![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Would anyone like to please watchlist and or monitor John Lakian for BLP violations and vandalism? Seems like there were some negative, hurtful comments added to the article which stayed in for quiet a while, and the possibility of future incidents seems likely. More eyes on the situation would help.- Andrew c [talk] 18:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
And the PROD was removed. The only source was to court testimony, not a valid source, so I've removed it. This article now has no sources. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I am in danger of violating 3RR. I said that SPLC was an anti-white hate group. I want that section removed because the sources are unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonglerOfRocks ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This was at RS/N not all that long ago. The consensus was that as an opinion of the SPLC, it was usable as an opinion only, and that Kemp's denial was also proper to use to counter the opinion. There is a reasonable belief that Kemp is sufficiently monor that the article should be deleted -- he wrote a book which is not of major importance, and he works for the BNP -- elsewise he has not been actually notable. Collect ( talk) 13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a real child actress, but the article as created on 30 June is largely a cut-and-paste from Logan Miller. I tagged it db-g3, then realised it might be a work-in-progress, untagged it and watched it. The author Transfromers2 ( talk · contribs) did nothing more with it and on 4 July was blocked as a sockpuppet given to "Adding blatant fake information to articles of films and actors" - see here.
I have blanked the article (as it gives inaccurate information about a living child) and PRODded it, explaining the situation on the talk page. If anyone is interested, one possibility would be to research the real Kasey Russell and make the article accurate. I have posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers in case anyone wants to follow that up; but I doubt if she is notable enough, her IMDb entry shows a single credit for one 2009 film in which she is #26 in the list of "Cast in credits order".
Posted here in case anyone thinks more drastic action (like zapping it as WP:CSD#G3 blatant misinformation) is required. JohnCD ( talk) 20:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
There is serious facts about Boyko Borisov that can't be masked. I am not much experienced wikipedian, who can write strong facts without allowing NPOV and controversy. I am sure that if I don't look for the article, all facts will be deleted. -- 91.124.250.109 ( talk) 14:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Mmmbrownn ( talk · contribs) tagged Matthew Brown (producer) for deletion, writing that "There is inaccurate information on here. Please delete this page as I did not approve." Could someone take a look at this article? I can't see any errors or BLP violations. Cunard ( talk) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Unsourced information about Alexander Lascelles having a child and no information about a wife or the mother of the child. Can this be sourced, or should it be removed? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 21:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Jezhotwells made 8 edits yesterday. Jezhotwells accused 4 users of being the same person(s) with different accounts. Jezhotwells needs to know that this user is not affiliated with another account. Jezhotwells blocked users from using Wikipedia! Jezhotwells is attacking a legitimate BLP that is more than 2 years old. Jezhotwells is attacking a legitimate BLP with more than 12 different editors. Jezhotwells is attacking a legitimate BLP with a history of several independent positive reviews on quality and importance (in 2 categories). Jezhotwells took advantage of one user lowering a rating yesterday (not improving it!) to start the attack. Jezhotwells does not recognize that this article adheres to all policies on biographies of living persons. Jezhotwells should be asked to please leave this article alone. Jezhotwells is being reported to the Notice Board for these reasons. Thank you. CommCorr —Preceding unsigned comment added by CommCorr ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC) CommCorr ( talk) 19:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
User is continuing to make disruptive edits by adding possible BLP violations to the article. snigbrook ( talk) 09:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a minor issue. Is it acceptable to call this Israeli politician "far-right" like this, if there are several newspaper articles that call him that, or is it necessary to qualify the description like this? Prezbo ( talk) 08:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Julio Mateo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have a question for those more familiar with dealing with contentious material on BLPs:
{{BLPunsourced}}
here.{{BLPsources}}
as the sports-oriented content remained undercited (
here).I'd like feedback from those more familiar with this area on whether my adjustments were okay, if removal was preferable, or whether a different approach would have been better. Please could someone cast an eye over it? Thanks, Whitehorse1 01:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC).
Robert Garside's run around the world was dogged by well known and well documented controversy. I've been trying to add a section to this effect (with sufficient referencing) to his bio page. However, someone - I strongly suspect Garside himself, given that the IP address used corresponds to his mother's known location in Slovakia - keeps removing the information without discussion. This may need some sort of protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.217.186 ( talk) 20:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now repeatedly removing content from this page and creating false comments in his/her edits. The user also refuses to debate on the discussion page over the content of the article.
The criticism section in this article seems over the top to me, appreciate admin feedback. Mentions like, "spoke of his "gratuitous spleen", "He behaves like someone with a massive chip on his shoulder.", Krugman's critics have also accused him of employing what they called a "shrill" rhetorical style. Also, does this section seem too large? Shouldn't it be integrated into the article. Thanks in advance. Scribner ( talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
P. J. Proby ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anonymous IP keeps adding unverified disparagement and reverting other editors. Please can somebody have a look and deal with matter as they see fit. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Anton incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Offliner ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing "alleged" from the article [2]. It was already discussed here, yet Offliner is insisting on reverting, creating a potential BLP violation. As I understand it, kidnapping is a serious crime and unless a court of law has proved guilt one must use the term "alleged", otherwise it could be considered libellous. While Anton's father is not mentioned explicitly, there is enough information to cause potential problems. Could someone look at this. -- Martintg ( talk) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just stubbed this article, which was miserably sourced and promotional in a very odd way (it made the subject's early life sound like something out of Lemony Snicket's novels, with too many references to skydivers, suggesting a substantial chance of hoaxing). Other eyes may be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a serious issue with the page on Bal Thackeray ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Many of the critical issues, such as controversies that may involve Mr. Thackeray have been deleted and replaced with obviously biased statements such as "He his couragious Marathi man to opppose any bad activities by any one.Because of this character he is linked with various controversies.He is great Patriot" (sic). This is noted in the Early Life and Career, Controversies, Views on Muslims, and Views on People From North India sections. At the moment I have not edited it as I fear I lack information and citations to correct this. But there is little doubt that this article is clearly not up to the neutrality (and factual-based) standards of Wikipedia. 71.183.174.161 ( talk) 19:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'm going to restore an earlier version; looking into the history a user deleted all controversial statements and replaced it with bias. 71.183.174.161 ( talk) 19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a small issue. Over 20 sources were deleted. Looking back at the page history, the article previously had nearly 30 references, which detailed controversies. The current article has 8 sources. Can someone help me restore this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bal_Thackeray&oldid=300936613 71.183.174.161 ( talk) 19:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Career" section of the page reads "Also he is currently practicing being a dead beat father, which he is really good at"
This comment clearly violates the Biographies of Living Persons Policy and has been readded repeatedly and is certainly libellous. It should be removed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casy26 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Is a mention that Mandelson attends, or has attended in the past, Bilderberg Group meetings, undue weight in a BLP? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Ron Kampeas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My biography (the biography of Ron Kampeas) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Kampeas contains a substantive error of fact and an interpretation of international law that is phrased in a way to suggest that it is fact. Here is the problematic passage:
Ron lives in "an apartment in East Talpiot, one of Jerusalem's post-1967 "new" neighborhoods, one [Kampeas] purchased with a loan that had favorable terms for olim, or new immigrants."[3] East Talpoit is considered by much of the international community to be an Israeli settlement.[3]
In fact, I own the apartment. It should be clear from the source (a blogpost I wrote) that I am writing about an apartment that I own, not live in. It should be clear from the very status described in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry that I live in the Washington area. So, first of all, it should read "Ron owns 'an apartment in East Talpiot...." (By the way, the second reference to the neighborhood is misspelled - it should read "Talpiot.")
The characterization of East Talpiot as a settlement is at least controversial. It is a neighborhood that fell partly within Israeli lines according to the 1949 armistice; it remained uninhabited until after the 1967 war because parts of it were militarized (by the Israeli and Jordanian armies) and parts were no-mans-land. In any case, unlike some of the other "new" neighborhoods in Jerusalem, it was not in an area wholly controlled by Jordan. Furthermore, describing the new neighborhoods as legally settlements also is controversial. Israeli groups opposing settlement are careful to distinguish between neighborhoods such as East Talpiot established in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 war and efforts today to encroach into established areas of Palestinian residence. See the East Talpiot entry in this summary by Americans for Peace Now, a lead group activating against settlement, and republished by a Palestine Liberation Organization website and note its use of "Israeli neighborhood" to describe existing (as opposed to planned) building in East Talpiot: http://www.palestine-pmc.com/details.asp?cat=3&id=1174
More saliently, the phrase "considered by much of the international community to be an Israeli settlement" appears to be backed up by footnote 3; I wrote the blogpost to which footnote 3 refers, and claim no such thing. This at least warrants the removal of the footnote marker so the Wikipedia reader is more able to judge this reference as bias and not indisputable fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameispip ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, this helps very much. My biography on my employer JTA's staff page makes clear I'm the Washington bureau chief; this, practically, involves living in the Washington area: http://jta.org/about/staff Most of my bylined articles are datelined "Washington". This is the most recent: http://jta.org/news/article/2009/07/07/1006372/afterv-weeks-of-watching-iran-israel-us-groups-push-forward And here's one from one of JTA's clients, the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, including a photo I took at a DC event during inauguration (just to prove absolute, physical presence in an age where some news services our outsourcing reporting - although, to be clear, JTA, thankfully, is still old fashioned about datelines): http://www.jewishchronicle.org/article.php?article_id=11116 My wife lives with me; she does not co-own the apartment in East Talpiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameispip ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Editor Allstarecho appears to be using the article to push an agenda. I tried to trim the opening paragraph to our standards, but was reverted by him. I'd appreciate it if others would have a look and decide whether turning his biography into a political argument is appropriate. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for not notifying me of this discussion ChildofMidnight. Also, thanks for leaving out the fact that I left you a note on your talk page as to my reversion that has absolutely nothing to do with POV. The fact is the article is under Arbcom probation (imagine that.. you involved in such an article) and you made a controversial change that has been discussed already at great lengths and that lead to the subject of the article, User:Bluemarine, being community banned from Wikipedia and Arbcom banned for a year. I asked you on your talk page to read through the talk page archives of the article and I asked you to get a consensus before making any changes to the article. Your reply? You filed a section here at the BLP noticeboard. As to the actual content itself, the consensus was established for that content and for the fact that it's what lead to the article subject's outing as a gay porn star. Your attempts to remove the content, despite the article being under Arbcom probation with a big tag that even says so, shows your own lack of NPOV and attempts at whitewashing. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here 03:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just spent a fair amount of time cleaning this article about a British pornographer up, removing various unsourced claims, original research, and in particular unreferenced/unverifiable assertions that various named and apparently living persons were involved in various pornographic films; some of the people were independently notable, some not so. Some of the claims are likely true, some apparently quite dubious; under BLP, all the names needed to go. Having started to work on several related articles, I've realized that the entire bloc of articles are very little more than original research published on Wikipedia by now-departed editor User:Gavcrimson, who is now publishing such material on his own blog, and who deleted a large portion of it from Wikipedia a year or so ago with the edit summary "With regret I am deleting all of my original research, as it seems in constant threat of being challenged/deleted anyway, and I no longer wish my work to be associated with this site." But he didn't get all of it. My impulse is to stub all the remaining articles based on his contributions. Absent rescue by other editors in the interim. All that I've looked at raise serious BLP and OR concerns. Examples are Come Play With Me and The Nine Ages of Nakedness (the second not so bad an article as the first.) Is there any disagreement? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor wishes to replace a stable and undisputed section of a BLP article, Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Gays and AIDS, with a new version that appears to be a WP:COATRACK case. The most contentious point is the editor's desire to include material from a newspaper article about the trial of someone who was charged with assaulting a LaRouche activist. The defendant says that she "was outraged by posters she saw outside the post office which she recalled saying: 'Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor.'" The alleged slogans on the posters, in the proposed new version, are to be presented as a "view of LaRouche," which I believe violates WP:BLP#Reliable sources. This example is only the most contentious of many in the new version, which otherwise conforms to the definition of a WP:COATRACK. Inflammatory views which do not come from the subject himself are being imputed to the subject. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Those are two quotations by LaRouche predicting or endorsing the killing of gays or AIDS carriers. Will Beback talk 04:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the draft section(s) linked to, this does not look like a coatrack, because the article itself is a coatrack, and the issue is about using the article to include an item that the coatrack was not intended for. If this were a biography, then the answer would be clear - unless the views expressed by supporters were about LaRouche himself, then any material attributing views to LaRouche that are voiced by his movement should be removed - whether about gay/AIDS or other topics. However, this is not a BLP, it is an article about a living person's views which has been bought to the noticeboard.
I would plump for first suggestion (as it easiest) - rename the article to avoid forking, future BLP concerns (because the article is about an ideology, but given the name of a living person) and ensure balance and neutrality; if this is not acceptable, then I'd say rigorous enforcement of BLP policy throughout the entire article, and it for some reason neither of these gets to happen - make the material an article in its own right, with a link from within the existing section of gay/AIDS. Mish ( talk) 09:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be phrased better, thus:
Political candidates and organizations make their policies and views known through various sorts of official channels, and that is the proper, encyclopaedic way to cover them here. For Will's benefit, the Jeremiah Wright controversy took place because Wright was a supporter, or "follower" if you prefer, of Barack Obama; he made some inflammatory statements, which Obama's opponents then used in an attempt to embarrass Obama. There is no reason to change the title of the "Views" article other than as a tactic to get the disputed material in, and since the material violates BLP no matter how the article is titled, I say skip it. Coleacanth's proposal to find a "home" for anecdotes about rowdy activists at the AIDS initiative article seems like a simple solution. Are there any objections to it? -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 01:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Compare this with other presidential also-ran:
former US Presidents:
or international heavyweights:
This whole series of articles seems to be undue for one man and his political movement; the navbox, micro-detail and expanse of coverage doesn't suggest this is because of his detractors, rather an abuse of this encyclopedia to promote this movement. Mish ( talk) 16:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this article urgently needs more attention from an experienced editor who is knowledgeable about the case and its coverage or has the time to do the necessary research. [12] I have reverted this edit for the moment, but it seems there were earlier, similar editors from another IP that are still in the article. Hans Adler 09:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Article has possible WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE issues (related: otrs:2009071210033789).
Please take a look at Lkoler ( talk · contribs) and this thread. I would prefer that our article talk pages not be used to cast gratuitous and unsourced aspersions. However, I have not been particularly successful in my interactions with the user in question, and in fact have given up entirely on our Clarence Thomas article as a hopeless editing environment. So perhaps someone else could have a word with Lkoler, or not. MastCell Talk 19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
A lot of blp-violating vandalism at Regina Benjamin. Please keep an eye out. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 20:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I am involved in a dispute with two editors on a climate change article, Ratel, and of course Kim D. Petersen, who wish to include very prominently in a page on the skeptic Ian Plimer's book, Heaven and Earth, the following very negative, and insulting text:
This refers to a newspaper review of the book by an astronomer on the subject of climate science. The issues I've raised with this are (1) inclusion of non-specific remarks that seem to add nothing to the article but are merely idly insulting; (2) prominent airing of the views of someone commenting outside his own area of expertise (i.e. the article is making out that Professor Ashley is an expert in climatology when in fact climatology is not even mentioned as one of Ashley's interests on his CV. Ashley's area is astronomy, only at best tangentially relevant to the subject of the book he's reviewing). Finally, the entire article is subject to a neutrality dispute, where it is argued that it is most unbalanced, which seems to be a rather intractable problem at the moment. Alex Harvey ( talk) 01:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Brigitte Gabriel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some fresh eyes on this on please. I took a look at it today for the first time in several weeks and it has got completely out of hand - there are way too many quotations from her books and similar material. I think a major chop job is in order but I just don't know where to start. Thanks. – ukexpat ( talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Dash Snow ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rumors of his death are spreading, & the page already has him listed as dead, though it hasn't been confirmed. Not sure what the proper templates, etc are for this; thought it best to bring it to everyone's attention. -- mordicai. ( talk) 17:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
An edit war going on there between two editors, with some moderate incivility on the part of one of them ( stop getting on my nerves then). There seems to be some dispute over whether certain sources are used. In addition, it appears that IP editors are adding cruft to the article. Probably needs some attention. McJeff ( talk) 06:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the entry is biased and reads like a subtle defence of Jani Allan's notorious public image. I also think that the detailed explanations, quotations, and cited reference amount to original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. The entry simply does not read like an encylopaedic entry. What is more, it has been written, edited and rewritten by a single user, who, apart from defending the subject, constantly adds irrelevant detail.
EmjayE2 ( talk) 21:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it an irrefutable fact that Richie Woodhall has a "beautiful wife called Jayne" ? Surely this statement is subjective, & should therefore be removed. It suggests the article has been written by the subject matter, his wife, a close personal friend or a relative. "He is married, to Jayne." will suffice in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Switchhitter25 ( talk • contribs) 08:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Not a BLP issue
|
---|
Born(10 June 1988) in Wete, Nothern Pemba district in Zanzibar Tanzania.He spent his childhood life in Kizimbani village in Wete-Pemba. As the norms of Zanzibar at the age before begining schooling he went to Madressa for geting foundation in Islamic knowledge. He attended Madressa called 'Hayatul Atfal' (Children's life). At the age of eight in 1996 He began his primary education at Kizimbani primary School which was formally known as Kizimbani Catholic Mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.244.70 ( talk) 21:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Not a BLP issue
|
---|
Please feel free to see article Anti-Israel lobby in the United States and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Israel lobby in the United States as a particularly egregious case of a WP:attack page and wp:coatrack page where extremely partisan sources are allowed to insult and attack individuals and groups. Very bad precedent for this article to survive, IMHO. FYI CarolMooreDC ( talk) 01:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Stuart Miles ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Stuartmiles ( talk · contribs) has changed birth year on the Stuart Miles page to 1974 several times. This user claims to be the actual Stuart Miles but has not yet shown independent published evidence to support the alternative birth date claimed. The majority of published sources show Miles' birth date to be 1969 (as broadcast in a Blue Peter episode) with a minority showing birth date as 1970. Some discussion has already taken place on the talk page and on the user page with no resolution so far. A previous WP:COI/N was discussed and as a result a note was added on the user page though with no follow-up to date.
Example diffs:
— Teahot ( talk) 09:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Cope The last line of "Use in media" is vandalism. However, I can't remove it because it doesn't appear when I try to edit the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneufeld ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The Rush Limbaugh Show ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Repeated insertions of poorly sourced partisan material. Cited sources include comedian Stephen Colbert and the progressive (a political viewpoint at odds with the views of the show's host) group Media Matters for America. -- Allen3 talk 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of SPA repeatedly adding in personal details about the individual's family including the names of the children and salacious details about Lancaster's divorce. There may be sockpuppetry issues with the SPA. I've been dealing with this on and off for a few days but having more eyes on it might help (especially since I'm not going to have much internet access for close to 48 hours). JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
There have appeared several articles about reality TV show series, such as The Hicks (since deleted), and The Suburbs (web series), and, presumably The Hills, The Real Housewives of New Jersey, etc., which are supposedly real showings of people going about their lives, and appearing on TV. When the articles discuss bad things which the people involved in these series do, and they're totally sourced to the shows themselves, do these edits violate WP:BLP? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
In Response to a "BLP unsourced" notice requesting help at the top of the article, warning that the article did not cite references as required by BLP policy, I added two references, and noted that on the talk page.
The article now seems to comply with the policy, particularly as it applies to "Well-known public figures." The subject is a well-known musician in South-Asia, and there is nothing inaccurate, controversial, or inappropriate in the article. I would like to remove the "BLP unsourced" notice, and just want to confirm it's OK before doing so. -- Dalesundstrom ( talk) 07:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Gianmichael Salvato ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm not at all concerned with the apparent vandalism to the page as it seems to be reverted fairly soon after it's discovery, however I am concerned that the page does not meet the guidelines for notability.
Upon going through the history and finding pages that were not actually vandalism, most of the text took on the feel of a personal advertisement rather than a biography. None of the information contained any real verifiable information as to education, business dealings, notability, and the such which violates WP:BLP#Reliable sources. In fact, many of the references are WP:SELFPUB#Self-published sources .28online and paper.29. It was filled with weasle and peacock.
There was even a claim that he was a well known and notable author (or some such thing), however, searches on all his names for books written produced only two books on-line through Lulu.com (goto storefront for dharmadude it will come up with Mr. Salvato's information.) Researching his education from information provided at Linkedin shows his diplomas are from a Diploma mill and are not notable at all.
It further seems as if there are personal interests involved with this page and it is requested a third unbiased person step in to make a determination if the page should actually remain or if it should be deleted. I've not yet marked the page for possible deletion and since I've never done so before, felt I should get another perspective on this before I make such a drastic suggestion.
Thank you in advance for whatever help may be offered. Kjnelan ( talk) 17:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
So, we now have a nude video, apparently, of this very pretty woman. It's made its way to Wikipedia with a flurry edits. It is referenced at the moment, and her lawyer has admitted it occurred. My reading of BLP says the only reason to remove it would be "right to privacy" - apparently we're observing this policy on Miley Cyrus for some revealing cellphone photos last year. Thoughts? Magog the Ogre ( talk) 01:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the title of this article POV in the extreme? It was originally at this title, then it got moved to Simon Sheppard (activist), which seems more NPOV, and then it got moved back again. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 20:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
During her time as governor, Sarah Palin had eighteen ethical complaints filed against her. We are having a disagreement about how to describe one of them. This source says ( http://www.adn.com/palin/story/841059.html)
The reimbursement, which was due today, stems from a Feb. 23 agreement filed by an Alaska Personnel Board special investigator that resolved an ethics complaint alleging Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her.
The personnel board found no wrongdoing, but Palin agreed to reimburse the state for costs associated with trips found to be of questionable state interest.
The board's investigator, Timothy Petumenos, said in his report there is little guidance under state rules to determine ethical standards for travel by the governor's immediate family. But he interpreted the law to require that the state pay only if the first family serves an important state interest.
Some of the editors believe that the allegation that Palin "abused her power" should be included in the article. Some believe that the finding of "no wrongdoing" indicates that the Board threw out the abuse allegation, and that it should be omitted from the article as prejudical and contrary to BLP policy. Do you have an opinion about whether or not the abuse allegation should be included in the bio? Jarhed ( talk) 08:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The only material that can reasonably appear in the artiCle are the final findings, which were "no wrongdoing". All the rest (allegations subsequently dismissed, unsubstantiated claims of "abuse of power") confuse the issue, and are a potential libellous violation of WP:BLP. LoverOfTheRussianQueen ( talk) 23:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The phrase abuse of power is the most egregious problem with the passage, since there's nothing even in the allegations, as described, to justify that kind of phrasing, which is normally used when someone in power is hurting a specific party who is not powerful. The allegation, from what I see of it here, is closer to tax cheating -- something that anybody could try, no official power needed. Palin cited the fact that she was getting ridiculous ethics complaints as one reason for stepping down -- that hardly justifies even this much treatment of allegations that were dismissed. Prominent allegations that are dismissed may still be used in an article because they've been prominent, but that prominence is obviously very limited once they're dismissed. It would be better to try to stick to facts -- say a representative allegation or two which are described in factual terms, not in phrases that are fraught with loaded meanings. -- Noroton ( talk) 18:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Problems with the Roland Perry page have returned. The very experienced user YellowMonkey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted the content extensively, with these actions including: loading up the Cricket Book section in a very unbalanced way with purely negative criticism and removing positive reviews; cutting away all of the subject's career overview except to wrongly emphasise a related political article in Penthouse and leaving one para on a minor Guam project (rendering the career section bizarre); and willfully adding a paragraph which directly maligns the subject [see first edit]:
I would appreciate any ideas and assistance to resolve these problems.
Balanced content and sources can give a fair view of the subject; but only if there are the conditions for genuine discussion and development of the content.
Despite many invitations, the YellowMonkey user has not used the Talk:Roland_Perry to discuss content changes to date.
This is all very disappointing.
Haruspex101 ( talk) 13:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
Attempted this DIY Reversion: DIY Revert. Hope YellowMonkey user will take editing proposals to Talk:Roland_Perry. Haruspex101 ( talk) 14:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
User:Houstonfoochik keeps removing a reference to an article in The Independent, on the grounds that it is "defamatory". I believe it is a reliable source, though admittedly only secondarily relevant to the subject. The article is a commentary on another article (in the Daily Telegraph) about the subject. — Ashley Y 08:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking this might be in violation of WP:THREAT? — Ashley Y 22:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. de Nugent is a white supremacist, and this biography is relatively new, very lengthy, and its subject is pretty pleased with it. Its creator, User:BobKostro, has created a mess by uploading multiple copyrighted images he claims he has the permission to upload, but there are no OTRS tickets. Since de Nugent thanks Kostro for "this article on me on Wikipedia, which is designed to provide factual and credible information" about his white supremacy, he probably does have permission, but that's not how we operate. Anyway, this article could stand a review, as it read to me almost like an advertisement for de Nugent's white supremacy and his championing of his repeated victimization. -->David Shankbone 21:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
On Soulja Boy Tell 'Em ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a third opinion was requested for the potential use of Twitter links in order to justify inclusion of a currently circulating story (on blogs) that this rapper had posted a picture of himself in his underwear with an apparently faked bulge in his pants. The opinion given was that the story did inform as to his public persona and had been of sufficient public interest to be considered notable for inclusion if suitable reliable sources could be produced.
This notice has been raised in order to help judge if the article at bestweekever.tv can be considered a reliable source or is a "questionable source" as per the guidance of BLP.
The discussion in question is Talk:Soulja Boy Tell 'Em#Twitter controversy.— Teahot ( talk) 08:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The bestweekever.tv article linked on the discussion above begins: "ONTD informs us that rapper Soulja Boy". "ONTD" (Oh No They Didn't!) is a blog; it's actually a LiveJournal.com community account, which means any LiveJournal.com user can contribute a 'celebrity'-gossip related entry. We evaluate sources by determining what sort of fact checking they do. We can look at news articles verifying the site's reliability or significance, show they're backed by a news media company, point to a page that explains how they accept submissions and how they fact check, etc.
The 'article' highlighted comprises two short 2-sentence paragraphs. No About page is clearly visible on the bestweekever.tv site; the site has a VH1 logo in the top right. It is clear the 'article', with the site, is a "Gossip" page, rather than any substantive coverage of music or showbiz. In this specific case, where the gossip piece starts by pointing to a blog anybody can post to as their source for the information, there is no reliable published source for the information. Information and opinion does not become reliable by virtue of being repeated & cited in another source along with a comment.
As no reliable sources providing the information without merely regurgitating earlier unreliable sources have been presented, the information does not belong in the article. The self-published Twitter source in this case is not appropriate, as we do not use such sources to present information with—direct or indirect—commentary as to what we, as editors, believe it "represents". Content that is not required in order to give a neutral encyclopedic article, that is not discussed by reliable published third-party sources as relevant to understanding the living subject as a whole, does not belong in the article. – Whitehorse1 09:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
A report that Leopoldo have died of a heart attack was posted on the MMA.tv-forums and is currently being added to the article. A few unreliable sources have reported on the post, but no reliable sources have confirmed it. I'm at 3RR and would rather not keep reverting alone. Thanks, -- aktsu ( t / c) 13:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is currently at AfD, but may be kept due to the subject's notability as a national polo player. If you look at the page history, it's pretty clear that the user linked above has an agenda. I've both edited the article & !voted for deletion on the AfD, so I'm no longer an 'uninvolved admin'. -- Versa geek 14:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear. Am I only one that thinks that, true or not, having him in Category:Impostors and the caption under his pic calling him discredited former "expert" is a bit much? Sticky Parkin 23:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The former detainee, Rasul Kudaev, has been held for more than three years in pretrial detention in Nalchik, a city in southern Russia, where he is accused of participating in an October 2005 armed uprising against the local government. Human Rights Watch's investigations into Kudaev's case found that he was severely beaten soon after his arrest to confess to crimes.
The most severely abused was Rasul Kudaev, who was picked up in October 2005 for allegedly participating in an attack on several government buildings in southern Russia. (Kudaev says he was wrongfully accused.) According to Kudaev's lawyer, who visited him in prison shortly after his arrest, one of his legs had been broken and his face beaten to the point of disfigurement.</ref>
-- Unitanode 19:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just declined a speedy G10 as it is sourced, but I'm off out in a minute so fresh eyes would be welcome. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Alex Sink ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There's a persistent anon editor who's continually adding a half-the-length-of-the-article hit piece about this gubernatorial candidate. Can a few people keep an eye on this one? Rebecca ( talk) 15:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Unitanode 20:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Katja Shchekina ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biography is continually being edited to include poorly sourced information regarding the model's ethnic background. Both of the sources cited in the article are basically soft core pornography sites with low journalistic standards. There is also absolutely nothing in either of the articles which establishes which parent is of what ethnicity, and the page is being edited to intermingle poorly sourced information with the personal opinions of the editor. The issue of this model's ethnic background began as internet speculation and it continues to persist in that vein. It has already been established in the discussion page that there is evidence elsewhere which completely contradicts a mixed Somali-Russian background (i.e. the model's own claim that she is not part Somalian). The article is also being persistently edited to include subjective phrases like "in demand model", "top designers" and "is a favorite with". I think the article should avoid remarks about parentage and race entirely.
-- Unitanode 20:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this page which appears to have serious BLP issues. Specifically, many of the article requests accuse named individuals of serious crimes, without sourcing. This should be looked into. *** Crotalus *** 14:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Charles G. Koch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The material in this [ ] is supported only by a single editorial from a marginal news source and is a cut and paste job to boot. A new user User:Stormport keeps adding this material back in. Perhaps some attention might help this situation. Bonewah ( talk) 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Unitanode 18:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Unitanode 21:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be good if someone disinterested in Houston Politics could look over the articles for the candidates in the Houston mayoral election, 2009.
Specifically: Annise Parker, Gene Locke, Peter Hoyt Brown, and Roy Morales. -- Nogburt ( talk) 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Professor Carl Hewitt has again been attacked in the article about him on Wikipedia. 68.170.176.166 ( talk) 22:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia instigated the defamatory attack by The Observer on Carl Hewitt is another amazing Wikipedia scandal. Does Jimmy Wales know about it? 71.198.220.76 ( talk) 19:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The complaint in
Wikipedia instigated the defamatory attack by The Observer on Carl Hewitt seems to be that the following section of the article violates NPOV:
Given that we are on the topic of the incompleteness of the article, the talk page says:
"Ruud Koot removed the following material from the article:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Just doing due diligence on a source. Does this article meet BLP requirements? Yworo ( talk) 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This version includes questionable/contradictory/badly sourced biographical material on the lead singer, Dave Carroll in the "Personal life" section. I just want a second opinion rather than removing it myself. Thanks TH ( talk) 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
We are having an issue here, and it concerns StephenLaurie ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a suspected sock of User:Eleemosynary,an indefinitely blocked editor who has resumed activity at the article where the suspected sockmaster had been article banned. This article has been placed on probation by ArbCom and problematic editors can be article-banned at Admin discretion. On 21 July 2009, after several episodes of what might be described as "suspicious and tenditious" editing by User:StephenLaurie, an Arbitration Enforcement Request was filed by Durova 280, as seen here. In part, she said:
StephenLaurie is an editor with highly focused interests, arguably a single purpose account. Nearly all of his article and article talk edits have been to the Matt Sanchez article and the related Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article. [31] The Matt Sanchez biography, a BLP, is under arbitration general sanctions. Additionally, this account behaves like a returning user with long knowledge of the personalities involved in this dispute. Possibly this could be Eleemosynary, who was article banned from Matt Sanchez in April 2008 and indefinitely blocked shortly afterward. Note the edit summary of the first ever edit by this account, [32] the account's second ever edit summary asserts a familiarity with the Sanchez history. [33] With less than 20 total account edits StephenLaurie was tagging suspected Bluemarine socks (Bluemarine is Sanchez's username) [34] [35] [36] [37] then removing posts from the Eleemosynary user talk. [38] Eleemosynary's and StephenLaurie's edit interests have substantial overlap (note Thomas Scott Beauchamp controversy and Matt Sanchez in the Soxred report), [39] and StephenLaurie's POV on the Matt Sanchez article is indistinguishable from Eleemosynary's. He even claims to know my history with Sanchez, although he distorts it badly. [40] A new account would probably not recognize me, although Eleemosynary would have bitter recollections because I had something to do with his article ban and indefinite block. Whether this is enough to establish StephenLaurie as the sock of a banned user is something for the reviewing administrator to determine, yet if the socking determination is inconclusive discretionary sanctions may still be warranted per the diffs above and this dialog. [41] Durova 280 05:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
These diffs show evidence of possible sockpuppetry by StephenLaurie, dubious editing habits, and the appearance of an SPA account. After deliberating, Sandstein felt there was insufficient evidence (partly due to technical shortcomings in the diffs) for an offical ArbCom sanction; however, the door was very specifically left open for individual Admins to review and apply their discretion.
All BLPs are sensitive and one that is on article probation is obviously much more so. In addition to issues raised by Durova, I had concerns about StephenLaurie's interaction wiith almost all other editors on that page, and his attitudes toward both the article and its subject. Specifically:
negative aspersions and speculation about good faith editors]
veiled accusations of meatpuppetry when others oppose his view
this entire line of dialogue was offensive in tone and nature as he (again, veiled) attacked the character of an honorable editor.
Finally, certain apects of his edit summaries like this, taken in conjunction with his other comments, give a certain air of excitability and paranoia to his editing. These are not greatly desireable elements in someone editing a delicate and controversial BLP.
Finally, as seen throughout most of his talkpage remarks, he seems opposed to any change which might cast a favorable light on Matt Sanchez, the article subject. That, combined with concerned comments from other editors, have led me to conclude that his participation in this article has become counterproductive. It appears that some sort of intervention is needed, and I invite the scrutiny of interested parties. Doc Tropics 01:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The subject of the Paul H. Carr (physicist) article created it last week and I moved and expanded it. He is now interested in selectively removing certain publicly available information for privacy reasons. My own opinion is that if it's properly cited and neutral, it doesn't violate any policies and therefore it should stay, but as he and I are the only ones to have edited the article, I think it's time to get some fresh eyes on the situation. Thanks! Frank | talk 21:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The controversy section of this article had some allegations of racism against the chairman. I found an IP ( 98.23.14.232) vandalizing/removing references from it, and reverted it as vandalism first, but blanked the section later as some of the sources appear to be blogs. From the page history it seems the text has been removed and put back several times [42] [43]. As I said I'm not sure about the reliability of the refs, help from experienced users would be appreciated. Thanks — SpaceFlight89 04:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
BLP article edited extensively by the subject, User:Homer16moore. While the article is much better than most BLP's by the subject, it still needs some cleanup and help from BLP-experienced wikipedians. Mc JEFF (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone repeatedly has posted that Chloe Smith took office on both July 23, 2009 and July 24, 2009. First of all, it is impossible for someone to assume an office the day before the result was announced - so please STOP claiming July 23 as this day. Secondly, it is sourced numerous places that she is not an MP, merely elected to the seat. It technically remains vacant until she is seated in the house in October. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohrflote ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Unitanode 19:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
For an insertion of material as potentially volatile as this is ("ill advised remarks regarding the racist arrest"), I don't believe that Kos is enough. Also, 3RR is just a "bright line", not a "permission to edit war up to here" standard. If one knows when they're "at the limit", it's probably an indication that more discussion -- not assessment of where the limits of our reversions are -- is in order. Unitanode 17:49, 24 July 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. |
Would anyone like to please watchlist and or monitor John Lakian for BLP violations and vandalism? Seems like there were some negative, hurtful comments added to the article which stayed in for quiet a while, and the possibility of future incidents seems likely. More eyes on the situation would help.- Andrew c [talk] 18:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
And the PROD was removed. The only source was to court testimony, not a valid source, so I've removed it. This article now has no sources. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I am in danger of violating 3RR. I said that SPLC was an anti-white hate group. I want that section removed because the sources are unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonglerOfRocks ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This was at RS/N not all that long ago. The consensus was that as an opinion of the SPLC, it was usable as an opinion only, and that Kemp's denial was also proper to use to counter the opinion. There is a reasonable belief that Kemp is sufficiently monor that the article should be deleted -- he wrote a book which is not of major importance, and he works for the BNP -- elsewise he has not been actually notable. Collect ( talk) 13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a real child actress, but the article as created on 30 June is largely a cut-and-paste from Logan Miller. I tagged it db-g3, then realised it might be a work-in-progress, untagged it and watched it. The author Transfromers2 ( talk · contribs) did nothing more with it and on 4 July was blocked as a sockpuppet given to "Adding blatant fake information to articles of films and actors" - see here.
I have blanked the article (as it gives inaccurate information about a living child) and PRODded it, explaining the situation on the talk page. If anyone is interested, one possibility would be to research the real Kasey Russell and make the article accurate. I have posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers in case anyone wants to follow that up; but I doubt if she is notable enough, her IMDb entry shows a single credit for one 2009 film in which she is #26 in the list of "Cast in credits order".
Posted here in case anyone thinks more drastic action (like zapping it as WP:CSD#G3 blatant misinformation) is required. JohnCD ( talk) 20:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
There is serious facts about Boyko Borisov that can't be masked. I am not much experienced wikipedian, who can write strong facts without allowing NPOV and controversy. I am sure that if I don't look for the article, all facts will be deleted. -- 91.124.250.109 ( talk) 14:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Mmmbrownn ( talk · contribs) tagged Matthew Brown (producer) for deletion, writing that "There is inaccurate information on here. Please delete this page as I did not approve." Could someone take a look at this article? I can't see any errors or BLP violations. Cunard ( talk) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Unsourced information about Alexander Lascelles having a child and no information about a wife or the mother of the child. Can this be sourced, or should it be removed? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 21:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Jezhotwells made 8 edits yesterday. Jezhotwells accused 4 users of being the same person(s) with different accounts. Jezhotwells needs to know that this user is not affiliated with another account. Jezhotwells blocked users from using Wikipedia! Jezhotwells is attacking a legitimate BLP that is more than 2 years old. Jezhotwells is attacking a legitimate BLP with more than 12 different editors. Jezhotwells is attacking a legitimate BLP with a history of several independent positive reviews on quality and importance (in 2 categories). Jezhotwells took advantage of one user lowering a rating yesterday (not improving it!) to start the attack. Jezhotwells does not recognize that this article adheres to all policies on biographies of living persons. Jezhotwells should be asked to please leave this article alone. Jezhotwells is being reported to the Notice Board for these reasons. Thank you. CommCorr —Preceding unsigned comment added by CommCorr ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC) CommCorr ( talk) 19:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
User is continuing to make disruptive edits by adding possible BLP violations to the article. snigbrook ( talk) 09:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a minor issue. Is it acceptable to call this Israeli politician "far-right" like this, if there are several newspaper articles that call him that, or is it necessary to qualify the description like this? Prezbo ( talk) 08:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Julio Mateo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have a question for those more familiar with dealing with contentious material on BLPs:
{{BLPunsourced}}
here.{{BLPsources}}
as the sports-oriented content remained undercited (
here).I'd like feedback from those more familiar with this area on whether my adjustments were okay, if removal was preferable, or whether a different approach would have been better. Please could someone cast an eye over it? Thanks, Whitehorse1 01:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC).
Robert Garside's run around the world was dogged by well known and well documented controversy. I've been trying to add a section to this effect (with sufficient referencing) to his bio page. However, someone - I strongly suspect Garside himself, given that the IP address used corresponds to his mother's known location in Slovakia - keeps removing the information without discussion. This may need some sort of protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.217.186 ( talk) 20:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now repeatedly removing content from this page and creating false comments in his/her edits. The user also refuses to debate on the discussion page over the content of the article.
The criticism section in this article seems over the top to me, appreciate admin feedback. Mentions like, "spoke of his "gratuitous spleen", "He behaves like someone with a massive chip on his shoulder.", Krugman's critics have also accused him of employing what they called a "shrill" rhetorical style. Also, does this section seem too large? Shouldn't it be integrated into the article. Thanks in advance. Scribner ( talk) 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
P. J. Proby ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anonymous IP keeps adding unverified disparagement and reverting other editors. Please can somebody have a look and deal with matter as they see fit. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Anton incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Offliner ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing "alleged" from the article [2]. It was already discussed here, yet Offliner is insisting on reverting, creating a potential BLP violation. As I understand it, kidnapping is a serious crime and unless a court of law has proved guilt one must use the term "alleged", otherwise it could be considered libellous. While Anton's father is not mentioned explicitly, there is enough information to cause potential problems. Could someone look at this. -- Martintg ( talk) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just stubbed this article, which was miserably sourced and promotional in a very odd way (it made the subject's early life sound like something out of Lemony Snicket's novels, with too many references to skydivers, suggesting a substantial chance of hoaxing). Other eyes may be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a serious issue with the page on Bal Thackeray ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Many of the critical issues, such as controversies that may involve Mr. Thackeray have been deleted and replaced with obviously biased statements such as "He his couragious Marathi man to opppose any bad activities by any one.Because of this character he is linked with various controversies.He is great Patriot" (sic). This is noted in the Early Life and Career, Controversies, Views on Muslims, and Views on People From North India sections. At the moment I have not edited it as I fear I lack information and citations to correct this. But there is little doubt that this article is clearly not up to the neutrality (and factual-based) standards of Wikipedia. 71.183.174.161 ( talk) 19:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'm going to restore an earlier version; looking into the history a user deleted all controversial statements and replaced it with bias. 71.183.174.161 ( talk) 19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a small issue. Over 20 sources were deleted. Looking back at the page history, the article previously had nearly 30 references, which detailed controversies. The current article has 8 sources. Can someone help me restore this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bal_Thackeray&oldid=300936613 71.183.174.161 ( talk) 19:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Career" section of the page reads "Also he is currently practicing being a dead beat father, which he is really good at"
This comment clearly violates the Biographies of Living Persons Policy and has been readded repeatedly and is certainly libellous. It should be removed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casy26 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Is a mention that Mandelson attends, or has attended in the past, Bilderberg Group meetings, undue weight in a BLP? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Ron Kampeas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My biography (the biography of Ron Kampeas) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Kampeas contains a substantive error of fact and an interpretation of international law that is phrased in a way to suggest that it is fact. Here is the problematic passage:
Ron lives in "an apartment in East Talpiot, one of Jerusalem's post-1967 "new" neighborhoods, one [Kampeas] purchased with a loan that had favorable terms for olim, or new immigrants."[3] East Talpoit is considered by much of the international community to be an Israeli settlement.[3]
In fact, I own the apartment. It should be clear from the source (a blogpost I wrote) that I am writing about an apartment that I own, not live in. It should be clear from the very status described in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry that I live in the Washington area. So, first of all, it should read "Ron owns 'an apartment in East Talpiot...." (By the way, the second reference to the neighborhood is misspelled - it should read "Talpiot.")
The characterization of East Talpiot as a settlement is at least controversial. It is a neighborhood that fell partly within Israeli lines according to the 1949 armistice; it remained uninhabited until after the 1967 war because parts of it were militarized (by the Israeli and Jordanian armies) and parts were no-mans-land. In any case, unlike some of the other "new" neighborhoods in Jerusalem, it was not in an area wholly controlled by Jordan. Furthermore, describing the new neighborhoods as legally settlements also is controversial. Israeli groups opposing settlement are careful to distinguish between neighborhoods such as East Talpiot established in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 war and efforts today to encroach into established areas of Palestinian residence. See the East Talpiot entry in this summary by Americans for Peace Now, a lead group activating against settlement, and republished by a Palestine Liberation Organization website and note its use of "Israeli neighborhood" to describe existing (as opposed to planned) building in East Talpiot: http://www.palestine-pmc.com/details.asp?cat=3&id=1174
More saliently, the phrase "considered by much of the international community to be an Israeli settlement" appears to be backed up by footnote 3; I wrote the blogpost to which footnote 3 refers, and claim no such thing. This at least warrants the removal of the footnote marker so the Wikipedia reader is more able to judge this reference as bias and not indisputable fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameispip ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, this helps very much. My biography on my employer JTA's staff page makes clear I'm the Washington bureau chief; this, practically, involves living in the Washington area: http://jta.org/about/staff Most of my bylined articles are datelined "Washington". This is the most recent: http://jta.org/news/article/2009/07/07/1006372/afterv-weeks-of-watching-iran-israel-us-groups-push-forward And here's one from one of JTA's clients, the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, including a photo I took at a DC event during inauguration (just to prove absolute, physical presence in an age where some news services our outsourcing reporting - although, to be clear, JTA, thankfully, is still old fashioned about datelines): http://www.jewishchronicle.org/article.php?article_id=11116 My wife lives with me; she does not co-own the apartment in East Talpiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameispip ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Editor Allstarecho appears to be using the article to push an agenda. I tried to trim the opening paragraph to our standards, but was reverted by him. I'd appreciate it if others would have a look and decide whether turning his biography into a political argument is appropriate. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for not notifying me of this discussion ChildofMidnight. Also, thanks for leaving out the fact that I left you a note on your talk page as to my reversion that has absolutely nothing to do with POV. The fact is the article is under Arbcom probation (imagine that.. you involved in such an article) and you made a controversial change that has been discussed already at great lengths and that lead to the subject of the article, User:Bluemarine, being community banned from Wikipedia and Arbcom banned for a year. I asked you on your talk page to read through the talk page archives of the article and I asked you to get a consensus before making any changes to the article. Your reply? You filed a section here at the BLP noticeboard. As to the actual content itself, the consensus was established for that content and for the fact that it's what lead to the article subject's outing as a gay porn star. Your attempts to remove the content, despite the article being under Arbcom probation with a big tag that even says so, shows your own lack of NPOV and attempts at whitewashing. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here 03:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just spent a fair amount of time cleaning this article about a British pornographer up, removing various unsourced claims, original research, and in particular unreferenced/unverifiable assertions that various named and apparently living persons were involved in various pornographic films; some of the people were independently notable, some not so. Some of the claims are likely true, some apparently quite dubious; under BLP, all the names needed to go. Having started to work on several related articles, I've realized that the entire bloc of articles are very little more than original research published on Wikipedia by now-departed editor User:Gavcrimson, who is now publishing such material on his own blog, and who deleted a large portion of it from Wikipedia a year or so ago with the edit summary "With regret I am deleting all of my original research, as it seems in constant threat of being challenged/deleted anyway, and I no longer wish my work to be associated with this site." But he didn't get all of it. My impulse is to stub all the remaining articles based on his contributions. Absent rescue by other editors in the interim. All that I've looked at raise serious BLP and OR concerns. Examples are Come Play With Me and The Nine Ages of Nakedness (the second not so bad an article as the first.) Is there any disagreement? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor wishes to replace a stable and undisputed section of a BLP article, Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Gays and AIDS, with a new version that appears to be a WP:COATRACK case. The most contentious point is the editor's desire to include material from a newspaper article about the trial of someone who was charged with assaulting a LaRouche activist. The defendant says that she "was outraged by posters she saw outside the post office which she recalled saying: 'Kill the faggots. Kill Elizabeth Taylor.'" The alleged slogans on the posters, in the proposed new version, are to be presented as a "view of LaRouche," which I believe violates WP:BLP#Reliable sources. This example is only the most contentious of many in the new version, which otherwise conforms to the definition of a WP:COATRACK. Inflammatory views which do not come from the subject himself are being imputed to the subject. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Those are two quotations by LaRouche predicting or endorsing the killing of gays or AIDS carriers. Will Beback talk 04:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the draft section(s) linked to, this does not look like a coatrack, because the article itself is a coatrack, and the issue is about using the article to include an item that the coatrack was not intended for. If this were a biography, then the answer would be clear - unless the views expressed by supporters were about LaRouche himself, then any material attributing views to LaRouche that are voiced by his movement should be removed - whether about gay/AIDS or other topics. However, this is not a BLP, it is an article about a living person's views which has been bought to the noticeboard.
I would plump for first suggestion (as it easiest) - rename the article to avoid forking, future BLP concerns (because the article is about an ideology, but given the name of a living person) and ensure balance and neutrality; if this is not acceptable, then I'd say rigorous enforcement of BLP policy throughout the entire article, and it for some reason neither of these gets to happen - make the material an article in its own right, with a link from within the existing section of gay/AIDS. Mish ( talk) 09:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be phrased better, thus:
Political candidates and organizations make their policies and views known through various sorts of official channels, and that is the proper, encyclopaedic way to cover them here. For Will's benefit, the Jeremiah Wright controversy took place because Wright was a supporter, or "follower" if you prefer, of Barack Obama; he made some inflammatory statements, which Obama's opponents then used in an attempt to embarrass Obama. There is no reason to change the title of the "Views" article other than as a tactic to get the disputed material in, and since the material violates BLP no matter how the article is titled, I say skip it. Coleacanth's proposal to find a "home" for anecdotes about rowdy activists at the AIDS initiative article seems like a simple solution. Are there any objections to it? -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 01:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Compare this with other presidential also-ran:
former US Presidents:
or international heavyweights:
This whole series of articles seems to be undue for one man and his political movement; the navbox, micro-detail and expanse of coverage doesn't suggest this is because of his detractors, rather an abuse of this encyclopedia to promote this movement. Mish ( talk) 16:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this article urgently needs more attention from an experienced editor who is knowledgeable about the case and its coverage or has the time to do the necessary research. [12] I have reverted this edit for the moment, but it seems there were earlier, similar editors from another IP that are still in the article. Hans Adler 09:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Article has possible WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE issues (related: otrs:2009071210033789).
Please take a look at Lkoler ( talk · contribs) and this thread. I would prefer that our article talk pages not be used to cast gratuitous and unsourced aspersions. However, I have not been particularly successful in my interactions with the user in question, and in fact have given up entirely on our Clarence Thomas article as a hopeless editing environment. So perhaps someone else could have a word with Lkoler, or not. MastCell Talk 19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
A lot of blp-violating vandalism at Regina Benjamin. Please keep an eye out. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 20:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I am involved in a dispute with two editors on a climate change article, Ratel, and of course Kim D. Petersen, who wish to include very prominently in a page on the skeptic Ian Plimer's book, Heaven and Earth, the following very negative, and insulting text:
This refers to a newspaper review of the book by an astronomer on the subject of climate science. The issues I've raised with this are (1) inclusion of non-specific remarks that seem to add nothing to the article but are merely idly insulting; (2) prominent airing of the views of someone commenting outside his own area of expertise (i.e. the article is making out that Professor Ashley is an expert in climatology when in fact climatology is not even mentioned as one of Ashley's interests on his CV. Ashley's area is astronomy, only at best tangentially relevant to the subject of the book he's reviewing). Finally, the entire article is subject to a neutrality dispute, where it is argued that it is most unbalanced, which seems to be a rather intractable problem at the moment. Alex Harvey ( talk) 01:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Brigitte Gabriel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some fresh eyes on this on please. I took a look at it today for the first time in several weeks and it has got completely out of hand - there are way too many quotations from her books and similar material. I think a major chop job is in order but I just don't know where to start. Thanks. – ukexpat ( talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Dash Snow ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rumors of his death are spreading, & the page already has him listed as dead, though it hasn't been confirmed. Not sure what the proper templates, etc are for this; thought it best to bring it to everyone's attention. -- mordicai. ( talk) 17:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
An edit war going on there between two editors, with some moderate incivility on the part of one of them ( stop getting on my nerves then). There seems to be some dispute over whether certain sources are used. In addition, it appears that IP editors are adding cruft to the article. Probably needs some attention. McJeff ( talk) 06:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the entry is biased and reads like a subtle defence of Jani Allan's notorious public image. I also think that the detailed explanations, quotations, and cited reference amount to original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. The entry simply does not read like an encylopaedic entry. What is more, it has been written, edited and rewritten by a single user, who, apart from defending the subject, constantly adds irrelevant detail.
EmjayE2 ( talk) 21:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it an irrefutable fact that Richie Woodhall has a "beautiful wife called Jayne" ? Surely this statement is subjective, & should therefore be removed. It suggests the article has been written by the subject matter, his wife, a close personal friend or a relative. "He is married, to Jayne." will suffice in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Switchhitter25 ( talk • contribs) 08:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Not a BLP issue
|
---|
Born(10 June 1988) in Wete, Nothern Pemba district in Zanzibar Tanzania.He spent his childhood life in Kizimbani village in Wete-Pemba. As the norms of Zanzibar at the age before begining schooling he went to Madressa for geting foundation in Islamic knowledge. He attended Madressa called 'Hayatul Atfal' (Children's life). At the age of eight in 1996 He began his primary education at Kizimbani primary School which was formally known as Kizimbani Catholic Mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.244.70 ( talk) 21:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Not a BLP issue
|
---|
Please feel free to see article Anti-Israel lobby in the United States and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Israel lobby in the United States as a particularly egregious case of a WP:attack page and wp:coatrack page where extremely partisan sources are allowed to insult and attack individuals and groups. Very bad precedent for this article to survive, IMHO. FYI CarolMooreDC ( talk) 01:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Stuart Miles ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Stuartmiles ( talk · contribs) has changed birth year on the Stuart Miles page to 1974 several times. This user claims to be the actual Stuart Miles but has not yet shown independent published evidence to support the alternative birth date claimed. The majority of published sources show Miles' birth date to be 1969 (as broadcast in a Blue Peter episode) with a minority showing birth date as 1970. Some discussion has already taken place on the talk page and on the user page with no resolution so far. A previous WP:COI/N was discussed and as a result a note was added on the user page though with no follow-up to date.
Example diffs:
— Teahot ( talk) 09:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Cope The last line of "Use in media" is vandalism. However, I can't remove it because it doesn't appear when I try to edit the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneufeld ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The Rush Limbaugh Show ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Repeated insertions of poorly sourced partisan material. Cited sources include comedian Stephen Colbert and the progressive (a political viewpoint at odds with the views of the show's host) group Media Matters for America. -- Allen3 talk 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of SPA repeatedly adding in personal details about the individual's family including the names of the children and salacious details about Lancaster's divorce. There may be sockpuppetry issues with the SPA. I've been dealing with this on and off for a few days but having more eyes on it might help (especially since I'm not going to have much internet access for close to 48 hours). JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
There have appeared several articles about reality TV show series, such as The Hicks (since deleted), and The Suburbs (web series), and, presumably The Hills, The Real Housewives of New Jersey, etc., which are supposedly real showings of people going about their lives, and appearing on TV. When the articles discuss bad things which the people involved in these series do, and they're totally sourced to the shows themselves, do these edits violate WP:BLP? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
In Response to a "BLP unsourced" notice requesting help at the top of the article, warning that the article did not cite references as required by BLP policy, I added two references, and noted that on the talk page.
The article now seems to comply with the policy, particularly as it applies to "Well-known public figures." The subject is a well-known musician in South-Asia, and there is nothing inaccurate, controversial, or inappropriate in the article. I would like to remove the "BLP unsourced" notice, and just want to confirm it's OK before doing so. -- Dalesundstrom ( talk) 07:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Gianmichael Salvato ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm not at all concerned with the apparent vandalism to the page as it seems to be reverted fairly soon after it's discovery, however I am concerned that the page does not meet the guidelines for notability.
Upon going through the history and finding pages that were not actually vandalism, most of the text took on the feel of a personal advertisement rather than a biography. None of the information contained any real verifiable information as to education, business dealings, notability, and the such which violates WP:BLP#Reliable sources. In fact, many of the references are WP:SELFPUB#Self-published sources .28online and paper.29. It was filled with weasle and peacock.
There was even a claim that he was a well known and notable author (or some such thing), however, searches on all his names for books written produced only two books on-line through Lulu.com (goto storefront for dharmadude it will come up with Mr. Salvato's information.) Researching his education from information provided at Linkedin shows his diplomas are from a Diploma mill and are not notable at all.
It further seems as if there are personal interests involved with this page and it is requested a third unbiased person step in to make a determination if the page should actually remain or if it should be deleted. I've not yet marked the page for possible deletion and since I've never done so before, felt I should get another perspective on this before I make such a drastic suggestion.
Thank you in advance for whatever help may be offered. Kjnelan ( talk) 17:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
So, we now have a nude video, apparently, of this very pretty woman. It's made its way to Wikipedia with a flurry edits. It is referenced at the moment, and her lawyer has admitted it occurred. My reading of BLP says the only reason to remove it would be "right to privacy" - apparently we're observing this policy on Miley Cyrus for some revealing cellphone photos last year. Thoughts? Magog the Ogre ( talk) 01:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the title of this article POV in the extreme? It was originally at this title, then it got moved to Simon Sheppard (activist), which seems more NPOV, and then it got moved back again. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 20:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
During her time as governor, Sarah Palin had eighteen ethical complaints filed against her. We are having a disagreement about how to describe one of them. This source says ( http://www.adn.com/palin/story/841059.html)
The reimbursement, which was due today, stems from a Feb. 23 agreement filed by an Alaska Personnel Board special investigator that resolved an ethics complaint alleging Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her.
The personnel board found no wrongdoing, but Palin agreed to reimburse the state for costs associated with trips found to be of questionable state interest.
The board's investigator, Timothy Petumenos, said in his report there is little guidance under state rules to determine ethical standards for travel by the governor's immediate family. But he interpreted the law to require that the state pay only if the first family serves an important state interest.
Some of the editors believe that the allegation that Palin "abused her power" should be included in the article. Some believe that the finding of "no wrongdoing" indicates that the Board threw out the abuse allegation, and that it should be omitted from the article as prejudical and contrary to BLP policy. Do you have an opinion about whether or not the abuse allegation should be included in the bio? Jarhed ( talk) 08:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The only material that can reasonably appear in the artiCle are the final findings, which were "no wrongdoing". All the rest (allegations subsequently dismissed, unsubstantiated claims of "abuse of power") confuse the issue, and are a potential libellous violation of WP:BLP. LoverOfTheRussianQueen ( talk) 23:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The phrase abuse of power is the most egregious problem with the passage, since there's nothing even in the allegations, as described, to justify that kind of phrasing, which is normally used when someone in power is hurting a specific party who is not powerful. The allegation, from what I see of it here, is closer to tax cheating -- something that anybody could try, no official power needed. Palin cited the fact that she was getting ridiculous ethics complaints as one reason for stepping down -- that hardly justifies even this much treatment of allegations that were dismissed. Prominent allegations that are dismissed may still be used in an article because they've been prominent, but that prominence is obviously very limited once they're dismissed. It would be better to try to stick to facts -- say a representative allegation or two which are described in factual terms, not in phrases that are fraught with loaded meanings. -- Noroton ( talk) 18:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Problems with the Roland Perry page have returned. The very experienced user YellowMonkey ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted the content extensively, with these actions including: loading up the Cricket Book section in a very unbalanced way with purely negative criticism and removing positive reviews; cutting away all of the subject's career overview except to wrongly emphasise a related political article in Penthouse and leaving one para on a minor Guam project (rendering the career section bizarre); and willfully adding a paragraph which directly maligns the subject [see first edit]:
I would appreciate any ideas and assistance to resolve these problems.
Balanced content and sources can give a fair view of the subject; but only if there are the conditions for genuine discussion and development of the content.
Despite many invitations, the YellowMonkey user has not used the Talk:Roland_Perry to discuss content changes to date.
This is all very disappointing.
Haruspex101 ( talk) 13:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
Attempted this DIY Reversion: DIY Revert. Hope YellowMonkey user will take editing proposals to Talk:Roland_Perry. Haruspex101 ( talk) 14:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
User:Houstonfoochik keeps removing a reference to an article in The Independent, on the grounds that it is "defamatory". I believe it is a reliable source, though admittedly only secondarily relevant to the subject. The article is a commentary on another article (in the Daily Telegraph) about the subject. — Ashley Y 08:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking this might be in violation of WP:THREAT? — Ashley Y 22:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. de Nugent is a white supremacist, and this biography is relatively new, very lengthy, and its subject is pretty pleased with it. Its creator, User:BobKostro, has created a mess by uploading multiple copyrighted images he claims he has the permission to upload, but there are no OTRS tickets. Since de Nugent thanks Kostro for "this article on me on Wikipedia, which is designed to provide factual and credible information" about his white supremacy, he probably does have permission, but that's not how we operate. Anyway, this article could stand a review, as it read to me almost like an advertisement for de Nugent's white supremacy and his championing of his repeated victimization. -->David Shankbone 21:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
On Soulja Boy Tell 'Em ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a third opinion was requested for the potential use of Twitter links in order to justify inclusion of a currently circulating story (on blogs) that this rapper had posted a picture of himself in his underwear with an apparently faked bulge in his pants. The opinion given was that the story did inform as to his public persona and had been of sufficient public interest to be considered notable for inclusion if suitable reliable sources could be produced.
This notice has been raised in order to help judge if the article at bestweekever.tv can be considered a reliable source or is a "questionable source" as per the guidance of BLP.
The discussion in question is Talk:Soulja Boy Tell 'Em#Twitter controversy.— Teahot ( talk) 08:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The bestweekever.tv article linked on the discussion above begins: "ONTD informs us that rapper Soulja Boy". "ONTD" (Oh No They Didn't!) is a blog; it's actually a LiveJournal.com community account, which means any LiveJournal.com user can contribute a 'celebrity'-gossip related entry. We evaluate sources by determining what sort of fact checking they do. We can look at news articles verifying the site's reliability or significance, show they're backed by a news media company, point to a page that explains how they accept submissions and how they fact check, etc.
The 'article' highlighted comprises two short 2-sentence paragraphs. No About page is clearly visible on the bestweekever.tv site; the site has a VH1 logo in the top right. It is clear the 'article', with the site, is a "Gossip" page, rather than any substantive coverage of music or showbiz. In this specific case, where the gossip piece starts by pointing to a blog anybody can post to as their source for the information, there is no reliable published source for the information. Information and opinion does not become reliable by virtue of being repeated & cited in another source along with a comment.
As no reliable sources providing the information without merely regurgitating earlier unreliable sources have been presented, the information does not belong in the article. The self-published Twitter source in this case is not appropriate, as we do not use such sources to present information with—direct or indirect—commentary as to what we, as editors, believe it "represents". Content that is not required in order to give a neutral encyclopedic article, that is not discussed by reliable published third-party sources as relevant to understanding the living subject as a whole, does not belong in the article. – Whitehorse1 09:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
A report that Leopoldo have died of a heart attack was posted on the MMA.tv-forums and is currently being added to the article. A few unreliable sources have reported on the post, but no reliable sources have confirmed it. I'm at 3RR and would rather not keep reverting alone. Thanks, -- aktsu ( t / c) 13:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is currently at AfD, but may be kept due to the subject's notability as a national polo player. If you look at the page history, it's pretty clear that the user linked above has an agenda. I've both edited the article & !voted for deletion on the AfD, so I'm no longer an 'uninvolved admin'. -- Versa geek 14:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear. Am I only one that thinks that, true or not, having him in Category:Impostors and the caption under his pic calling him discredited former "expert" is a bit much? Sticky Parkin 23:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The former detainee, Rasul Kudaev, has been held for more than three years in pretrial detention in Nalchik, a city in southern Russia, where he is accused of participating in an October 2005 armed uprising against the local government. Human Rights Watch's investigations into Kudaev's case found that he was severely beaten soon after his arrest to confess to crimes.
The most severely abused was Rasul Kudaev, who was picked up in October 2005 for allegedly participating in an attack on several government buildings in southern Russia. (Kudaev says he was wrongfully accused.) According to Kudaev's lawyer, who visited him in prison shortly after his arrest, one of his legs had been broken and his face beaten to the point of disfigurement.</ref>
-- Unitanode 19:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just declined a speedy G10 as it is sourced, but I'm off out in a minute so fresh eyes would be welcome. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Alex Sink ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There's a persistent anon editor who's continually adding a half-the-length-of-the-article hit piece about this gubernatorial candidate. Can a few people keep an eye on this one? Rebecca ( talk) 15:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Unitanode 20:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Katja Shchekina ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biography is continually being edited to include poorly sourced information regarding the model's ethnic background. Both of the sources cited in the article are basically soft core pornography sites with low journalistic standards. There is also absolutely nothing in either of the articles which establishes which parent is of what ethnicity, and the page is being edited to intermingle poorly sourced information with the personal opinions of the editor. The issue of this model's ethnic background began as internet speculation and it continues to persist in that vein. It has already been established in the discussion page that there is evidence elsewhere which completely contradicts a mixed Somali-Russian background (i.e. the model's own claim that she is not part Somalian). The article is also being persistently edited to include subjective phrases like "in demand model", "top designers" and "is a favorite with". I think the article should avoid remarks about parentage and race entirely.
-- Unitanode 20:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this page which appears to have serious BLP issues. Specifically, many of the article requests accuse named individuals of serious crimes, without sourcing. This should be looked into. *** Crotalus *** 14:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Charles G. Koch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The material in this [ ] is supported only by a single editorial from a marginal news source and is a cut and paste job to boot. A new user User:Stormport keeps adding this material back in. Perhaps some attention might help this situation. Bonewah ( talk) 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Unitanode 18:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Unitanode 21:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be good if someone disinterested in Houston Politics could look over the articles for the candidates in the Houston mayoral election, 2009.
Specifically: Annise Parker, Gene Locke, Peter Hoyt Brown, and Roy Morales. -- Nogburt ( talk) 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Professor Carl Hewitt has again been attacked in the article about him on Wikipedia. 68.170.176.166 ( talk) 22:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia instigated the defamatory attack by The Observer on Carl Hewitt is another amazing Wikipedia scandal. Does Jimmy Wales know about it? 71.198.220.76 ( talk) 19:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The complaint in
Wikipedia instigated the defamatory attack by The Observer on Carl Hewitt seems to be that the following section of the article violates NPOV:
Given that we are on the topic of the incompleteness of the article, the talk page says:
"Ruud Koot removed the following material from the article:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Just doing due diligence on a source. Does this article meet BLP requirements? Yworo ( talk) 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This version includes questionable/contradictory/badly sourced biographical material on the lead singer, Dave Carroll in the "Personal life" section. I just want a second opinion rather than removing it myself. Thanks TH ( talk) 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
We are having an issue here, and it concerns StephenLaurie ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a suspected sock of User:Eleemosynary,an indefinitely blocked editor who has resumed activity at the article where the suspected sockmaster had been article banned. This article has been placed on probation by ArbCom and problematic editors can be article-banned at Admin discretion. On 21 July 2009, after several episodes of what might be described as "suspicious and tenditious" editing by User:StephenLaurie, an Arbitration Enforcement Request was filed by Durova 280, as seen here. In part, she said:
StephenLaurie is an editor with highly focused interests, arguably a single purpose account. Nearly all of his article and article talk edits have been to the Matt Sanchez article and the related Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article. [31] The Matt Sanchez biography, a BLP, is under arbitration general sanctions. Additionally, this account behaves like a returning user with long knowledge of the personalities involved in this dispute. Possibly this could be Eleemosynary, who was article banned from Matt Sanchez in April 2008 and indefinitely blocked shortly afterward. Note the edit summary of the first ever edit by this account, [32] the account's second ever edit summary asserts a familiarity with the Sanchez history. [33] With less than 20 total account edits StephenLaurie was tagging suspected Bluemarine socks (Bluemarine is Sanchez's username) [34] [35] [36] [37] then removing posts from the Eleemosynary user talk. [38] Eleemosynary's and StephenLaurie's edit interests have substantial overlap (note Thomas Scott Beauchamp controversy and Matt Sanchez in the Soxred report), [39] and StephenLaurie's POV on the Matt Sanchez article is indistinguishable from Eleemosynary's. He even claims to know my history with Sanchez, although he distorts it badly. [40] A new account would probably not recognize me, although Eleemosynary would have bitter recollections because I had something to do with his article ban and indefinite block. Whether this is enough to establish StephenLaurie as the sock of a banned user is something for the reviewing administrator to determine, yet if the socking determination is inconclusive discretionary sanctions may still be warranted per the diffs above and this dialog. [41] Durova 280 05:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
These diffs show evidence of possible sockpuppetry by StephenLaurie, dubious editing habits, and the appearance of an SPA account. After deliberating, Sandstein felt there was insufficient evidence (partly due to technical shortcomings in the diffs) for an offical ArbCom sanction; however, the door was very specifically left open for individual Admins to review and apply their discretion.
All BLPs are sensitive and one that is on article probation is obviously much more so. In addition to issues raised by Durova, I had concerns about StephenLaurie's interaction wiith almost all other editors on that page, and his attitudes toward both the article and its subject. Specifically:
negative aspersions and speculation about good faith editors]
veiled accusations of meatpuppetry when others oppose his view
this entire line of dialogue was offensive in tone and nature as he (again, veiled) attacked the character of an honorable editor.
Finally, certain apects of his edit summaries like this, taken in conjunction with his other comments, give a certain air of excitability and paranoia to his editing. These are not greatly desireable elements in someone editing a delicate and controversial BLP.
Finally, as seen throughout most of his talkpage remarks, he seems opposed to any change which might cast a favorable light on Matt Sanchez, the article subject. That, combined with concerned comments from other editors, have led me to conclude that his participation in this article has become counterproductive. It appears that some sort of intervention is needed, and I invite the scrutiny of interested parties. Doc Tropics 01:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The subject of the Paul H. Carr (physicist) article created it last week and I moved and expanded it. He is now interested in selectively removing certain publicly available information for privacy reasons. My own opinion is that if it's properly cited and neutral, it doesn't violate any policies and therefore it should stay, but as he and I are the only ones to have edited the article, I think it's time to get some fresh eyes on the situation. Thanks! Frank | talk 21:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The controversy section of this article had some allegations of racism against the chairman. I found an IP ( 98.23.14.232) vandalizing/removing references from it, and reverted it as vandalism first, but blanked the section later as some of the sources appear to be blogs. From the page history it seems the text has been removed and put back several times [42] [43]. As I said I'm not sure about the reliability of the refs, help from experienced users would be appreciated. Thanks — SpaceFlight89 04:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
BLP article edited extensively by the subject, User:Homer16moore. While the article is much better than most BLP's by the subject, it still needs some cleanup and help from BLP-experienced wikipedians. Mc JEFF (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone repeatedly has posted that Chloe Smith took office on both July 23, 2009 and July 24, 2009. First of all, it is impossible for someone to assume an office the day before the result was announced - so please STOP claiming July 23 as this day. Secondly, it is sourced numerous places that she is not an MP, merely elected to the seat. It technically remains vacant until she is seated in the house in October. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohrflote ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Unitanode 19:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
For an insertion of material as potentially volatile as this is ("ill advised remarks regarding the racist arrest"), I don't believe that Kos is enough. Also, 3RR is just a "bright line", not a "permission to edit war up to here" standard. If one knows when they're "at the limit", it's probably an indication that more discussion -- not assessment of where the limits of our reversions are -- is in order. Unitanode 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)