article alleging illegal activities almost fifteen years ago? Is it a neutral point of view and does it meet standards of verifiability? Is it contentious material and poorly sourced? What is the motive of those who continue to insist that false information be included in the biography? In short, does it deserve to be in a personal biography? I suggest this entry does not come close to meeting the standards of Wikipedia, defames a living person, and therefore should be removed.
References (1) “McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam in Lobbying Effort (2) McCain taps Lobbyist for Transition (3) White House (4) Transition Head Lobbied for Freddie Mac Before Takeover
Rtally3 ( talk) 02:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yasmin_Alibhai-Brown#BBC_debate_with_Sean_Gabb alleges certain inflammatory comments allegedly made by Ms. Ablibhai-Brown to Mr. Gabb, using as a source a (edited??) download of a BBC article on Gabb's organizations web site. The second paragraph is critical comments by Gabb about her which are published only on Gabb's group's website. I opined on poor referencing when I put in a tag, but I do have a bit of a conflict of interest being a libertarian who has edited their wikipedia article, so I may be a tad less reluctant to just delete whole section per BLP as I would be in other cases, not to mention get in a debate about it. If someone else could take a look and appropriate action I'd appreciate it. Thanks! CarolMooreDC ( talk) 01:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Roman Polanski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 1 editor feels strongly that the lead sentence needs to end in "film producer, and convicted child rapist." rather than simply at "film producer." Another has decided to restore the content as well.
I fear this is excessive, as this important event is covered both in the lead-in and the body, but I am in NO WAY an expert on BLP... but I fear them. I would like much more knowledgeable editors to give the addition a look over. I would also appreciate any feedback on this submission. I learn.
I "have no dog in this fight", only a concern, and thank whoever looks this over for their work. sinneed ( talk) 21:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Allegations of sex discrimination by a disgruntled former employee are being repeatedly added to this article and/or its accompanying Talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Cornelius_Plantinga&diff=261130575&oldid=261003727
At BLP it says "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The accusations are clearly intended to damage the reputation of Plantinga. These have been posted by two usernames: Hungaryson and Katharineamy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.148.55 ( talk) 22:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This is by no means the most serious violation of WP:BLP or of the spirit of WP:3RR. However, the persistent disruptive attempts by a single IP editor to insert a piece of unsourced information into the article, while ignoring requests, whether in the edit summary, or in the talk page of the said user, was annoying to start with, but is beginning to get tiring. Any suggestions would be welcome on what can be done about this... Ohconfucius ( talk) 02:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion on the implementation of a 'trial' configuration of FlaggedRevisions on en.wiki has now reached the 'straw poll' stage. All editors are invited to read the proposal and discussion and to participate in the straw poll. Happy‑ melon 17:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
On the above article, I wish to include his original name - it is correctly cited - it is not OR, it is to me the same as including a maiden name for a married woman, or including an original name for a celebrity who uses a stage name. Are there any issues for using the original name in the lead (seeing that most wikipedia articles do so)
oh and as the president of south korea, he is a highly notable individual with information such as this being far from hidden from the public view
똥침 Sennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This is not a BLP issue. Melonbarmonster2 ( talk) 15:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems like this is something where there ought to be a Manual of Style determination - whether and how to use the Japanese name of a Korean citizen born in Japan, if its a common occurrence with a political background. Avruch T 15:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I've put a speedy deletion tag on this article, but I'd like second opinions. This article is one huge BLP violation, by listing several people who have not been charged with a crime, and for writing an article which violates WP:BLP1E. If he wasn't notable before his death, and just being general counsel for Radio Free Asia doesn't seem to make that notability standard, then he isn't notable after his death. Little Red Riding Hood talk 00:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this article is likely to be deleted at AfD if it cannot be significantly improved. Much more information needs to be included about the subject, if it can be found, in order to survive a deletion discussion. On the other hand, it is not a CSD candidate. The BLP issues should probably be dealt with by removing the other names, although they will still be available via the given references. Avruch T 00:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me after looking at this, that it's receiving substantial RS coverage:
That's all in addition to what's in the article currently. I don't normally go to "attack pages for speedy deletion" looking to get involved in an article rescue, but it's become clear to me that this is reasonably well sourced already, including the defendants' names, and has received significant RS coverage. Jclemens ( talk) 01:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
More data points:
Thus, it's abundantly clear that Price's name, and even his employer's name has been dragged through the mud already, by virtue of being the owner and resident of the house where Wone was found murdered, and over the last 2-3 months as he's faced criminal charges and a civil lawsuit in the matter. In all fairness, a small number of these hits are primarily in relation to a later burglary at the same residence, which bring up the murder. If that's not a clear case of an event which has traveled beyond the borders of WP:BLP1E, I'm not sure what is. Jclemens ( talk) 22:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Should add this: If it turns out that Eric Holder is in fact the attorney for Wone's widow, and he is appointed attorney general in a couple of weeks, that could make the whole issue a bit more high profile. Avruch T 22:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot of people inserting references that Griffin made a profane remark on television ( example). Right now the text of the remark is in the lead of the article. I'm not sure the incident is notable enough to be included at all. Kelly hi! 18:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There has been an unsourced claim in this article identifying the subject as a realtor of similar name/appearance. It was originally added by an SPA. The account's only edit. The edit included a link giving the subject's (supposedly) current workplace address, workplace phone, cell phone, etc. A few weeks ago, User:Epbr123 changed the article to make the privacy violating information more prominent and the workplace link more conspicuous. Although he did remove other unsourced statements. The named realtor whether or not she is this porn star has no notability as a realtor. There is no justification for including personal information like this. Either the bad edits should be oversighted or the article should be deleted and recreated to make this violation inaccessible. I deleted the info and link but it still sits in the article history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Biography on Jennifer Lopez is well written except for the fact that she comes from an area in the Bronx, Castle Hill area considered to be a middle class neighborhood for most Puerto Ricans. Castle Hill area is NOT considered the "South Bronx." I know that to be true because I come from the South Bronx myself. Therefore, Jennifer Lopez did NOT come from the South Bronx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickylizf ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
He is a clergyman in New York who is said to have called Oprah Winfrey a "Babylonian whore." People who know at least a little about the New Testament will understand that he was refering to the Whore of Babylon, not a literal whore, not Babylonian, and probably not even a woman. I don't know how to deal with this BLP-wise, especially since the source seemed to have not understood what he was talking about. (Note: Calling someone the Whore of Babylon is probably protected religious speech. Calling someone a whore could be slander.) Steve Dufour ( talk) 07:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This biography needs attention. I would gladly fix it if I knew what it was trying to express, but the grammar is so mangled that I do not understand it. Also, at least one fact is woefully out of date (chairmanship of an organisation). I have corrected that, but suspect other facts may similarly need correction MMGarth ( talk) 12:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a long-running edit war over accusations of living people committing crimes that has been just under the boil in this article since September 2008. More eyes are needed. Let's proactively head off the otherwise inevitable OTRS complaints. Thank you. Uncle G ( talk) 16:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Gentlemen:
An individual named Robert Boser, who purports to be an editor of Wikipedia, has posted, and continues to re-post, clearly defamatory material on the biography of John J. Nance, who, I can assure you, is very much alive. I am preparing for legal action against this individual but need Wikipedia's assistance in immediately halting the use of Wikipedia as the "publication" medium under the law. Please contact me at <email address removed> as soon as possible.
John J. Nance —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJNCOM ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The sources mentioned here are website news and only say that Rajmohan Pillai was convicted by a Special CBI Court. According to the law in India, he was eligible to appeal to a Superior_court and had done it already. This information was not available in the websites shown as references 3 including former bank official get jail but was present on the print editions of regional newspapers Malayala Manorama and Mathrubhoomi dated 12 December 2008. So at this point of time, we cannot conclude him as convicted as the case is still under consideration of a Superior_court. Doing so will be a violation of Biographies of living persons and also will be a personal harassment to Mr. Pillai. Request you to remove the defamatory portion from the page as early as possible. Please take a look at the diff in versions -- Z16bsr2 ( talk) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)