![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Could I get a second opinion on Julia Camoys Stonor? There seem to be sources, which is the only reason I did not speedy it, but the article has some obvious problems. DGG ( talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Darko Trifunović ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article about a controversial Serbian commentator, has repeatedly been the subject of problematic editing from anonymous IP editors. The edits all follow a similar pattern - removal of material that the anons feel casts the subject in a bad light, attempts to convert the article into a poorly-sourced, illiterately-worded promotional piece, rants posted to the talk page and so on. I've long suspected that the man himself is the one responsible for these edits. A new editor, Dusan Trifunovic ( talk · contribs), who claims to be "a relative", has recently appeared and is repeatedly making the usual problematic edits. He has made a number of edits to other articles to promote Serbian ultra-nationalist views about Bosnian Muslims, and he appears to have previously edited from an IP address (compare [1] and [2]). The same IP editor has posted abusive remarks about other admins [3] and talk page rants [4] . I've indef-blocked Dusan Trifunovic for disruptive editing, but it would be appreciated if people could keep an eye on the article for further abusive editing. -- ChrisO ( talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone previously uninvolved run an eye over this from a BLP angle? -- WereSpielChequers 18:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"extreme flagalantes" don't think that applies to his time in Congress.
Leon Panetta's appt to CIA is controversial. Suggest lock down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.30.226 ( talk) 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at the William Timmons bio to see if it is violation of BLP guidelines? 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. 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. 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 is also instructive that no mainstream media mentioned Timmons in their coverage of the trials. I question the purpose of the Huffington Post article alleging illegal activities almost fifteen years ago despite the fact that no criminal charges were ever filed and the subject was not even involved in the trial. I suggest this entry does not meet the standards of Wikipedia, defames a living person, and therefore should be removed. -- Rtally3 ( talk) 20:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The article in question was an edited piece in a reliable source. While HP does publish opinion and blog content, it also publishes fact-checked reporting like the article in question. Rtally3 is just forum-shopping this argument and ignoring the facts that have been presented in response to it. Murray Waas - the journalist who wrote the article - is well respected, and I have already shown Rtally3 the HP's editorial staff page, which puts to rest the claim that this is no better than a blog. csloat ( talk) 05:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Point of note: these are Uncyclopedia links. I don't know if they are problematic, but there may be a discussion in the archives somewhere. -- NE2 08:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
for now.
An editor claiming to be the subject of the article has been reverting to his preferred version, and also page blanking. There are comments about this on my talk page, and also the AfD page. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Levelub44h made a legal threat and given the other behaviour, I've blocked for that. Please also see my comments here. Gwen Gale ( talk) 00:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Once again the bio of Alan Shawn Feinstein has been sanitized. All references to the dubious nature of how he made his money, selling "collectibles" of dubious value, and the fact that he insists of naming rights for anything he donates money to have been removed. There is documentation of the former at http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20040321_asf21.25b49b.html and everyone in Rhode Island laughs at the the latter.
This sanitizing editing has been going on repeatedly. It seems impossible to keep this bio accurate. Personally, I have better things to do with my life than fix it constantly, but I would hope there would be some way to keep it accurate.
In the article Adult Children of Alcoholics I removed unreferenced naming of people who are claimed to fall into this category, the list was re-inserted, I removed again with note on the talk page. Some of the names have been added again, although few of the WP articles of the relevant persons confirm they should be on the list, the only external link does not not confirm that the person should be listed - which makes me a little concerned with the book references. Can somebody look at the article and talk page and assure me there is not conflict with WP:BLP?. Many thanks. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Kelly Holmes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Is the discussion about whether Kelly Holmes is lesbian on the talk page appropriate content? No sources are quoted// Tim P ( talk) 18:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Could some more active editors add this infrequently vandalized stub to their watch lists? Some bloggers got into a feud with this Romanian entertainer, and they're likely the ones inserting 4-letter words in his Wikipedia bio every now and then. Last time the vandalism remained unchallenged for a week or so. Thanks, Pcap ping 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Peter_Tatchell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- I've been watching this BLP for awhile and Tatchell seems to be a prolific leftist, for lack of better sweeping generalizations. He writes voluminously on all sorts of matters and is a considered a human rights activist although he also specializes in LGBT rights. I can't say I read any of his work but looking at Peter_Tatchell#Regarding_Islam_and_Muslims, someone sure does. This mini section has ballooned out of portion but I'm reticent to remove the whole thing. Anyone up for untangling this? -- Banjeboi 03:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Jackiestud made this posting to Talk:Jodie Foster, attacking her regarding her statements regarding her beliefs re: God, i.e., that she does not belief that God exists. Part of that posting is disparaging to her intelligence. I removed the comment here, stating "this is not a forum". User:Jackiestud reverted my removal here, stating "But it´s my commnet concernig the article..." User:Verdatum replied to the return here, agreeing with the removal (but didn't remove it), saying "comment has nothing to do with this article, you are questioning her beliefs. If you want to have a debate with her, phone her up, don't discuss it here." User:Jackiestud replied to that here, saying "I´d like to leave it since I believe Iam not the only nor the last to be suprised..." Meanwhile this still constitutes a WP:BLP violation by attacking Foster's beliefs, and I posted a very strong response here, reaffirming that WP:TALK says "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." When I realized that User:Jackiestud did not intend to respond, I then removed the postings a few days later here as a WP:BLP violation issue. Some 8 hours later, User:Jackiestud returned all of the section, except for my strong objection to the content, here, saying "Can you respect third opinion?" I have posted a warning to User:Jackiestud's talk page here, including a notice that I've reported this here, and am going to remove the comments once again, as a violation of WP:TALK and WP:BLP. I would appreciate some backing on this, as this user is only interested in sermonizing and attacking Foster's belief, outside the realm of any productive article improvement suggestions. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 16:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a recent post on the talk page [7] of this article that amounts to a complaint that the article is improperly biased as a personal attack on the author of the book. Perhaps this article needs to be checked for WP:BLP compliance, and maybe also WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently in this BLP is the following:
Palin appointed[29] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon and his department sometimes billed rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits.[46] An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy.[47]
Is this a contentious issue per BLP? If it is contentious, would it require a clear consensus for inclusion, or a clear consensus for exclusion? Is what ammounts to a "no evidence" statement sufficient to counteract any potential mis-association of Palin with "rape kits?" Is the term "rape kit" intrinsically NPOV when making such a statement in a BLP? I trust I have asked all this in a fully neutral manner. Collect ( talk) 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
and currently
although I prefer
which shows Palin's own response to questions the local Wasilla paper, the Frontiersman, put to her in an email interview.
As I have said before of the kit budget issue, on the talk page: "In addition to relevance in its own right, it has significance in the Stambaugh firing because of Stambaugh's assertion that he had proposed a line item in the budget to cover the cost of the kits. It is indispensable to an understanding of Palin's choice of subordinates, her oversight of their policies, and her treatment of political rivals." The budget is not currently mentioned in the article, see Talk:Sarah Palin#'First term' section: Sexual assault evidence gathering kits / budget passage for my proposed version. Anarchangel ( talk) 01:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, what a party I missed yesterday :-). If it makes things any clearer, I asked KC to keep an eye on me, since she's got more experience with explosive BLPs, and she's given me solid advice in the past on another issue. I don't quite agree with her reading of the policies (namely, whether or not the bit of content in question is a "BLP" issue or whether that even matters), but the editors involved can try to reach consensus on it whether or not it's on the page. As far as I'm concerned, it all boils down to whether something controversial should be kept in the article until there's an agreement, or whether it should be kept out of the article until an agreement is reached. My impression (possibly mistaken) was that it should be kept out. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Joseph X. Forte is a well known basketball player with an article Joseph Forte. An apparently unrelated Joseph S. Forte has been charged with conducting a Ponzi scheme, and I've started an article on him, putting a hatnote to go to Joseph Forte for the basketball player. Is there anything else I should do? BTW Joe S. has already gotten national press and will likely get more due to the parallel with Bernard Madoff so I don't think WP:BLP1E applies, but if anybody thinks so, please let me know. Smallbones ( talk) 16:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This obviously controversial current event is attracting a lot of anonymous edits that are not being careful with the BLP policy. Article may need protection. THF ( talk) 02:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to suffer from recentism and undue weight given to his involvement in recent events. Steve Dufour ( talk) 12:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Brief explanation // This entry has repeatedly stated, without base or reference, that Alexis Debat had graduated from the Monterey Institute under the name of Hyve Debat. This is baseless and untrue. Hyve Debat was indeed a student at the Monterey Institute, but has no relation to Alexis Debat.
It has been said on Placido Domingo ‘s article, that he is a Spanish-Mexican tenor. According with the sources he was born in Spain, and he lived in Mexico since he was 8 until he was in his early 20s. On source Well, all the sources say that he is a “Spanish Tenor”, but some people insist on changing it without proving that he has indeed the Mexican nationality / citizenship / passport. Actually, most sources on the internet refer to Placido as an Spanish Singer/Tenor and so do Encarta, Britannica etc. However, some people insist on changing it. Here are some references:
It seems like this has been on for a while and I think it is time to settle: Is Placido Domingo Mexican as well as an Spaniard?? Does he have the Mexican Nationality? -- Nandonaranja ( talk) 19:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment: He was born in Spain. His parents were both Spaniards at the time of his birth, although they held Mexican citizenship later (see [33]). I also asked my mother (who is Spanish, and while not an authority by any stretch of the imagination, her family is related to his) and she'd never heard anything other than him being called Spanish. Considering all the sources that identify him as Spanish, I think you already have your answer. -- Chasingsol (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Nandonaranja.. I am amazed! You called me vandalised Plácido Domingo article? Care to look at the history of the article? You said you want the article to be as precise as possible but you neglected his parents, both his wives and his son - they are all Mexican; not to mentioned many other of his family members. You want it to be precised but what is your contribution to that article other than arguing about this? If you looked at Domingo talkpage (archived) from the beginning, at once I was like you. I keep removing "the Mexican" part from the page until I did research and understand his history, his family and his "special feeling" like what quoted by Karljoos. I have been working in this article for years (by contacting his Manager and family to get the "precise" facts like "what you want" but yet you just burge-in and call me doing the "vandalism" and insisting on one "part" only without understanding the whole thing? I never denied his Spanish origin. At once, this article was heavily edited, some said "Spanish" while the other party said "Mexican" (PLEASE LOOK AT THE HISTORY). Instead of having continues edit warring between "Spanish" and "Mexican", I wrote it as "Spanish-Mexican". Personally he deserves to be part of Mexican. There is where most of his family members are/from and where he grew up. You can report this to the admin and call me vandalism if you want, but the fact is, he is half Spanish-Mexican by the history of his life. That is precise! What makes me upset with you is, you called me "that" without checking - Jay ( talk) 03:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor keeps adding non-notable and probably defamatory accusations to the lede. I have called the BLP policies to his attention on the talk page numerous times now [34], but he keeps re-adding the claims. I would appreciate it if someone could intervene. -- Number OneNineEight ( talk) 22:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I am saying that these claims are being given undue weight by being included in the lede. I am not suggesting that they be excluded from the article generally. They are also claims that were made by some notable figures in the late 70s and early 80s, but are not made by any notable figures today, and the formulation that Will Beback keeps adding creates the false impression that these views are widely held now. -- Number OneNineEight ( talk) 01:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Listing every accusation is not really the same as NPOV -- as long as the charges are made in the body of the article, enumerating them all in the lede seems a tad like overkill. And I don't like LaRouche one whit. Collect ( talk) 23:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This all seems to be wriggling around a bit. First the accusations were characterised as defamatory, and then when they were shown to be cited statements by others, the objection was that they shouldn't be in the lede. The lede needs to be our best shot at describing the topic if that's all the reader has time for. So the question to me is, how important to understanding LaRouche is it to have a fairly wide range of views represented in the lede? I'd say it is pretty important, omitting them would leave a fairly incomplete picture in the minds of readers. I know this will make me unpopular with some folk, but oh well. I think BLP policy isn't being violated here, and the material, as modified, should remain in the lede. ++ Lar: t/ c 17:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
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 of fascism and anti-Semitism are clearly intended to damage the reputation of LaRouche. LaRouche has repeatedly stated his opposition to fascism and anti-Semitism. The motives of those who make the accusations need to be examined (for example, DP Moynihan was being challenged in an election campaign by a Jewish member of the LaRouche organization when he made his comment.) Lar says that the lede is supposed to serve as a "snapshot" of the article for those who are too busy to read the fine print. Therefore, putting these accusations in the lede does harm to LaRouche's reputation without providing the reader with information which might correct a false impression. I'd like to hear from Will Beback why it is so important to him that these accusations be in the lede instead of being in the body of the article. -- Number OneNineEight ( talk) 18:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Reality check: "anti-Semite," "fascist or neo-fascist," and "the leader of a political cult" are all defamatory, period. It doesn't make any difference who said it or where it was published. The courts in the U.S. are notoriously lenient towards defendants in defamation cases, which is why LaRouche doesn't get sued by the people he attacks. The correct wording for the intro would be:
'Do no harm and reality check - LaRouche's reputation can not be hurt by what's in this article. It's just saying that other people (in widely distributed publications) have said these thing. The reality check is that these other people have said "anti-Semite," "fascist or neo-fascist," and "the leader of a political cult" and that LaRouche has not successfully sued them for defamation, and since we are just quoting them there is no possibility of defamation. This is well within the rules, get over it. Smallbones ( talk) 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
And here I thought that the simple proposal I made was actually going to work. Seems IPs are stubborn folks ... Collect ( talk) 21:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Except a single deletion by User:Leatherstocking, all of the deletions have been done by new users and IPs. The material has been restored in one form or another by five established users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Consider these edit summaries:
Accounts blocked as sockpuppets of User:Herschelkrustofsky, see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Herschelkrustofsky
Recent accounts
Due to the content and style of the edit summaries, the shared POV, the familiarity of new users with policies and noticeboards, this expertly made edit, and the history of sock puppetry on this topic, it appears that these new accounts/IPs are operated by the banned user. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The new users and IPs have not shown that the material added in November violates any aspect of WP:BLP. It has been shown that the material reflects the opinions of a variety of notable individuals and is presented neutrally with proper weight. Unless the aim is to keep filibustering, I suggest that we close this thread and mark the matter as resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I've just posted excerpts from 14 33 71 periodicals, mostly mainstream newspapers, covering a 24-year period that make reference to anti-semitism in regard to LaRouche, his organizations, or writings.
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research That's in addition to the 18 55 excerpts on the topic of fascism, posted on the same page previously and subsequently. Those should be sufficient evidence that the criticisms have been made by a variety of sources for decades.
Will Beback
talk 00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Will Beback
talk
10:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
In light of the dozens of sources added to the research page that make similar assertions, I propose this text:
I don't think there's any benefit to defining who the "critics" or "supporters" are - expressing an opinion doesn't assign a place in either column automatically. We could add a few dozen sources on the "political cult" assertion that has not been a point of contention, if need be. Will Beback talk 11:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm confused. what is it you're asserting there is or isn't consensus for, exactly? This seems like a great deal of ink expended for not a lot of result. The criticisms of Larouche that have been put forth in the proposed lede are all well sourced from mainstream reputable sources. Why are you trying to whitewash this? You seem a reasonable enough person, except for this one topic (anything to do with Larouche)... just let it go. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
So we're done, then? ++ Lar: t/ c 03:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor, "Bhirsch," continues to repeatedly post a slanderous comment citing a letter to the editor which is unsubstantiated and not able to be confirmed online. Attempts to remove the incorrect citation has led to "Bhirsch" posting it again and the page has now been locked by "Bhirsch." Here is the text in question. Even the title of the letter is not cited correctly:
Position on Tobacco
While serving as Commissioner of Public Health, Koh stated he had considered asking that cigarettes in Massachusetts be required to bear a label stating, "You are the scum of the earth." Smokers are the scum of the Earth. 26 Feb 2005. The Boston Globe. --
134.231.180.190
21:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone review the recent IP edits to this article? I don't know the subject well enough to be able to tell, but there seems to have been added some dubious claims. Thanks, Skomorokh 01:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
A user claiming to be Sol Wachtler, former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, has been removing well-sourced background material about the felony charge to which he pleaded guilty, including this citation to a New York Times news article. User claims "...printing them as fact are defamatory and untrue". -- CliffC ( talk) 03:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Our article on Arthur Kemp is being edited by Arthur Kemp ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who seems to object to a particular article written about him by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I do not think it reasonable to remove completely reference to the article this group wrote about him. I understand the need for attribution, but I think that the user himself is likely going to continue to remove any and all mention of the article no matter how it is presented. We need some administrator help here. - ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/ A site dedicated to members, present and past - discussion/blog site-what I see as many grave violations of wp:BLP being repeatedly inserted. Various IPs, which have never edited any other article, are all inserting, reinserting or reverting removal of the link. It contains, for example, accusations of rape, tolerance of rape, etc. by persons named in 1st-person posts. I have used all 3 reverts for today, and had not read some of the detail until now. I am concerned that this REALLY needs to not be linked, but still am unclear whether the wp:3rr exception extends to ELs, and think not. sinneed ( talk) 07:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no personal interest in this deceased individual, just noticed a month or so it was a very long mostly unsourced article that knocks him. So I cut it back to basics - still mostly unsourced. But an editor who from Talk obviously doesn't like the guy keeps reverting it back to its current state, claiming all this material is sourced in some unref'd news articles. Could some one else look at? Cut it back to basics or delete it? (I'm not sufficiently interested to research it myself and his critic refuses to.) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
A user by the name of Jaf1970 who claims to be the man featured in the article continually inserts controversial claims into his wikipedia page, including that he undeniably has the world's largest penis, and sources them to websites that claim the same but offer no actual proof. It roughly amounts to OJ Simpson writing that he has undeniable proof that he is not guilty by citing a web page that claims he is not guilty. Update: The article has since been locked. Could someone step up and do something? // 24.226.123.110 ( talk) 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Scantily-referenced BLP of an alleged criminal, could use a closer look to ensure sources support the text fully. Skomorokh 17:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Assistance would be appreciated at this article. A single-purpose account, one which has previously been blocked for 3RR and sockpuppetry, is attempting to insert NPOV, OR, and SYNTH violations in the article. This user has refused discussion while loudly making insulting comments and claiming abuse and has now returned to sockpuppetry. Gamaliel ( talk) 02:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Requesting an outside look and some advice regarding this articles talk page. There is material being pushed by editors that is highly inflammatory and appears to step all over the intent and spirit of WP:BLP. While I realise that talk pages are not the article, they are still a publicly viewable resource. I removed a new comment from an editor who stated that the subject is "Primarily a rapist and sex offender", but was reverted and berated for it's removal. I am unsure of the best way to handle the situation. Any insight that can be provided would be greatly appreciated. Best regards. -- Chasingsol (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an utter disaster of an article, presenting a viewpoint that doesn't exist in sources at all — not even in the arguments made by the defence. However, the murder case has been a prominent and recurring feature in the Irish press over the past three years, so there are a fair number of sources for writing about it. (Judgement in this person's appeal is expected now, in fact, after a 1-day hearing on the 17th of last month.) One somewhat unusual problem with the usual solution (a speedy rename to Murder of Rachel O'Reilly and rapid refactoring) is that the victim's name is currently the subject of a dispute, between the victim's parents (who want her maiden name used) and her husband (who wants her married name used), that may well end up in court. Uncle G ( talk) 16:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem: some articles in the missing people category have this template used on them. The template then adds them (incorrectly) to Living people. The solution: should these templates be replaced with other templates? If so, which? Or create a new template for unreferenced missing people articles. Thanks. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 21:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I have concerns about the controversy section with regard to the alleged prostitutes scandal. It is my belief that this section is potentially libelous because of the fact that it is reporting rumour. None of the claims are backed up by references that work. There is a reason why both the Times and the Telegraph newspapers removed these articles online, because they were threatened by his lawyers with libel action. Now by keeping this part of his biography going wikipedia also faces a threat as there is simply no evidence to support this claim of prostitues which his lawyers have furiously denied. Please let me know your views. Londonfella ( talk) 17:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
User 68.35.66.81 has in a past edit claimed to be the subject, Sandy Szwarc, and has repeatedly edited the page to the point that it reads like a c.v., only saying positive, non-controversial things about her. I personally don't know anything at all about this person, but when I read the page it just didn't seem "wikipedia-ish" to me-- it sounded more like an "about the author" piece you'd read in a magazine. The previous version of the article read more like an encyclopedia entry and had more citations, so I reverted to that. A week later user 68.35.66.81 reverted this edit. Earlier versions had many more negative/controversial things to say about this woman, so I gather that she is a somewhat controversial figure. I'm new here at wikipedia, so I guess I'd really just like someone more experienced to look over this issue and tell me what the correct protocol is. Thanks. April-flight ( talk) 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked User:92.1.40.145 for block evasion ( User:Levelub44h, indef blocked for legal threat, earlier for edit warring). Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This article was almost stable until one editor decided he would try adding material to the lead and infobox to see if he could start an editwar.
By agreement, Joe's old tax lien (now paid) was long ago removed from the article as a primary issue. This editor has readded it -- not to the main body of the article , but to the lead.
By agreement, all mention of "license" was placed in a section specifically set aside for his "career." The editor has now added the license issue to the lead, and intends further changes per his post to an admin where he stated his desire for an editwar.
He now claims that the old consensus is gone, and he intends to add all he can to "restore balance" (his words) in an article which finally was almost NPOV. All I ask is for some independent eyes to review this (last time, the vast majority here said if a person acted as a plumber, his occupation was "plumber" but that wisdom is now totally elided from some editor's ken. Many thanks! Collect ( talk) 16:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Collect just had his butt handed to him in a series of RFCs and now he's forum shopping. This is not a BLP issue but a content dispute. Check out the Talk page before you accept this. Revelant Sections include Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC:_Career_and_Licensing, Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RfC:_Current_Occupation_of_Samuel_Joseph_Wurzelbacher_.28aka_Joe_the_Plumber.29, and Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#taxes_again.3F. Mattnad ( talk) 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC).
To others: The discussion at TJtP and TSP, even with KC offering to block me for extended periods, are ongoing. With consensus not favoring the opinions of some editors. And the claim that I screamed anything similar to the imputed quote above is errant. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 11:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for this headline: "Wikipedia editors decide Joe the Plumber is not a plumber: Editors JimbobHarleyD1340 and SuperOverLordXXX authorities on the subject." Avruch T 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Consider also [52] , [53] (two discussions), and several RfCs in JtP which you elide here ... picking and choosing what you cite is not very "inclusionist" at all. And the clear canvassing done by one editor makes this discussion a tad tainted at this point. Collect ( talk) 11:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Part of the problem could be that most people don't care about "Joe the Plumber" anymore now that the election's over. BTW the article, or at least the intro, is worse now than it was a month ago. Steve Dufour ( talk) 14:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
For once I agree with a substantial portion of Collect's position ( By agreement, Joe's old tax lien (now paid) was long ago removed from the article as a primary issue. This editor has readded it -- not to the main body of the article , but to the lead. By agreement, all mention of "license" was placed in a section specifically set aside for his "career." ) However, this current edit war does not appear to be a BLP issue and I am not sure why Collect has brought the JtP article here yet again.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Basically because the WP:3RR page says this is where such content disputes should be heard lest an editwar start. Coming here *before* a promised editwar appears to be the intent of that section, in fact. Collect ( talk) 13:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This biography is undergoing replacement by a largely unreferenced piece by an anonymous editor, who may well be the subject. I'm not sure how this should be dealt with so I am posting here. An article on this subject was deleted previously, I guess because of similar material being placed there instead of a proper article? -- Utinomen ( talk) 22:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a concerted effort by one individual to defame the name and work of television investigative reporter Roberta Baskin. Please refer to the wiki cite. This person repeatedly had deleted all FACTUAL references to her career and awards and, instead, wants to focus on a defamation of character lawsuit filed 15 years ago against CBS which later was withdrawn. Furthermore, this person insists on tying the "Gotcha" label to Baskin's current employer, WJLA-TV which had no part in that earlier lawsuit. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldoggy ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't edit many BLP pages, so I'm pretty much unclear about this. In this edit to Diana Napolis, the words "who harassed individuals she believed" were removed citing BLP and OR. I don't know about the OR and am pursuing with the editor, but is it a BLP concern? The section discussing the harassment is sourced to Cyberstalking, published by Praeger Publishers (now the Greenwood Publishing Group). Is it adequate? Are there other concerns? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be some attacks on Laura Coleman, current Miss England. I've removed the text from the Miss England page but noticed the same text was used on her page. I think this might be one to watch/lock/whatever because someone obviously doesn't like her! Alastair Moore ( talk) 11:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.130.173 ( talk)
We've uncovered an unusual situation on the Tite Kubo article, and would appreciate some outside input. Essentially, we are debating whether material with a reliable source can be included if the source's sources are suspect - in this case, a newspaper article that reports as fact information that was removed from the Wikipedia article some time ago as a potential hoax. Doceirias ( talk) 07:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Joel Osteen article needs intervention, as well as Lakewood Church. User:MikeDoughney has continually removed a section from Criticism & Controversy, citing a variety of policies. When questioned as to why he thinks those policies ban the material, he simply restates them or says that "You should read the policies." The policies don't in any way prohibit the material added, the fact that a person who made international news for the criticism of Pat Robertson(albeit this submitter) both wrote a book and held a protest outside Osteen's church(verified with both a video of the event and the mention of the event in two federal courts, both sources properly cited) meets all WP standards. I have attempted discussion with User:MikeDoughney several times, including on the talk page, but he has yet to respond. He, however, continues to delete the material. Adamkey ( talk) 10:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
First, I'm not trying to sell anything. The book, my thesis from my M.I.S. degree program, is available for free in PDF form. If people want a hard copy, they simply pay the cost of production. Further, the reference to the book is to give background for the protest itself. The section doesn't reference the book to promote it.
Please see my comments on the Joel Osteen talk page in regards to Soapbox and COI. As far as WP:UNDUE, I am not giving voice to a viewpoint, I am reporting on an event that occured. I can talk, for instance, about Fred Phelps protesting military funerals without giving undue weight to his minority beliefs about the government.
Concerning WP:BLP, the information posted was verifiable, which is the primary requirement of BLP. The posting is not a paraphrase of the book(in fact, the event happened long after the publication of the book so a report on the event could not possibly be contained in the book). Further, reporting on an event does not smear a person as it expresses no opinion whatsoever. The WP:COI page states "Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia."
Finally, as I understand it, YouTube is allowable to supplement an entry if it can be confirmed by another source. In this case, the federal court filing by Regent University(accepted as fact by courts in SD-Texas and ED-Virginia) verifies it. Adamkey ( talk) 12:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on arguments made by lyonscc, I am yielding on this issue. Adamkey ( talk) 15:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Problem: Streona and Emeuralde have expressed a deep hatred against the British National Party (see talk page), and keep inserting potentially libellous information about fascism being a politic of the BNP. Fascism is not an official politic of BNP, and the fascist term itself is potentially misleading and offensive. Firstly I asked for the removal of the fascist label from that place. They rejected it. I tried to reach a compromise suggesting things like adding (denied by BNP) to the fascist label in the infobox, but due to their strong hatred against this party, they just did not accept any compromise. Please look at this page: Talk:British National Party. Thanks. -- Eros of Fire ( talk) 21:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The people who support the article stating that this organization is neo-fascist have long since cited sources that state exactly that. The article has several sources, already cited, that directly characterize this political party as fascist. At least one, Thurlow, appears to be a credentialed expert writing directly in his field of expertise. Whereas the people who have been saying "We want to add 'denied by the BNP'" are the ones who have been asked for sources to support that, again and again. Reading back to Talk:British National Party/Archive 9#Fascism NPOV, Talk:British National Party/Archive 8#References of Fascism, and Talk:British National Party/Archive 6#Neo-fascism? it seems that everyone else has been asking them, repeatedly, for such sources since at least March 2007, and they have yet to provide any.
The situation doesn't appear to be a biography matter, but a simple put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is-and-cite-sources matter, and the above appears to be an attempt to substitute WP:BLP drama and ad hominem arguments in place of actually answering that almost-two-years-old charge to cite sources. Uncle G ( talk) 01:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
There are some examples of the BNP condemning fascism (or what they perceive as fascism):
I think these can be used as sources. If that is not enough, I do not what is enough.
Noawadays BNP condemns fascism Eros of Fire ( talk) 01:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is this discussion of BLP/N? The BNP is not a person, it's an organization. (Whether it's "living" or not is for others to say.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
James B. Lockhart III ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One or more editors from the IP range 141.156.72.xxx have made numerous changes to the page (see diff).
The edits are disruptive not only to the substance (removing relevant, well-sourced, NPOV information, replacing it with redundant recitations of the subject's official bio--political spin and all), but also in form (removing internal links and citations).
This IP range appears to be registered to HUD, raising obvious NPOV and COI issues (not to mention inappropriate use of taxpayer money).
DGG ( talk) semiprotected the page against anonymous edits.
Cooperage ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user twice ( this time and this time) reverted addition of relevant, properly sourced material. (Since, as of this notice, that user hasn't made any additional changes since the last week of December 2008, I am not requesting a checkuser at this time.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongomatic ( talk • contribs) 1:43 January 16, 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. |
Could I get a second opinion on Julia Camoys Stonor? There seem to be sources, which is the only reason I did not speedy it, but the article has some obvious problems. DGG ( talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Darko Trifunović ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article about a controversial Serbian commentator, has repeatedly been the subject of problematic editing from anonymous IP editors. The edits all follow a similar pattern - removal of material that the anons feel casts the subject in a bad light, attempts to convert the article into a poorly-sourced, illiterately-worded promotional piece, rants posted to the talk page and so on. I've long suspected that the man himself is the one responsible for these edits. A new editor, Dusan Trifunovic ( talk · contribs), who claims to be "a relative", has recently appeared and is repeatedly making the usual problematic edits. He has made a number of edits to other articles to promote Serbian ultra-nationalist views about Bosnian Muslims, and he appears to have previously edited from an IP address (compare [1] and [2]). The same IP editor has posted abusive remarks about other admins [3] and talk page rants [4] . I've indef-blocked Dusan Trifunovic for disruptive editing, but it would be appreciated if people could keep an eye on the article for further abusive editing. -- ChrisO ( talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone previously uninvolved run an eye over this from a BLP angle? -- WereSpielChequers 18:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"extreme flagalantes" don't think that applies to his time in Congress.
Leon Panetta's appt to CIA is controversial. Suggest lock down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.30.226 ( talk) 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at the William Timmons bio to see if it is violation of BLP guidelines? 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. 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. 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 is also instructive that no mainstream media mentioned Timmons in their coverage of the trials. I question the purpose of the Huffington Post article alleging illegal activities almost fifteen years ago despite the fact that no criminal charges were ever filed and the subject was not even involved in the trial. I suggest this entry does not meet the standards of Wikipedia, defames a living person, and therefore should be removed. -- Rtally3 ( talk) 20:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The article in question was an edited piece in a reliable source. While HP does publish opinion and blog content, it also publishes fact-checked reporting like the article in question. Rtally3 is just forum-shopping this argument and ignoring the facts that have been presented in response to it. Murray Waas - the journalist who wrote the article - is well respected, and I have already shown Rtally3 the HP's editorial staff page, which puts to rest the claim that this is no better than a blog. csloat ( talk) 05:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Point of note: these are Uncyclopedia links. I don't know if they are problematic, but there may be a discussion in the archives somewhere. -- NE2 08:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
for now.
An editor claiming to be the subject of the article has been reverting to his preferred version, and also page blanking. There are comments about this on my talk page, and also the AfD page. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Levelub44h made a legal threat and given the other behaviour, I've blocked for that. Please also see my comments here. Gwen Gale ( talk) 00:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Once again the bio of Alan Shawn Feinstein has been sanitized. All references to the dubious nature of how he made his money, selling "collectibles" of dubious value, and the fact that he insists of naming rights for anything he donates money to have been removed. There is documentation of the former at http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20040321_asf21.25b49b.html and everyone in Rhode Island laughs at the the latter.
This sanitizing editing has been going on repeatedly. It seems impossible to keep this bio accurate. Personally, I have better things to do with my life than fix it constantly, but I would hope there would be some way to keep it accurate.
In the article Adult Children of Alcoholics I removed unreferenced naming of people who are claimed to fall into this category, the list was re-inserted, I removed again with note on the talk page. Some of the names have been added again, although few of the WP articles of the relevant persons confirm they should be on the list, the only external link does not not confirm that the person should be listed - which makes me a little concerned with the book references. Can somebody look at the article and talk page and assure me there is not conflict with WP:BLP?. Many thanks. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Kelly Holmes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Is the discussion about whether Kelly Holmes is lesbian on the talk page appropriate content? No sources are quoted// Tim P ( talk) 18:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Could some more active editors add this infrequently vandalized stub to their watch lists? Some bloggers got into a feud with this Romanian entertainer, and they're likely the ones inserting 4-letter words in his Wikipedia bio every now and then. Last time the vandalism remained unchallenged for a week or so. Thanks, Pcap ping 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Peter_Tatchell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- I've been watching this BLP for awhile and Tatchell seems to be a prolific leftist, for lack of better sweeping generalizations. He writes voluminously on all sorts of matters and is a considered a human rights activist although he also specializes in LGBT rights. I can't say I read any of his work but looking at Peter_Tatchell#Regarding_Islam_and_Muslims, someone sure does. This mini section has ballooned out of portion but I'm reticent to remove the whole thing. Anyone up for untangling this? -- Banjeboi 03:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Jackiestud made this posting to Talk:Jodie Foster, attacking her regarding her statements regarding her beliefs re: God, i.e., that she does not belief that God exists. Part of that posting is disparaging to her intelligence. I removed the comment here, stating "this is not a forum". User:Jackiestud reverted my removal here, stating "But it´s my commnet concernig the article..." User:Verdatum replied to the return here, agreeing with the removal (but didn't remove it), saying "comment has nothing to do with this article, you are questioning her beliefs. If you want to have a debate with her, phone her up, don't discuss it here." User:Jackiestud replied to that here, saying "I´d like to leave it since I believe Iam not the only nor the last to be suprised..." Meanwhile this still constitutes a WP:BLP violation by attacking Foster's beliefs, and I posted a very strong response here, reaffirming that WP:TALK says "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." When I realized that User:Jackiestud did not intend to respond, I then removed the postings a few days later here as a WP:BLP violation issue. Some 8 hours later, User:Jackiestud returned all of the section, except for my strong objection to the content, here, saying "Can you respect third opinion?" I have posted a warning to User:Jackiestud's talk page here, including a notice that I've reported this here, and am going to remove the comments once again, as a violation of WP:TALK and WP:BLP. I would appreciate some backing on this, as this user is only interested in sermonizing and attacking Foster's belief, outside the realm of any productive article improvement suggestions. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 16:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a recent post on the talk page [7] of this article that amounts to a complaint that the article is improperly biased as a personal attack on the author of the book. Perhaps this article needs to be checked for WP:BLP compliance, and maybe also WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently in this BLP is the following:
Palin appointed[29] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon and his department sometimes billed rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits.[46] An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy.[47]
Is this a contentious issue per BLP? If it is contentious, would it require a clear consensus for inclusion, or a clear consensus for exclusion? Is what ammounts to a "no evidence" statement sufficient to counteract any potential mis-association of Palin with "rape kits?" Is the term "rape kit" intrinsically NPOV when making such a statement in a BLP? I trust I have asked all this in a fully neutral manner. Collect ( talk) 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
and currently
although I prefer
which shows Palin's own response to questions the local Wasilla paper, the Frontiersman, put to her in an email interview.
As I have said before of the kit budget issue, on the talk page: "In addition to relevance in its own right, it has significance in the Stambaugh firing because of Stambaugh's assertion that he had proposed a line item in the budget to cover the cost of the kits. It is indispensable to an understanding of Palin's choice of subordinates, her oversight of their policies, and her treatment of political rivals." The budget is not currently mentioned in the article, see Talk:Sarah Palin#'First term' section: Sexual assault evidence gathering kits / budget passage for my proposed version. Anarchangel ( talk) 01:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, what a party I missed yesterday :-). If it makes things any clearer, I asked KC to keep an eye on me, since she's got more experience with explosive BLPs, and she's given me solid advice in the past on another issue. I don't quite agree with her reading of the policies (namely, whether or not the bit of content in question is a "BLP" issue or whether that even matters), but the editors involved can try to reach consensus on it whether or not it's on the page. As far as I'm concerned, it all boils down to whether something controversial should be kept in the article until there's an agreement, or whether it should be kept out of the article until an agreement is reached. My impression (possibly mistaken) was that it should be kept out. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Joseph X. Forte is a well known basketball player with an article Joseph Forte. An apparently unrelated Joseph S. Forte has been charged with conducting a Ponzi scheme, and I've started an article on him, putting a hatnote to go to Joseph Forte for the basketball player. Is there anything else I should do? BTW Joe S. has already gotten national press and will likely get more due to the parallel with Bernard Madoff so I don't think WP:BLP1E applies, but if anybody thinks so, please let me know. Smallbones ( talk) 16:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This obviously controversial current event is attracting a lot of anonymous edits that are not being careful with the BLP policy. Article may need protection. THF ( talk) 02:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to suffer from recentism and undue weight given to his involvement in recent events. Steve Dufour ( talk) 12:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Brief explanation // This entry has repeatedly stated, without base or reference, that Alexis Debat had graduated from the Monterey Institute under the name of Hyve Debat. This is baseless and untrue. Hyve Debat was indeed a student at the Monterey Institute, but has no relation to Alexis Debat.
It has been said on Placido Domingo ‘s article, that he is a Spanish-Mexican tenor. According with the sources he was born in Spain, and he lived in Mexico since he was 8 until he was in his early 20s. On source Well, all the sources say that he is a “Spanish Tenor”, but some people insist on changing it without proving that he has indeed the Mexican nationality / citizenship / passport. Actually, most sources on the internet refer to Placido as an Spanish Singer/Tenor and so do Encarta, Britannica etc. However, some people insist on changing it. Here are some references:
It seems like this has been on for a while and I think it is time to settle: Is Placido Domingo Mexican as well as an Spaniard?? Does he have the Mexican Nationality? -- Nandonaranja ( talk) 19:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment: He was born in Spain. His parents were both Spaniards at the time of his birth, although they held Mexican citizenship later (see [33]). I also asked my mother (who is Spanish, and while not an authority by any stretch of the imagination, her family is related to his) and she'd never heard anything other than him being called Spanish. Considering all the sources that identify him as Spanish, I think you already have your answer. -- Chasingsol (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Nandonaranja.. I am amazed! You called me vandalised Plácido Domingo article? Care to look at the history of the article? You said you want the article to be as precise as possible but you neglected his parents, both his wives and his son - they are all Mexican; not to mentioned many other of his family members. You want it to be precised but what is your contribution to that article other than arguing about this? If you looked at Domingo talkpage (archived) from the beginning, at once I was like you. I keep removing "the Mexican" part from the page until I did research and understand his history, his family and his "special feeling" like what quoted by Karljoos. I have been working in this article for years (by contacting his Manager and family to get the "precise" facts like "what you want" but yet you just burge-in and call me doing the "vandalism" and insisting on one "part" only without understanding the whole thing? I never denied his Spanish origin. At once, this article was heavily edited, some said "Spanish" while the other party said "Mexican" (PLEASE LOOK AT THE HISTORY). Instead of having continues edit warring between "Spanish" and "Mexican", I wrote it as "Spanish-Mexican". Personally he deserves to be part of Mexican. There is where most of his family members are/from and where he grew up. You can report this to the admin and call me vandalism if you want, but the fact is, he is half Spanish-Mexican by the history of his life. That is precise! What makes me upset with you is, you called me "that" without checking - Jay ( talk) 03:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor keeps adding non-notable and probably defamatory accusations to the lede. I have called the BLP policies to his attention on the talk page numerous times now [34], but he keeps re-adding the claims. I would appreciate it if someone could intervene. -- Number OneNineEight ( talk) 22:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I am saying that these claims are being given undue weight by being included in the lede. I am not suggesting that they be excluded from the article generally. They are also claims that were made by some notable figures in the late 70s and early 80s, but are not made by any notable figures today, and the formulation that Will Beback keeps adding creates the false impression that these views are widely held now. -- Number OneNineEight ( talk) 01:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Listing every accusation is not really the same as NPOV -- as long as the charges are made in the body of the article, enumerating them all in the lede seems a tad like overkill. And I don't like LaRouche one whit. Collect ( talk) 23:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This all seems to be wriggling around a bit. First the accusations were characterised as defamatory, and then when they were shown to be cited statements by others, the objection was that they shouldn't be in the lede. The lede needs to be our best shot at describing the topic if that's all the reader has time for. So the question to me is, how important to understanding LaRouche is it to have a fairly wide range of views represented in the lede? I'd say it is pretty important, omitting them would leave a fairly incomplete picture in the minds of readers. I know this will make me unpopular with some folk, but oh well. I think BLP policy isn't being violated here, and the material, as modified, should remain in the lede. ++ Lar: t/ c 17:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
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 of fascism and anti-Semitism are clearly intended to damage the reputation of LaRouche. LaRouche has repeatedly stated his opposition to fascism and anti-Semitism. The motives of those who make the accusations need to be examined (for example, DP Moynihan was being challenged in an election campaign by a Jewish member of the LaRouche organization when he made his comment.) Lar says that the lede is supposed to serve as a "snapshot" of the article for those who are too busy to read the fine print. Therefore, putting these accusations in the lede does harm to LaRouche's reputation without providing the reader with information which might correct a false impression. I'd like to hear from Will Beback why it is so important to him that these accusations be in the lede instead of being in the body of the article. -- Number OneNineEight ( talk) 18:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Reality check: "anti-Semite," "fascist or neo-fascist," and "the leader of a political cult" are all defamatory, period. It doesn't make any difference who said it or where it was published. The courts in the U.S. are notoriously lenient towards defendants in defamation cases, which is why LaRouche doesn't get sued by the people he attacks. The correct wording for the intro would be:
'Do no harm and reality check - LaRouche's reputation can not be hurt by what's in this article. It's just saying that other people (in widely distributed publications) have said these thing. The reality check is that these other people have said "anti-Semite," "fascist or neo-fascist," and "the leader of a political cult" and that LaRouche has not successfully sued them for defamation, and since we are just quoting them there is no possibility of defamation. This is well within the rules, get over it. Smallbones ( talk) 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
And here I thought that the simple proposal I made was actually going to work. Seems IPs are stubborn folks ... Collect ( talk) 21:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Except a single deletion by User:Leatherstocking, all of the deletions have been done by new users and IPs. The material has been restored in one form or another by five established users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Consider these edit summaries:
Accounts blocked as sockpuppets of User:Herschelkrustofsky, see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Herschelkrustofsky
Recent accounts
Due to the content and style of the edit summaries, the shared POV, the familiarity of new users with policies and noticeboards, this expertly made edit, and the history of sock puppetry on this topic, it appears that these new accounts/IPs are operated by the banned user. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The new users and IPs have not shown that the material added in November violates any aspect of WP:BLP. It has been shown that the material reflects the opinions of a variety of notable individuals and is presented neutrally with proper weight. Unless the aim is to keep filibustering, I suggest that we close this thread and mark the matter as resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I've just posted excerpts from 14 33 71 periodicals, mostly mainstream newspapers, covering a 24-year period that make reference to anti-semitism in regard to LaRouche, his organizations, or writings.
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research That's in addition to the 18 55 excerpts on the topic of fascism, posted on the same page previously and subsequently. Those should be sufficient evidence that the criticisms have been made by a variety of sources for decades.
Will Beback
talk 00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Will Beback
talk
10:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
In light of the dozens of sources added to the research page that make similar assertions, I propose this text:
I don't think there's any benefit to defining who the "critics" or "supporters" are - expressing an opinion doesn't assign a place in either column automatically. We could add a few dozen sources on the "political cult" assertion that has not been a point of contention, if need be. Will Beback talk 11:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm confused. what is it you're asserting there is or isn't consensus for, exactly? This seems like a great deal of ink expended for not a lot of result. The criticisms of Larouche that have been put forth in the proposed lede are all well sourced from mainstream reputable sources. Why are you trying to whitewash this? You seem a reasonable enough person, except for this one topic (anything to do with Larouche)... just let it go. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
So we're done, then? ++ Lar: t/ c 03:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor, "Bhirsch," continues to repeatedly post a slanderous comment citing a letter to the editor which is unsubstantiated and not able to be confirmed online. Attempts to remove the incorrect citation has led to "Bhirsch" posting it again and the page has now been locked by "Bhirsch." Here is the text in question. Even the title of the letter is not cited correctly:
Position on Tobacco
While serving as Commissioner of Public Health, Koh stated he had considered asking that cigarettes in Massachusetts be required to bear a label stating, "You are the scum of the earth." Smokers are the scum of the Earth. 26 Feb 2005. The Boston Globe. --
134.231.180.190
21:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone review the recent IP edits to this article? I don't know the subject well enough to be able to tell, but there seems to have been added some dubious claims. Thanks, Skomorokh 01:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
A user claiming to be Sol Wachtler, former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, has been removing well-sourced background material about the felony charge to which he pleaded guilty, including this citation to a New York Times news article. User claims "...printing them as fact are defamatory and untrue". -- CliffC ( talk) 03:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Our article on Arthur Kemp is being edited by Arthur Kemp ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who seems to object to a particular article written about him by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I do not think it reasonable to remove completely reference to the article this group wrote about him. I understand the need for attribution, but I think that the user himself is likely going to continue to remove any and all mention of the article no matter how it is presented. We need some administrator help here. - ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/ A site dedicated to members, present and past - discussion/blog site-what I see as many grave violations of wp:BLP being repeatedly inserted. Various IPs, which have never edited any other article, are all inserting, reinserting or reverting removal of the link. It contains, for example, accusations of rape, tolerance of rape, etc. by persons named in 1st-person posts. I have used all 3 reverts for today, and had not read some of the detail until now. I am concerned that this REALLY needs to not be linked, but still am unclear whether the wp:3rr exception extends to ELs, and think not. sinneed ( talk) 07:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no personal interest in this deceased individual, just noticed a month or so it was a very long mostly unsourced article that knocks him. So I cut it back to basics - still mostly unsourced. But an editor who from Talk obviously doesn't like the guy keeps reverting it back to its current state, claiming all this material is sourced in some unref'd news articles. Could some one else look at? Cut it back to basics or delete it? (I'm not sufficiently interested to research it myself and his critic refuses to.) CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
A user by the name of Jaf1970 who claims to be the man featured in the article continually inserts controversial claims into his wikipedia page, including that he undeniably has the world's largest penis, and sources them to websites that claim the same but offer no actual proof. It roughly amounts to OJ Simpson writing that he has undeniable proof that he is not guilty by citing a web page that claims he is not guilty. Update: The article has since been locked. Could someone step up and do something? // 24.226.123.110 ( talk) 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Scantily-referenced BLP of an alleged criminal, could use a closer look to ensure sources support the text fully. Skomorokh 17:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Assistance would be appreciated at this article. A single-purpose account, one which has previously been blocked for 3RR and sockpuppetry, is attempting to insert NPOV, OR, and SYNTH violations in the article. This user has refused discussion while loudly making insulting comments and claiming abuse and has now returned to sockpuppetry. Gamaliel ( talk) 02:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Requesting an outside look and some advice regarding this articles talk page. There is material being pushed by editors that is highly inflammatory and appears to step all over the intent and spirit of WP:BLP. While I realise that talk pages are not the article, they are still a publicly viewable resource. I removed a new comment from an editor who stated that the subject is "Primarily a rapist and sex offender", but was reverted and berated for it's removal. I am unsure of the best way to handle the situation. Any insight that can be provided would be greatly appreciated. Best regards. -- Chasingsol (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an utter disaster of an article, presenting a viewpoint that doesn't exist in sources at all — not even in the arguments made by the defence. However, the murder case has been a prominent and recurring feature in the Irish press over the past three years, so there are a fair number of sources for writing about it. (Judgement in this person's appeal is expected now, in fact, after a 1-day hearing on the 17th of last month.) One somewhat unusual problem with the usual solution (a speedy rename to Murder of Rachel O'Reilly and rapid refactoring) is that the victim's name is currently the subject of a dispute, between the victim's parents (who want her maiden name used) and her husband (who wants her married name used), that may well end up in court. Uncle G ( talk) 16:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem: some articles in the missing people category have this template used on them. The template then adds them (incorrectly) to Living people. The solution: should these templates be replaced with other templates? If so, which? Or create a new template for unreferenced missing people articles. Thanks. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 21:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I have concerns about the controversy section with regard to the alleged prostitutes scandal. It is my belief that this section is potentially libelous because of the fact that it is reporting rumour. None of the claims are backed up by references that work. There is a reason why both the Times and the Telegraph newspapers removed these articles online, because they were threatened by his lawyers with libel action. Now by keeping this part of his biography going wikipedia also faces a threat as there is simply no evidence to support this claim of prostitues which his lawyers have furiously denied. Please let me know your views. Londonfella ( talk) 17:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
User 68.35.66.81 has in a past edit claimed to be the subject, Sandy Szwarc, and has repeatedly edited the page to the point that it reads like a c.v., only saying positive, non-controversial things about her. I personally don't know anything at all about this person, but when I read the page it just didn't seem "wikipedia-ish" to me-- it sounded more like an "about the author" piece you'd read in a magazine. The previous version of the article read more like an encyclopedia entry and had more citations, so I reverted to that. A week later user 68.35.66.81 reverted this edit. Earlier versions had many more negative/controversial things to say about this woman, so I gather that she is a somewhat controversial figure. I'm new here at wikipedia, so I guess I'd really just like someone more experienced to look over this issue and tell me what the correct protocol is. Thanks. April-flight ( talk) 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked User:92.1.40.145 for block evasion ( User:Levelub44h, indef blocked for legal threat, earlier for edit warring). Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This article was almost stable until one editor decided he would try adding material to the lead and infobox to see if he could start an editwar.
By agreement, Joe's old tax lien (now paid) was long ago removed from the article as a primary issue. This editor has readded it -- not to the main body of the article , but to the lead.
By agreement, all mention of "license" was placed in a section specifically set aside for his "career." The editor has now added the license issue to the lead, and intends further changes per his post to an admin where he stated his desire for an editwar.
He now claims that the old consensus is gone, and he intends to add all he can to "restore balance" (his words) in an article which finally was almost NPOV. All I ask is for some independent eyes to review this (last time, the vast majority here said if a person acted as a plumber, his occupation was "plumber" but that wisdom is now totally elided from some editor's ken. Many thanks! Collect ( talk) 16:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Collect just had his butt handed to him in a series of RFCs and now he's forum shopping. This is not a BLP issue but a content dispute. Check out the Talk page before you accept this. Revelant Sections include Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC:_Career_and_Licensing, Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RfC:_Current_Occupation_of_Samuel_Joseph_Wurzelbacher_.28aka_Joe_the_Plumber.29, and Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#taxes_again.3F. Mattnad ( talk) 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC).
To others: The discussion at TJtP and TSP, even with KC offering to block me for extended periods, are ongoing. With consensus not favoring the opinions of some editors. And the claim that I screamed anything similar to the imputed quote above is errant. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 11:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for this headline: "Wikipedia editors decide Joe the Plumber is not a plumber: Editors JimbobHarleyD1340 and SuperOverLordXXX authorities on the subject." Avruch T 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Consider also [52] , [53] (two discussions), and several RfCs in JtP which you elide here ... picking and choosing what you cite is not very "inclusionist" at all. And the clear canvassing done by one editor makes this discussion a tad tainted at this point. Collect ( talk) 11:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Part of the problem could be that most people don't care about "Joe the Plumber" anymore now that the election's over. BTW the article, or at least the intro, is worse now than it was a month ago. Steve Dufour ( talk) 14:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
For once I agree with a substantial portion of Collect's position ( By agreement, Joe's old tax lien (now paid) was long ago removed from the article as a primary issue. This editor has readded it -- not to the main body of the article , but to the lead. By agreement, all mention of "license" was placed in a section specifically set aside for his "career." ) However, this current edit war does not appear to be a BLP issue and I am not sure why Collect has brought the JtP article here yet again.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Basically because the WP:3RR page says this is where such content disputes should be heard lest an editwar start. Coming here *before* a promised editwar appears to be the intent of that section, in fact. Collect ( talk) 13:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This biography is undergoing replacement by a largely unreferenced piece by an anonymous editor, who may well be the subject. I'm not sure how this should be dealt with so I am posting here. An article on this subject was deleted previously, I guess because of similar material being placed there instead of a proper article? -- Utinomen ( talk) 22:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a concerted effort by one individual to defame the name and work of television investigative reporter Roberta Baskin. Please refer to the wiki cite. This person repeatedly had deleted all FACTUAL references to her career and awards and, instead, wants to focus on a defamation of character lawsuit filed 15 years ago against CBS which later was withdrawn. Furthermore, this person insists on tying the "Gotcha" label to Baskin's current employer, WJLA-TV which had no part in that earlier lawsuit. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldoggy ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't edit many BLP pages, so I'm pretty much unclear about this. In this edit to Diana Napolis, the words "who harassed individuals she believed" were removed citing BLP and OR. I don't know about the OR and am pursuing with the editor, but is it a BLP concern? The section discussing the harassment is sourced to Cyberstalking, published by Praeger Publishers (now the Greenwood Publishing Group). Is it adequate? Are there other concerns? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be some attacks on Laura Coleman, current Miss England. I've removed the text from the Miss England page but noticed the same text was used on her page. I think this might be one to watch/lock/whatever because someone obviously doesn't like her! Alastair Moore ( talk) 11:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.130.173 ( talk)
We've uncovered an unusual situation on the Tite Kubo article, and would appreciate some outside input. Essentially, we are debating whether material with a reliable source can be included if the source's sources are suspect - in this case, a newspaper article that reports as fact information that was removed from the Wikipedia article some time ago as a potential hoax. Doceirias ( talk) 07:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Joel Osteen article needs intervention, as well as Lakewood Church. User:MikeDoughney has continually removed a section from Criticism & Controversy, citing a variety of policies. When questioned as to why he thinks those policies ban the material, he simply restates them or says that "You should read the policies." The policies don't in any way prohibit the material added, the fact that a person who made international news for the criticism of Pat Robertson(albeit this submitter) both wrote a book and held a protest outside Osteen's church(verified with both a video of the event and the mention of the event in two federal courts, both sources properly cited) meets all WP standards. I have attempted discussion with User:MikeDoughney several times, including on the talk page, but he has yet to respond. He, however, continues to delete the material. Adamkey ( talk) 10:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
First, I'm not trying to sell anything. The book, my thesis from my M.I.S. degree program, is available for free in PDF form. If people want a hard copy, they simply pay the cost of production. Further, the reference to the book is to give background for the protest itself. The section doesn't reference the book to promote it.
Please see my comments on the Joel Osteen talk page in regards to Soapbox and COI. As far as WP:UNDUE, I am not giving voice to a viewpoint, I am reporting on an event that occured. I can talk, for instance, about Fred Phelps protesting military funerals without giving undue weight to his minority beliefs about the government.
Concerning WP:BLP, the information posted was verifiable, which is the primary requirement of BLP. The posting is not a paraphrase of the book(in fact, the event happened long after the publication of the book so a report on the event could not possibly be contained in the book). Further, reporting on an event does not smear a person as it expresses no opinion whatsoever. The WP:COI page states "Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia."
Finally, as I understand it, YouTube is allowable to supplement an entry if it can be confirmed by another source. In this case, the federal court filing by Regent University(accepted as fact by courts in SD-Texas and ED-Virginia) verifies it. Adamkey ( talk) 12:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on arguments made by lyonscc, I am yielding on this issue. Adamkey ( talk) 15:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Problem: Streona and Emeuralde have expressed a deep hatred against the British National Party (see talk page), and keep inserting potentially libellous information about fascism being a politic of the BNP. Fascism is not an official politic of BNP, and the fascist term itself is potentially misleading and offensive. Firstly I asked for the removal of the fascist label from that place. They rejected it. I tried to reach a compromise suggesting things like adding (denied by BNP) to the fascist label in the infobox, but due to their strong hatred against this party, they just did not accept any compromise. Please look at this page: Talk:British National Party. Thanks. -- Eros of Fire ( talk) 21:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The people who support the article stating that this organization is neo-fascist have long since cited sources that state exactly that. The article has several sources, already cited, that directly characterize this political party as fascist. At least one, Thurlow, appears to be a credentialed expert writing directly in his field of expertise. Whereas the people who have been saying "We want to add 'denied by the BNP'" are the ones who have been asked for sources to support that, again and again. Reading back to Talk:British National Party/Archive 9#Fascism NPOV, Talk:British National Party/Archive 8#References of Fascism, and Talk:British National Party/Archive 6#Neo-fascism? it seems that everyone else has been asking them, repeatedly, for such sources since at least March 2007, and they have yet to provide any.
The situation doesn't appear to be a biography matter, but a simple put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is-and-cite-sources matter, and the above appears to be an attempt to substitute WP:BLP drama and ad hominem arguments in place of actually answering that almost-two-years-old charge to cite sources. Uncle G ( talk) 01:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
There are some examples of the BNP condemning fascism (or what they perceive as fascism):
I think these can be used as sources. If that is not enough, I do not what is enough.
Noawadays BNP condemns fascism Eros of Fire ( talk) 01:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is this discussion of BLP/N? The BNP is not a person, it's an organization. (Whether it's "living" or not is for others to say.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
James B. Lockhart III ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One or more editors from the IP range 141.156.72.xxx have made numerous changes to the page (see diff).
The edits are disruptive not only to the substance (removing relevant, well-sourced, NPOV information, replacing it with redundant recitations of the subject's official bio--political spin and all), but also in form (removing internal links and citations).
This IP range appears to be registered to HUD, raising obvious NPOV and COI issues (not to mention inappropriate use of taxpayer money).
DGG ( talk) semiprotected the page against anonymous edits.
Cooperage ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user twice ( this time and this time) reverted addition of relevant, properly sourced material. (Since, as of this notice, that user hasn't made any additional changes since the last week of December 2008, I am not requesting a checkuser at this time.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongomatic ( talk • contribs) 1:43 January 16, 2009 (UTC)