![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A note for review and transparency. Having seen this article at AfD ( here, I blanked the article of a substantial amount of largely negative unsourced content ( here). The article is now a stub although as I don't speak Dutch I'm not even sure the source properly supports the content of the stub. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 23:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor wants to add material to Jerry Brown, the biography of the former governor of California and current candidate for that office. It concerns whether Brown was the inspiration for a character in a 19790 movie. The offered sources are an IMDB reader review and a number of blogs. [1] While it's certainly possible that Brown was the inspiration, I think we'd need the same high quality sources for this as we'd expect for any assertion about a living person. This has been discussed at Talk:Jerry Brown#Americathon, but I don't think we're getting closer to consensus. Other views? Will Beback talk 01:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The first joke is nearly the last. Over some pictures of dinosaurs, a narrator says then when dinosaurs died, they turned into fossil fuel, and that "Jimmy Carter became President when everybody noticed we were starting to run out of dead dinosaurs." The movie was made at a time when everybody noticed we were starting to run out of Jerry Brown jokes, but it relies on them for fuel.
I just stumbled on this article while vandalism patrolling. It appears to me that it has serious problems from several perspectives and requires some close attention. ScottyBerg ( talk) 15:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Since it seems to meet the criteria of speedy deletion as an attack page, I've taken the liberty of nominating it, and have blanked it as requested in the deletion template message. ScottyBerg ( talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Thankfully it was deleted swiftly by Excirial. Apparently it began innocuously, and a user maliciously turned it into an attack article. An administrator may want to look into the now disappeared article history and take appropriate steps. ScottyBerg ( talk) 16:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Bimbapboo ( talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose attack account. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is turning into an edit war, and thought I'd check in here for some advice on what to do. I don't think it is correct to include the (removed) section on human trafficking given that there's just one primary source. It gets added, I remove it, it gets added again, etc. I made the bold move of removing it (again) until a consensus is reached on Talk:Peter Nygård. There's a couple of reasons this is concerning: it isn't properly sourced material and doesn't match my novice interpretation of WP:BLP, and Nygard has a history of launching libel lawsuits. I'm new to this, help me do the right thing. Alexthepuffin ( talk) 04:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Possible Conflict Of Interest/ Wikibombing: I nominated this for deletion as the subject seemed laughably below the bar for notability, and the article text had numerous issues.
Initially, the only person who objected was a person who I strongly suspect as being the subject of the article. Then, four days later, the delete notice is suddenly flooded with "keep" votes from IP editors (and two registered users who haven't edited in years). Looks like a clear case of Wikibombing, from this being posted to a Linux forum somewhere.
I don't really have any emotional stake in this, but I wondered if there was policy to cover this sort of situation. Fell Gleaming( talk) 18:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Jay Park ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article in question is subject to vandalism and numerous BLP violations. There is some difficulty in addressing this as the majority of the sources are in Korean. - Reconsider ! 08:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Content issue now being discussed on talk page. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This article looks to me to be a BLP mess. I've started going through removing parts of the article that associate living people with crimes or criminal enterprises without reliable sources. But other sets of eyes would be warranted. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am new to Wikipedia editing but I am trying to get something sorted out.
I am concerned about biased and potentially inflammatory language being posted in the Wikipedia entry for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords), specifically under the "Gun Rights" and "Outsourcing" headings. The statements under these headings clearly violate Wikipedia's Impartial Tone guidelines ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). I have a conflict of interest, so I am hesitant to make edits myself. Rather, an impartial third-party editor should take a look at the page and I am happy to provide additional information for incomplete sections as well as additional citations.
Thanks,
Stephanie4815162342 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie4815162342 ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Can another editor please scrutinize the edits of User:Parallel process? [4], [5] makes me think some synthesis is being used to subtly twist the subjects' view on outsourcing. -- NeilN talk to me 00:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
May also involve this IP (probably a simple not-logged-in)
Serious POV pushing related to some off-wiki dispute (Lord Lovat's estates and one or more tenants). Although the content added is minor (mostly linking to an off-wiki campaign site as if it were RS), it's widespread and needs action.
The user's talk seems quite up-front about their agenda and intentions towards WP, none of which appears acceptable to the project's aims:
Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Jackie_Sherrill ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A couple of weeks back now, I noticed a section of this article added by an anonymous editor that was completely unsourced and written in a "behind the scenes story as told by insiders" way which seemed extremely POV. I removed it, noting its deficiencies in my comment, and it stood for approximately a week before being added back by, I assume, the same anonymous user (similar by slightly different IP). This time it included a source that 1) was posted under the notice that the items on the page were merely rumors and the poster wouldn't vouch for them 2) didn't actually cover most of the information in the paragraph in question. I once again removed it, and noted on the talk page my problems with the particular section. Since then, I've received no feedback from the user on the talk page, but we're approaching a revert war (a revert each way every couple of days since). Since it's an anonymous user, I can't contact them directly to pursue a discussion, so I was hoping for some guidance. Erusdruidum ( talk) 12:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
On first blush, there isn't much of a BLP problem with this article. But digging a little deeper, I'm detecting serious problems related to whether the claims in the article are actually supported by the citations. In many or most cases, the article attributes claims to citations that do not fully support them. My efforts to clean up the content and realign our concrete statements with what citations actually say have met with serious resistance on the article talk page, including personal attacks and a general tendency to spend more energy discussing my motives than discussing article content.
Most grievously, some editors have unambiguously argued that because the subject is an accused terrorist, WP:BLP does not apply to him, and have reverted my efforts to clean up the article without discussion beyond personal attacks and accusations of pro-terrorism POV warriorship on my part. I do not want to use sysop tools to enforce BLP in a dispute in which I am a direct participant, but without help, I do not see any alternative. More eyes please, before this boils over. -- causa sui ( talk) 17:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that there may be problems with two userboxes on Thundera_m117's user page. One (shown on the bottom lefthand-side) carries the text "This user knows Anti-semites use Self-hating Jew and irrational Anti-Zionist Jewish Fundamentalist as their political opportunity against mainstream Jewish Community and Israel" and shows a picture of Noam Chomsky; the other (shown in the middle on the lefthand-side) carries the text "This user was not surprise at Mahathir Anti-Semitic hate speech at the Organization of Islamic Conference". Since the user edits irregularly, I edited the user page to remove what I thought were probably BLP violations, leaving the editor a message to explain what I had done. The user has now reverted my edits. ← ZScarpia 15:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I have created a new incident at the WP:ANI noticeboard: User:Thundera_m117 userboxes. ← ZScarpia 01:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The section Homosexuality in women's sports#Notable lesbian.2C gay and bisexual_athletes is a mess. Because we have List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople, which is well-cited, do we even need this page? It sounds like something that would much better serve as an overview article rather than a list. NW ( Talk) 22:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I feel a little out of my depth with this one as I rarely edit political articles. The article is virtually unsourced with only a single source (not inline cited). POV issues aside for the moment, my main concern lies with the use of words such as "corruption allegations", "misappropriation of funds" and "political vengeance"; all unsourced. There appears to be an older, weakly cited and substantially different version of the article here. Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 19:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't even know where to begin. Just look at it. Should be speedied in my opinion, which I'll do if nobody objects by tomorrow. -- causa sui ( talk) 05:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Gone to afd, where all 9-11 tinfoilhattery belongs.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delmart Vreeland.--
Scott Mac (Doc)
19:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
See the names at the end of [7], the accounts have been renamed but there are several pages of suspected sockpuppet investigations etc. where a copy-paste replacement needs to be done. I have no bot-fu so have to do it the hard way, if anyone can help out by fixing this before tomorrow then please do. Guy ( Help!) 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Jay Lyon (musician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An IP editor 66.108.95.249 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting edits to an article he claims is about him, specifically about his former name (now works under a stage name), but his undo also removed other references. The source for his old name is an interview where he talked about the reasons for his own name change! I would like some other eyes on it to confirm that the article is not unreasonable nor has WP:UNDUE weight, on what is a fairly lightweight minor celebrity. The-Pope ( talk) 11:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Another OTRS ticket, this time from Busty Heart ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There is an edit war spanning some tens of edits on the talk page between the subject and various others, reinserting a fatuous comment about the porn industry (this person is not involved with pornography). I don't know how we can go about reinforcing the fact that edit-warring with article subjects - especially over asinine comments on a talk page - is a spectacularly bad idea. Guy ( Help!) 18:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This diff - is a summary of the dispure of the tv documentary, self published book by one of the authors of the article Henry Doctorsky [8] is disputed along with (selfpublished) IUniverse ;-) book After the Absolute: Real Life Adventures with a Backwoods Buddha which is proposed to be used along with self-published periodicals. Issues brought up here in August09 [9], but no conclusion reached on this 'swami'. Come on folks just let us get to the bottom of it, Kirtanananda is a known, notorious criminal, well victimised for the crimes and for being gay (not self-confessed at the time), a helping hand from those who know the BLP policy is really welcomed. Thank you for your comments. Wikid as© 03:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry if I seem to be bringing a question here that seems repetitive.
Four days ago I asked for third party input on a series of excisions of passages that had been justified, in part, based on a concern those passages were "dehumanizing". It was my impression that no one shared the concern of the excising wikipedian that the passages in question were dehumanizing, although some respondents had other concerns.
Subsequently the wikipedian who had that concern has continued to excise these passages, as they did to the article on Abdul Rahman al-Amri, the fourth Guantanamo captive to have been reported to have committed suicide. On Talk:Abdul Rahman al-Amri they wrote:
I responded, "I am not sure whether you are saying that since you think "Wikipedia is a community and there are various opinions", that you are authorized to ignore the opinions offered at BLPN, or whether you think some of the contributors who responded there would share your opinion this edit was authorized on the grounds the section you excised was "dehumanizing"."
Either way I am concerned, because I thought the consensus was clear -- and that none of us is entitled to simply ignore the consensus of a discussion.
I just initiated a discussion over at WP:NORN, over the assertion these passages lapse from WP:OR.
If possible I'd like this discussion to be confined to the question of whether the excision of this passage was authorized by WP:BLP, and have discussion of whether or not the passage was dehumanizing take place at WP:NORN.
If possible I'd like to request that any other concerns with this passage take place elsewhere -- I suggest Talk:Abdul Rahman al-Amri.
Thanks in advance! Geo Swan ( talk) 19:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Eric Ely ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 57#Eric Ely AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely (2nd nomination) for more context. There seems to be a beginning edit war. Hans Adler 17:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The Mulla brothers has reliable sources but is rather contentious. Extra eyes appreciated. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This article has Aaron Boone's middle name listed as EFFIN. The corect name, from the MLB website, is John. See http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=111213. I can understand why frustrated Red Sox fans might have made this change, but really. This should be fixed and frozen. This part of the page is not editable by a regular member. Kgilbert78 ( talk) 15:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Steve Ballmer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Vandalism, cute and funny but still vandalism. I have semiprotected for a while. Inevitably given his outspoken opinions on open source he is not popular with a lot of technically savvy folks, so we should be alert on this one. Guy ( Help!) 18:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The article on Dan Coats has been getting quite a number of anonymous edits in the past number of days that have been trying to sway the pov of the article out of balance. A number of these edits have centered on his lobbying, gun law activities and current senate run. I have been working on cleaning up some of these conflicts, but I am fairly new at dealing with these types of conflicts so I was looking for some advice on what to do next. Thanks, TheIguana ( talk) 18:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Tony Cornell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Subject now deceased - page needs update
Thank you. Done
Off2riorob (
talk)
21:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The article on Herb Schildt is in violation of wikipedia's own policies as regards Biographies of Living Persons since it cites two NNPOV polemics, one of which was a copycat drive by, and a book that was mistakenly based on the first NNPOV source.
Furthermore, these notices to this site are being vandalized by someone who apparently sees they are not archived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.80.153 ( talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]"
"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."
- Wikipedia "Biographies of Living Persons"
This is the policy, and it is quite independent of my harassment by a bunch of half-educated convenience store clerks and the former options speculator Jimbo Wales, who saw fit to make offensive comments at my blog whilst supporting the harassment I have been subject to on wikipedia.
Neither "C: the Complete Nonsense 3rd Ed", nor "C" the Complete Nonsense 4 ed", nor "The Annotated Annotated" can be considered "high quality sources". As Dr. Malcolm McClean concluded last month on comp.lang.c, these are polemics. They are disorganized lists of genuine errors (of the sort that appear in many computer books), trivial pursuits, and linux-centric shibboleths with a clearly polemical purpose of putting down a Windows-centric author helping primarily Windows programmers get started on C.
A high quality source would be an analysis of Herb's "errors" by a reputable academic computer scientist such as Brian Kernighan with at least Herb's track record of publication (Herb has published several books which the market has judged to be of sufficient quality for multiple editions).
But note that although Brian Kernighan did mention the problem of software listings in books being incorrect in his 1975 "Elements of Programming Style", and that Edsger Dijkstra was equally concerned with the cavalier attitude towards bugs exhibited by his colleagues, neither of them ever targeted any author or computer scientist by name.
Why?
Because until Watson, Crick, Edward Teller and Thomas "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Kuhn and to a great extent after the 1950s, there has been, in the interest of real scientific progress, a collective agreement, which used to be called a "gentleman's agreement" and has received unmerited scorn for that term, that the focus be on ideas and not individuals; that no one individual need be singled out and made into a byword as was Schildt. Dijkstra and Kernighan were of this school.
It is true that Edward Teller waged a campaign of personal destruction against Robert Oppenheimer, and that Watson and Crick were pond scum who dealt with colleagues and women in bounderish fashion, and that Thomas Kuhn blessed this blackguard conduct as somehow being progress. But in general, real scientists (as opposed to computer thugs and their hosts of frightened clerks) continue to focus on ideas and not personalities...which is why wikipedia is relatively reliable on mathematics and real science as opposed to computer science as it is practised.
However, once corporations commercialize things like DNA and programming languages, the gentleman's agreement means that the "gentleman" loth to name specific scapegoats is at risk for the consequences of speaking truth to corporate power including, here, the corporate power which has ranged itself behind Open Source in order to protect its expropriation of the theft of intellectual production by postmodern slaves.
To criticize Schildt without naming him is to interrogate the C99 and C98 standards, both of which were highjacked by vendors to preserve their investment in bad C compilers. It is to find (for example) that the "void main" controversy results from language in the C99 standard which inappropriately recognized a Linux practice while continuing to allow "freestanding" programs in which void main() is permitted.
It is easier to spend, as Seebach and Feather have spent, minutes gaily and randomly sniping at code snippets and exhibiting what these two individuals think is a superior insight, while trashing Schildt.
The Schildt article is poorly sourced on the work of an individual (Seebach) who was not invited to join the C99 standard, but who paid his way in as a volunteer. Feather's work is slightly better and was reviewed by some real professionals (one of whom I worked with when he was at Princeton). But like Seebach's Snarky Tirade, Feather's is poorly organized as a laundry list of genuine errors (of the sort which appear in many computer books and are indemnified by disclaimers of warranty as is software), trivia, and shibboleth. Feather's is a drive-by, copy cat shooting. Steve Summit witlessly sourced his C FAQ on Seebach and the result has no more meaning than the echoes of the Malabar caves in Forster's A Passage to India.
Edward G. Nilges Hong Kong 21 April 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.48.168.124 ( talk) 13:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I have just removed another long text by the banned user. I used to be more careful, but in a previous similar case concerning the same page, it was determined that the user is banned. Presumably these confused and unhelpful messages were part of the reason for the ban. The user's argument that he cannot be banned because we are not enforcing the ban with a block of his entire internet provider in Hong Kong is of course absurd. Hans Adler 12:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Philip Vidal Streich ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article does not deal with a subject of great enough importance to warrant a Wikipedia entry and appears to be written by the subject himself. // 140.247.44.193 ( talk) 20:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I have removed a 'controversy' section from the article, it was added here.
I have placed the information on the talk page.
I do not believe that the facts are covered appropriately in reliable sources. Chzz ► 17:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The first citation only mentions Swamy once http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl1819/18190100.htm saying..
"The cases had their origin in 1993 when Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy sought permission from Governor M. Channa Reddy to prosecute Jayalalithaa on charges of corruption."
this is being used in the BLP to support
"Subramanian Swamy has a record of making defamatory remarks against prominent leaders like Jayalalithaa , Sonia Gandhi , P.chidambram etc , he has been accused of writting articles with false information and has lost lakhs of money due to defamation suits" Off2riorob ( talk) 18:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor Murray McDonald ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly re-adding poorly sourced POV-pushing (coatrack) controversial material on living persons.
The WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV policies have been repeatedly pointed out to him & material removed per WP:BLP. He refuses to stop, preferring insults, complaining the remover hadn't contacted earlier authors and it's all "true" and, most recently, accusations of silencing the truth.
He continued after a level 4 warning on usertalkpage - see his reply, so I reported it [22] to WP:AIV. MuZemike suggested ANI. It's about a living person so I've brought it here.
It will be clear to participants with experience of BLPs that the additions coatrack, poorly sourced to a community blog site whose About page says anyone can contribute an article (somewhat like Examiner.com).
He repeatedly reinserts. Help is requested both with removal and administrative prevention of the living person content violations. 92.30.27.56 ( talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Brittny Gastineau ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This has been previously covered twice on this noticeboard, here [23] and here [24], as well as in a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Brittny Gastineau (See "Bruno" section).
There is once again a discussion going on as to whether or not to include details on the subject's appearance in the movie "Bruno," where she made comments (which she later said were a joke) about the pregnancy of Jamie Lynn Spears and abortion.
The consensus has been that including this information is giving undue weight to a comment made in passing in a comedy that all parties agree was a joke, and that it's disparaging to the pregnant person to include details on a trivial mention. The material has been out of the article for months after the previous discussion, but a new editor Reswobslc has come along to readd the information, and claim there is no consensus. I've reverted in hopes of continuing the discussion on the talk page, but I was in turn reverted by 128.104.truth, who was one of the original editors pushing for inclusion of the material, claiming it was "the truth" [25].
I'm not going to edit war over this, but more opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for the attention. Dayewalker ( talk) 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
You want to add this.. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
In 2009 she appeared in the Sacha Baron Cohen documentary comedy Brüno http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0889583/fullcredits#cast, in a talk show scene she later described as herself "joking around" . She is depicted cheerfully agreeing with suggestions that a pregnant teen actress should abort her baby. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=43723
(OD) I'm certainly glad for the discussion on the matter this time around. 128.104.truth, you were adamant about including this information in the previous discussion because it's your personal opinion this shows "the truth" about her, your above comment about "saving her some embarrasment" seem to indicate that's still how you see it. Whatever your personal opinions are, that's no reason for inclusion.
As for the new suggested version of the incident, I will agree it's better, but I still see no reason for inclusion. It was a comment made in a comedy that no one says was meant seriously. Including it gives undue weight to an off-the-cuff remark, which should be avoided on a BLP.
I'll obviously abide by whatever consensus develops here but my main question is, what exactly does this section add to the BLP? Dayewalker ( talk) 01:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Should every comment this person makes be included in the article? What makes this comment special? Oh, that's right, some people think it makes her look bad so they want it included. It's been covered by gossip pages, tabloids and blogs after all so it's obviously notable. </sarcasm> -- Onorem ♠ Dil 15:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
You also removed productive edits to the page. Be more careful in the future. And in response to Dayewalker, I do not see it as a battleground, but you must if you're assuming others do. And you obviously misunderstood my point: I do not think that the article should be deleted; but the argument Onorem Dil made could also be made as an argument for deleting the entire article. Which illustrates how useless of an argument it is. 128.104.truth ( talk) 14:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
More eyes are needed at Dell Schanze ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Information is being repeatedly by several users added regarding legal arrests and convictions despite poor sourcing. Brad 21:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thorwald ( talk · contribs) insist on inserting material Weaponbb7 ( talk · contribs) considers libelous OR against J. Gordon Melton Disscussion here Weaponbb7 ( talk) 02:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The article Paul Sheehan (Journalist) has him labelled as a "conservative commentator" on the basis of these references;
The first of these doesn't really support the claim. The next two come from Australian Options Magazine, which appears to be a very small publication published as "an open discussion journal of the left". The other source is the World Socialist Web Site. I would have expected that neither would be appropriate for sourcing a BLP claim?
I've posted a message on the article talkpage, but it's not a very active page, so I'm posting here as well. Thepm ( talk) 04:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Bill Moyers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have introduced two items to the Bill Moyers article. These items were objected to on the basis of not meeting BLP requirements. Please look over and give your opinion, quoting specifics of BLP policy:
Chris Cohan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I came across this articles and see that there are several controversial statements that could violate BLP. I just want someone who is more knowledgeable to see whether the statements are ok. Thanks— Chris! c/ t 05:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Jclemens ( talk) 21:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Clearly there are private interests astroturfing the Chris Cohan page and censoring it to look better. I find this wildly irresponsible, and not in the spirit of wikipedia at all. -jcreager
I think I will go ask at the NPOV noticeboard. While they are sourced, only adding negative stuff make the article not neutral, violating Wikipedia policy.— Chris! c/ t 22:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Only adding positive material (or restricting content to positive material) when the sale of the team partially depends on his public image certainly isn't neutral. In fact it constitutes a clear conflict of interest.
Actually I made those posts to make the article neutral, but whatever. I'm done burning the plantlife. If wikipedia wants to act complicitly in misdirecting the public for the monetary benefit of another entity that is not my personal problem, and will only compromise the integrity of wikipedia in the long run. -Nuck
As have I. 67.180.72.59 ( talk) 21:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Colleen LaRose ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There are two sections which are causing me concern at the above. I am meeting resistance to having it removed. Please go to talk:Colleen LaRose#COATRACKS Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Stevie Vallance ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An SPA, [28] who appears to be a fan of Stevie Vallance, or possibly even the actress herself is editing disruptively at the page. We had some discussions about the accuracy of the actress' birthdate on the article's talk page, as the birthdate in the article and at IMDB did not match the bio at the actress' website or her appearance in the programs in which she has had roles. For example, in The Ropers she appeared in an adult role while the article and IMDB would have you believe she was only 13. During the discussion, the pages on the website changed to support User:FilmFan123's stance that she was a child actress aged 13 when she appeared as an adult in The Ropers and Knots Landing. [29] The Google cache version of the same page says that she was at least 20 at the time. [30] Shortly after I pointed out that one page on the website still showed that she was 20, [31] the page in question was removed from the website. [32] Fortunately I thought to store a copy via WebCite in case that occurred. That the actress' website was being manipulated as we were discussing it, made me suspicious that at best the actress was watching the discussion and at worst was actually FilmFan123. There have previously been concerns raised at the article that there may have been some COI edits. While this was back in 2007, I assume that it was because it had been edited by User:StevieVallance and was essentially lifted from a previous version of her website.
Today an IP removed two {{ Citation needed}} templates from the page. [33] Shortly after I restored them, [34] FilmFan123 added citations from the actress' website. [35] While this resolve the issue identified by the {{ UnreferencedBLP}} template on the page, it raised other issues so I added {{ Multiple issues}} with three parameters:
|primarysources=
because nine of the ten references used were the actress' own websites (one page was used six times),|refimproveBLP=
because of the obvious problem that the page lacked references from reliable, secondary sources, and|onesource=
because most of what is in the article appears to have been sourced from the actress' website.FilmFan123's response was to remove the entire template. In the edit war that followed (yes, I've already slapped myself on the wrists!) I explained the various issues on FilmFan123's talk page, [36] but FilmFan123's response was to pepper the page with an additional 38 citations and remove the template again. [37] Ten citations from reliable secondary sources would have been sufficient for the claims that had been challenged but I assume the purpose of adding all of these extra cites was to add enough citations so that, in her mind at least, this satisfied the wording of the template. Unfortunately, 38 of the citations are the same page on IMDB. This is in addition to the six identical citations from http://stevievallance.com. I've consolidated the references but I have concerns about the validity of using these references, given that nine of the references are from a primary source and all of the others are IMDB. There's also the issue that most of the IMDB references aren't necessary. Could somebody please have a look at the article. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 20:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Bill_Frist ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - brief explanation // Geopilotwiki ( talk) 01:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is mostly a puff piece that is completely misleading by exclusion of hugely relvent factors inhis life. It sufffers edits by some to delete multiple sourced content relating to Frist's HCA source of his huge family wealth and family business as the largest medicare fraud settlement by the history of the US justice department. also Frist father's starting that organization is being deleted while someone insists on keeping him in as a "doctor", Frist's brother running that HCA organization particulary during times when activities occured and Bill Frist was in the Senate working on bills that affected that organization's potential profitability. The exclusion of Frist's FEC violations during the 2000 election. The fact that Frist himself had huge holdings in the hospitable corporation when he was working in the senate to slow down helathcare reforms which would have lessened that company's profits and that it later turned out his "blind trust" for those holdings wasn't very "blind".
on and on
this article needs to be closely watched.
First is considering running for governor of Tennessee and as recently as 2009 appeared on TV lobbying agaisnt Obama's health care reform so this is very relevant and important to a figure still prominent. There is no doubt many supporter or PR companies are trying to make this article a puff piece for his campaign in violation of wiki guidelines about deleting sourced material.
There is so much mentioned about Frist's charity and no mention of the largest healthcare company in the world which made Frist rich and which plead guilty to fraud charges while paying the largest settlement to the US Justice department EVER.
It ridiculous.
John Hemming (politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - repeated use of article by numerous IP addresses, two of which have been traced to John Hemming himself and to the main Liberal Democrats office, as a personal advertisement for John Hemming rather than as an encyclopedia article as it should be. POV and unsourced claims have been removed repeatedly, only to be restored by anonymous editors from these IP addresses on numerous occasions. Attempts to have the article blocked have also failed because the disrtuptive edits are not numerous enough to justify an edit block. // Crablogger ( talk) 05:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Madhuri Gupta ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I came across Madhuri Gupta while doing new pages patrol and tagged it as an unreferenced BLP PROD. It's been somewhat improved since then and the prod tag removed but I am concerned about the article because of its newness and the passions this sort of thing can inflame (this woman has been arrested on suspicion of spying on India for Pakistan). I've already removed some drive-by attacks, and removed her from the categories "Spies" and "Pakistani spies" (after all, she's not been convicted). I'm posting here hoping that a couple other neutral parties will add the article to their watchlists and help me clean it up a bit and ensure that it doesn't devolve into an attack page. Thanks. — e. ripley\ talk 14:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Andrew Brons ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Mr. Brons is an MEP for the BNP, and a candidate for the UK General Election on May 6. He was a member of a Neo-Nazi movement as a teenager, and is quoted in the article as saying "People do silly things when they are 17. Peter Mandelson was once a member of the Young Communist League but we don't continue to call him a communist."
Various users have attempted to add Brons to the category Category:British neo-Nazis. I believe that as a living person, it is inappopriate to have the highly pejorative label 'neo-Nazi' at the bottom of the page, given that the subject of the article has repudiated it, and it is clearly a damaging accusation, even among many sympathisers with Mr. Brons' current brand of politics.
The claim for inclusion of the tag is that the tag actually means 'current and former' Neo-Nazis, and that this is explained, not on Mr. Brons' page, not on the Category British Neo-Nazis, but no less than three clicks away on Category:Neo-Nazis.
I do not see that it is sufficient to justify defamatory labels on the basis that 'the category actually means something else' from what it says. Here the plain and simple reading is that Mr. Brons IS a Neo-Nazi, and there is nothing to justify this claim. Sumbuddi ( talk) 15:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
So let's think this through: a reader has to go from the article, to the category, to the PARENT category to see that a current living politician doesn't have to be a current member of a neo-Nazi party to be included in the "British neo-Nazi" category? On WHAT planet was THAT OK? Y'all who thought this wasn't a problem better be glad blocks aren't punitive, because if they were, that level of boneheadedness would certainly earn one. Jclemens ( talk) 05:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thomas Friedman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has had a number of IP edits like this one trying to claim he is a Scientologist. The reference provided do not back up the claim and Im not sure I would view 'adherents.org' as a reliable source anyway. Can we semi-protect this page for a week or two and see if these people either go away or bring a better source to the talk page? Bonewah ( talk) 20:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's happening at http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=6813&page=10, but it sounds like they're trying to put false information into the Levi Leipheimer article, then getting it protected so they can use the protection as a source somewhere else. Woogee ( talk) 01:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion on this talk page which could use more eyes. Questions boil down to:
Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 20:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
She has never publicly released her name, so it is only "expected" on Wikipedia if it is covered by high quality reliable sources. The fact that USER:Jclemens considers her privacy concerns "illegitimate" is irrelevant. Her name is NOT reliably sourced. That's the basis of this discussion. To reiterate, the source used is low quality and likely got the name from Wikipedia in the first place.
On Tuesday she wrote the following on Facebook: Just an FYI - I HAVE NEVER REVEALED MY FULL NAME IN PUBLIC. If you see a site claiming to know my "real name," do not believe it - and do not send me familiar "howdy, yada, yada" messages using it. The attempts at outing my personal information are entirely against my will by typical religious disrespecters of persons, and are obviously designed to endanger me and my family.
Further down she says: I am also the victim of violent crime, including the abduction of my small son out of my arms by three hired thugs, which triggered a nationwide Amber Alert. I had to go into hiding, and I have good reasons to do so.
Apparently this concern is not considered "legitimate" by some editors because the kidnapper already knows her full name. But publicizing her full name on Wikipedia is not going to help her keep a low profile. And it's really not for us to judge; we simply don't know all the details. ^^James^^ ( talk) 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Huh? I went to the BLP talk page to ask for clarification on what "contentious" means within the scope of the policy. Period. On the one hand you say I have to go to WP:RSN to question a source, but when I ask for a small policy clarification I'm "forum shopping"? The threats, cries of "censorship" and accusations are getting tiresome. ^^James^^ ( talk) 21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Jclemens, What a load of bullocks. You check one box of criteria that can affect reliability, and suddenly it is an iron-clad source and the burden is on me to prove otherwise. Your continued contortion of basic wiki policy is remarkable. But here you go - more time wasted to jump through arbitrary hoops to point out what should be obvious.
^^James^^ ( talk) 21:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I have quite serious concerns about the quality of the sources used for the forename; and the discussion has migrated here because the Talk page discussion has become deadlocked over interpretations of what BLP policy actually says. Now the authors Picknett and Prince publish in the field of fringe and conspiracy theories: to be scrupulous about the matter, it is not the subject area that is at issue, but the quality of their research on Acharya S, who is an author on topics that most people would regard as related. In other words we are not assessing what the authors Picknett and Prince say about the "Turin Shroud", say, but about a particular biographical matter. If there is attention paid to WP:BLP#Avoid gossip and feedback loops, I think there are serious issues about possible contamination of the information by (a) gossip from people who are not natural fact-checkers but rumour-mongers, and/or (b) extraction of information, quite unreferenced, from earlier versions of Acharya S. We know more than usual about the main author involved in the article in 2005, because of the arbitration case about the article. Does this raise "reasonable doubt" about the sourcing of the book in question? I think the answer is "yes". Does it support the idea that personal information that can be researched about D. M. Murdock is likely to be there because of malicious "outing"? Undoubtedly - but you may or may not think this is the point at issue here. The source cited from a Muslim news site, I think, should really be set aside: Acharya S is a strong critic of Islam as well as Christianity, the "information" cited is on search engines prominently, and the "feedback" and "malice" arguments seem quite good enough to undermine it (we don't accept random information on the Web as reliable sources anyway).
Which leaves the Picknett and Prince reference, in my view. Some of what they publish is with mainstream publishers (otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this at all). I found that their book Stargate Conspiracy from 2000 is (a) with the Sphere imprint, of what was then Little, Brown, (b) apparently not principally researched by them anyway, but by another conspiracy-oriented author called Philip Coppens [41]. That particular book being what it is, I conclude that a serious doubt exists. It really tips the balance for me, to see that in this genre, the "mainstream publisher" brand falls down on quality of editorial scrutiny and assurance; and Picknett and Prince do not necessarily do their own research. If they are collators, rather than researchers from primary sources, then that undermines the credibility of the reference.
One man's view, but on going into this area deeply I ended up with serious worries about the reliability. Other concerns of mine have been mentioned on Talk:Acharya S, and I think is fair to say that I think WP:NPF applies here also, while User:Jclemens rules out that section as irrelevant. I'm also concerned about that as too narrow a view. Charles Matthews ( talk) 12:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
As per User:Jclemens suggestion, I have brought the specific issue of whether Masks of Christ is a reliable source over to RS/N here. Hopefully we will get more community input on what appears to be a sticking point. ^^James^^ ( talk) 10:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
It was suggested we start a straw poll. Should the disputed material be removed from the article?
Support removal. ^^James^^ ( talk) 19:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Reject in favor of a separate RfC. Jclemens ( talk) 21:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Support removal, subject is not notable or well known as Dorothy and only notable under her pen name, the adding of the weakly cited first name that has mirror issues and outing issues is of such little informative or educational benefit as to be meaningless, so under the circumstsances nothing is lost by removal. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Support removal, for the moment, on the basis that the sources brought forward to support the inclusion don't hold up to scrutiny. I think it is unfortunate that User:Jclemens should backtrack on the decision to get input here, based on the way the input has turned out. Diff, ending I will accept the input of larger community consensus if my view is not upheld, which I would read against yet more forum discussion: this should be enough. The further opinions gathered here are on the other side of the question. There is no real reason to think that another forum will generate very different discussions; the ones we have had are not that satisfactory, but part of that is that User:Jclemens has so many opinions on where the onus of proof lies in this matter, poses false dichotomies, and lays down the law about how it should all go. The topic has been aired here, which is one appropriate place to get outside views. Charles Matthews ( talk) 05:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
We are an encyclopedia: the subject's wishes are, if not irrelevant, at the very least subordinated to what reliable sources already mention. The only reason the subject's wishes actually are taken into account, where we might be doing real harm, have been eviscerated. Our job is not to publish sourced info to the extent that people don't not like it, it's to publish sourced info unless actual harm can reasonably be expected to result from their publication. Stop trying to make this about me or the subject. It's about WP:5P: Is it RS'ed? Yes. Will it possibly hurt anyone? No. That should be the end of it, yet people keep trying to insert non-policy-based arguments to justify a desired outcome. Why on earth is that? Jclemens ( talk) 22:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Support We don't seem to have the quality of sources that I think are required in a case like this. As for Picknett and Prince, they are simply not a reliable source no matter who publishes them. Quite a few fringe writers have major publishers, that doesn't make their books reliable sources. As this is contentious (from my reading of the above), we should err on the side of caution and I think common sense and leave it out. And if Jclemens is claiming that Picknett and Prince are not questionable, all I can say is that it's a fringe book by writers whose books are not to be taken seriously and are poorly researched. That's questionable in my book. Dougweller ( talk) 11:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. (What a pathetic person.) Since she only uses the form "D.M. Murdock" on her website and her first name is not used in full in reliable sources it's out of the question for us to publish it here. That's without considering whether she was explicitly against it on Facebook, and that's without considering the potential feedback loop. We don't have to decide this question because a book full of ridiculous conjectures presented as fact, written by two regular pseudohistory/conspiracy theory authors [42] [43], is not a reliable source on anything other than what the book says and perhaps biographical details about the authors. Jclemens' arguments here are absolutely amazing. What's next? Using the output of these authors as sources for history articles? Hans Adler 12:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
In Schenectady City School District ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and several other articles about school districts, contracts between the school districts and supervisors are being used as sources. Some editors at the reliable sources noticeboard expressed concern about the privacy of individuals in a discussion about the sourcing of these documents. Accordingly, I have started this thread, although it is not why I raised the matter at WP:RSN. There is already a discussion at Talk:Schenectady City School District related to this issue, but it appears to be mired in personal conflict and is unlikely to be productive.
(Note that this is vaguely related to the recent discussions about Schenectady School District supervisor Eric Ely. See here, here, & here.) Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Katherine Doherty ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm afraid I'm not sure of the proper way to do this; I came across this page when searching for relevant information - a completely un-sourced and poorly written article on someone who does not appear to have a legitimate reason to even be on Wikipedia.
Gary_L._Stewart ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Has anyone got any idea about this person? Fat wedge of legal issues being added to a two line stub, IP claims it is by request of the organisation the subject was involved with. A couple of similar awarded people have articles so may be notable but right now it is pretty much uncited and unwatched with a load of legal claims? Off2riorob ( talk) 21:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The existing entire biography is written in such a lop-sided way, it is the obvious the work of a committed pro-abortionist. a cheap propaganda piece and, in the interest of Wikipedia reliability, should be taken off and completely rewritten. Senator Bond has a long admirable record of opposing the murdering of unborn children, a record of achievement completely ignored by the author of the present Wikipedia bio.
Dan Sullivan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.150.21 ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC) [44]
Poorly sourced BLP article, not sure about notability so sent it to AFD to assess that. Bringing here as well, due to the BLP issues. Could use some extra eyes and cleanup. -- Cirt ( talk) 13:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This aggregator http://www.molinu.org/wikipedia_new_pages seems to collect any new articles and publish them as soon as they are posted? Off2riorob ( talk) 14:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I've raised this issue at the RS/N. But it involves issues covered by BLP/N as well. This updates/replaces a prior post on the issue. There is also a related AN/I here.
The BLP issue has now expanded. I deleted from some BLPs highly contentious material, supported only by refs to FAIR. Annoy reverted my deletions. This is being discussed at the RS/N here.
Probably best, if you have comments, to leave them there, so they are all in one place. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 19:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Henry H. Bauer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to have become rather acrimonious lately in a dispute over the inclusion of a quote from a book by Kalichman about pseudo-science, denialism and the like which describes Bauer in very unflattering terms. One party to the dispute uses blog-sourced statements attributed to Bauer in which he rebuts a claim adjacent to the disputed quoted phrase, which to my mind does throw legitimate doubt on the quality of Kalichman's research on Bauer: to wit, in the book Kalichman says Bauer has done no scientific research at all, whereas Bauer apparently has a fairly long published career in a field of scientific research (albeit unrelated to medicine).
There has also been some problematic editing on the talk page, with blog-based counter-accusations of professional misconduct against Kalichman. The worst of these have been removed. I think some more attention to this dispute is merited. Please take a look. Tasty monster (= TS ) 16:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Basically, the issue is whether or not it is permissible to quote a defamatory accusation against a person that in its original context is an illogical non sequitur and absolutely false. One editor insists there is nothing wrong quoting Seth Kalichman from Denying AIDS to the effect that Henry Bauer is "a pseudoscientist's pseudoscientist". Here is Kalichman's context: "Bauer has never done AIDS research. In fact, he has never done any scientific research. Henry Bauer is a pseudoscientist's pseudoscientist!" (p. 71). Kalichman ignores the over 80 publications in Bauer's C.V. pertaining to his published research, mainly in electrochemistry. Thus, the second sentence in the passage is a false premise. In logic, the conclusion in the third sentence, based on this false premise, cannot be valid. I would also point out that one need not have personal experience in AIDS research to be qualified to judge the validity of the experimental design of AIDS research reported in the medical literature. Finally, having an interest in such subjects as UFOs and Loch Ness monster does not automatically make one a "pseudoscientist". Bauer's interest in such fringe topics, whose results have been the subject of books published by a university press, has been to examine how science deals with extraordinary claims. Labelling Bauer a "pseudoscientist" on the basis of Kalichman's illogical and erroneous accusation is unethical, at the least, and surely there must be some policy in Wikipedia that would forbid such a practice. It would be unreasonable to allow such a defamatory and patently false accusation to be quoted until it was refuted in a future "reliable source". There is no good reason to quote such defamatory material in the first place, unless an editor has some ulterior motive. My interest in this matter has nothing to do with any COI, as has been alleged by one editor. My interest is based on basic fairness and equity. Finally, how can a source, such as Kalichman, containing such illogical and patently erroneous information be considered "reliable", as one editor steadfastly maintains? Phaedrus7 ( talk) 20:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some review of my actions in the history of this BLP. A number of editors have moved in on the article (no doubt following an ARS tag) adding all kinds of weblinks to justify the retention of the article and the removal of the BLPunsourced tag. In my view, a BLPunsourced tag should only be removed if the article has reliable sources. If this right? -- Mkativerata ( talk) 06:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have an issue with some of the above templates on BLP grounds, and have initiated discussion on two of them. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone professionally connected with Sandra Worth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) complained that text they had added regarding her "Rose of York" series had been vandalised. I reviewed our coverage of this series with the aid of the good Dr. Google and found several blatantly promotional passages about the book, in many cases being the sole book discussed in a new "in fiction" section in articles on notable historical figures. Terms like "multi award winning" were much in evidence. I have no evidence that Sandra Worth requested this promotional editing, but I would suggest that a thorough review of the article on Worth, and any links to it form other articles, is in order. Also, any subject linked from that article (e.g. Perkin Warbeck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) appears to be subject to the same abuse. Guy ( Help!) 12:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
This entire article essntially reads like tabloid fodder, especially the "relationships" section. I'm not very savvy in recognizing reliable UK news sources from the more gossipy fare, so could someone with this knowledge possibly edit it down to retain only what can be verified by reliable sources? Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 16:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Grant_Shapps ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Politically motivated additions which attempt to represent this living person in a negative light being repeatedly added to wiki entry. See diff http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Grant_Shapps&action=historysubmit&diff=358802551&oldid=358618483 // 77.68.47.88 ( talk) 07:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC) — 77.68.47.88 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
<ref>{{cite web|url=web address here|title=title here|publisher=add the publisher here|date=date the article was written here|accessdate=date you accessed the article here}}</ref>
You have also accused the IP of vandalism when they have been removing this citation that appears to be a forum http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t1029.html. Seems to be a decent thing for the IP to do, I removed it when I found it and yet you haven't accused me of vandalism? Off2riorob ( talk) 21:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
content
For example...we have this comment in the article
He stepped down as a Director in the same week in 2009 when MP's expenses were made public during the expenses scandal, and it became clear that he had utilised PrintHouse for numerous transactions ..
supported by this PDF? http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/grant-shapps/grant_shapps_0708_CA.pdf which appears to be original research and a bit of synth and what looks very much like a primary document to me? Where is an actual report of this happening in this time frame? As wikipedia editors we report other published reliable sources reports. Off2riorob ( talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I've joined this discussion late but see there's a fair amount of traffic above. Today I tried to improve the article - as now described on the discussion page - only to find that WideFox later reverted it without explanation. True I hadn't at the time referenced on the discussion page the changes I made, but they were all fairly uncontroverial, for example removing a reference page which doesn't appear to refer to the individual at all and another from a gossip column which is not a reliable source for the bio of a living person. Could an editor have a further look at this article. Hackneymarsh ( talk) 21:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC) — Hackneymarsh ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A note for review and transparency. Having seen this article at AfD ( here, I blanked the article of a substantial amount of largely negative unsourced content ( here). The article is now a stub although as I don't speak Dutch I'm not even sure the source properly supports the content of the stub. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 23:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor wants to add material to Jerry Brown, the biography of the former governor of California and current candidate for that office. It concerns whether Brown was the inspiration for a character in a 19790 movie. The offered sources are an IMDB reader review and a number of blogs. [1] While it's certainly possible that Brown was the inspiration, I think we'd need the same high quality sources for this as we'd expect for any assertion about a living person. This has been discussed at Talk:Jerry Brown#Americathon, but I don't think we're getting closer to consensus. Other views? Will Beback talk 01:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The first joke is nearly the last. Over some pictures of dinosaurs, a narrator says then when dinosaurs died, they turned into fossil fuel, and that "Jimmy Carter became President when everybody noticed we were starting to run out of dead dinosaurs." The movie was made at a time when everybody noticed we were starting to run out of Jerry Brown jokes, but it relies on them for fuel.
I just stumbled on this article while vandalism patrolling. It appears to me that it has serious problems from several perspectives and requires some close attention. ScottyBerg ( talk) 15:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Since it seems to meet the criteria of speedy deletion as an attack page, I've taken the liberty of nominating it, and have blanked it as requested in the deletion template message. ScottyBerg ( talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Thankfully it was deleted swiftly by Excirial. Apparently it began innocuously, and a user maliciously turned it into an attack article. An administrator may want to look into the now disappeared article history and take appropriate steps. ScottyBerg ( talk) 16:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Bimbapboo ( talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose attack account. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is turning into an edit war, and thought I'd check in here for some advice on what to do. I don't think it is correct to include the (removed) section on human trafficking given that there's just one primary source. It gets added, I remove it, it gets added again, etc. I made the bold move of removing it (again) until a consensus is reached on Talk:Peter Nygård. There's a couple of reasons this is concerning: it isn't properly sourced material and doesn't match my novice interpretation of WP:BLP, and Nygard has a history of launching libel lawsuits. I'm new to this, help me do the right thing. Alexthepuffin ( talk) 04:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Possible Conflict Of Interest/ Wikibombing: I nominated this for deletion as the subject seemed laughably below the bar for notability, and the article text had numerous issues.
Initially, the only person who objected was a person who I strongly suspect as being the subject of the article. Then, four days later, the delete notice is suddenly flooded with "keep" votes from IP editors (and two registered users who haven't edited in years). Looks like a clear case of Wikibombing, from this being posted to a Linux forum somewhere.
I don't really have any emotional stake in this, but I wondered if there was policy to cover this sort of situation. Fell Gleaming( talk) 18:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Jay Park ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article in question is subject to vandalism and numerous BLP violations. There is some difficulty in addressing this as the majority of the sources are in Korean. - Reconsider ! 08:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Content issue now being discussed on talk page. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
This article looks to me to be a BLP mess. I've started going through removing parts of the article that associate living people with crimes or criminal enterprises without reliable sources. But other sets of eyes would be warranted. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am new to Wikipedia editing but I am trying to get something sorted out.
I am concerned about biased and potentially inflammatory language being posted in the Wikipedia entry for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords), specifically under the "Gun Rights" and "Outsourcing" headings. The statements under these headings clearly violate Wikipedia's Impartial Tone guidelines ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). I have a conflict of interest, so I am hesitant to make edits myself. Rather, an impartial third-party editor should take a look at the page and I am happy to provide additional information for incomplete sections as well as additional citations.
Thanks,
Stephanie4815162342 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie4815162342 ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Can another editor please scrutinize the edits of User:Parallel process? [4], [5] makes me think some synthesis is being used to subtly twist the subjects' view on outsourcing. -- NeilN talk to me 00:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
May also involve this IP (probably a simple not-logged-in)
Serious POV pushing related to some off-wiki dispute (Lord Lovat's estates and one or more tenants). Although the content added is minor (mostly linking to an off-wiki campaign site as if it were RS), it's widespread and needs action.
The user's talk seems quite up-front about their agenda and intentions towards WP, none of which appears acceptable to the project's aims:
Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Jackie_Sherrill ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A couple of weeks back now, I noticed a section of this article added by an anonymous editor that was completely unsourced and written in a "behind the scenes story as told by insiders" way which seemed extremely POV. I removed it, noting its deficiencies in my comment, and it stood for approximately a week before being added back by, I assume, the same anonymous user (similar by slightly different IP). This time it included a source that 1) was posted under the notice that the items on the page were merely rumors and the poster wouldn't vouch for them 2) didn't actually cover most of the information in the paragraph in question. I once again removed it, and noted on the talk page my problems with the particular section. Since then, I've received no feedback from the user on the talk page, but we're approaching a revert war (a revert each way every couple of days since). Since it's an anonymous user, I can't contact them directly to pursue a discussion, so I was hoping for some guidance. Erusdruidum ( talk) 12:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
On first blush, there isn't much of a BLP problem with this article. But digging a little deeper, I'm detecting serious problems related to whether the claims in the article are actually supported by the citations. In many or most cases, the article attributes claims to citations that do not fully support them. My efforts to clean up the content and realign our concrete statements with what citations actually say have met with serious resistance on the article talk page, including personal attacks and a general tendency to spend more energy discussing my motives than discussing article content.
Most grievously, some editors have unambiguously argued that because the subject is an accused terrorist, WP:BLP does not apply to him, and have reverted my efforts to clean up the article without discussion beyond personal attacks and accusations of pro-terrorism POV warriorship on my part. I do not want to use sysop tools to enforce BLP in a dispute in which I am a direct participant, but without help, I do not see any alternative. More eyes please, before this boils over. -- causa sui ( talk) 17:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that there may be problems with two userboxes on Thundera_m117's user page. One (shown on the bottom lefthand-side) carries the text "This user knows Anti-semites use Self-hating Jew and irrational Anti-Zionist Jewish Fundamentalist as their political opportunity against mainstream Jewish Community and Israel" and shows a picture of Noam Chomsky; the other (shown in the middle on the lefthand-side) carries the text "This user was not surprise at Mahathir Anti-Semitic hate speech at the Organization of Islamic Conference". Since the user edits irregularly, I edited the user page to remove what I thought were probably BLP violations, leaving the editor a message to explain what I had done. The user has now reverted my edits. ← ZScarpia 15:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I have created a new incident at the WP:ANI noticeboard: User:Thundera_m117 userboxes. ← ZScarpia 01:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The section Homosexuality in women's sports#Notable lesbian.2C gay and bisexual_athletes is a mess. Because we have List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople, which is well-cited, do we even need this page? It sounds like something that would much better serve as an overview article rather than a list. NW ( Talk) 22:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I feel a little out of my depth with this one as I rarely edit political articles. The article is virtually unsourced with only a single source (not inline cited). POV issues aside for the moment, my main concern lies with the use of words such as "corruption allegations", "misappropriation of funds" and "political vengeance"; all unsourced. There appears to be an older, weakly cited and substantially different version of the article here. Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 19:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't even know where to begin. Just look at it. Should be speedied in my opinion, which I'll do if nobody objects by tomorrow. -- causa sui ( talk) 05:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Gone to afd, where all 9-11 tinfoilhattery belongs.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delmart Vreeland.--
Scott Mac (Doc)
19:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
See the names at the end of [7], the accounts have been renamed but there are several pages of suspected sockpuppet investigations etc. where a copy-paste replacement needs to be done. I have no bot-fu so have to do it the hard way, if anyone can help out by fixing this before tomorrow then please do. Guy ( Help!) 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Jay Lyon (musician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An IP editor 66.108.95.249 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting edits to an article he claims is about him, specifically about his former name (now works under a stage name), but his undo also removed other references. The source for his old name is an interview where he talked about the reasons for his own name change! I would like some other eyes on it to confirm that the article is not unreasonable nor has WP:UNDUE weight, on what is a fairly lightweight minor celebrity. The-Pope ( talk) 11:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Another OTRS ticket, this time from Busty Heart ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There is an edit war spanning some tens of edits on the talk page between the subject and various others, reinserting a fatuous comment about the porn industry (this person is not involved with pornography). I don't know how we can go about reinforcing the fact that edit-warring with article subjects - especially over asinine comments on a talk page - is a spectacularly bad idea. Guy ( Help!) 18:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This diff - is a summary of the dispure of the tv documentary, self published book by one of the authors of the article Henry Doctorsky [8] is disputed along with (selfpublished) IUniverse ;-) book After the Absolute: Real Life Adventures with a Backwoods Buddha which is proposed to be used along with self-published periodicals. Issues brought up here in August09 [9], but no conclusion reached on this 'swami'. Come on folks just let us get to the bottom of it, Kirtanananda is a known, notorious criminal, well victimised for the crimes and for being gay (not self-confessed at the time), a helping hand from those who know the BLP policy is really welcomed. Thank you for your comments. Wikid as© 03:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry if I seem to be bringing a question here that seems repetitive.
Four days ago I asked for third party input on a series of excisions of passages that had been justified, in part, based on a concern those passages were "dehumanizing". It was my impression that no one shared the concern of the excising wikipedian that the passages in question were dehumanizing, although some respondents had other concerns.
Subsequently the wikipedian who had that concern has continued to excise these passages, as they did to the article on Abdul Rahman al-Amri, the fourth Guantanamo captive to have been reported to have committed suicide. On Talk:Abdul Rahman al-Amri they wrote:
I responded, "I am not sure whether you are saying that since you think "Wikipedia is a community and there are various opinions", that you are authorized to ignore the opinions offered at BLPN, or whether you think some of the contributors who responded there would share your opinion this edit was authorized on the grounds the section you excised was "dehumanizing"."
Either way I am concerned, because I thought the consensus was clear -- and that none of us is entitled to simply ignore the consensus of a discussion.
I just initiated a discussion over at WP:NORN, over the assertion these passages lapse from WP:OR.
If possible I'd like this discussion to be confined to the question of whether the excision of this passage was authorized by WP:BLP, and have discussion of whether or not the passage was dehumanizing take place at WP:NORN.
If possible I'd like to request that any other concerns with this passage take place elsewhere -- I suggest Talk:Abdul Rahman al-Amri.
Thanks in advance! Geo Swan ( talk) 19:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Eric Ely ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 57#Eric Ely AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely (2nd nomination) for more context. There seems to be a beginning edit war. Hans Adler 17:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The Mulla brothers has reliable sources but is rather contentious. Extra eyes appreciated. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This article has Aaron Boone's middle name listed as EFFIN. The corect name, from the MLB website, is John. See http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=111213. I can understand why frustrated Red Sox fans might have made this change, but really. This should be fixed and frozen. This part of the page is not editable by a regular member. Kgilbert78 ( talk) 15:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Steve Ballmer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Vandalism, cute and funny but still vandalism. I have semiprotected for a while. Inevitably given his outspoken opinions on open source he is not popular with a lot of technically savvy folks, so we should be alert on this one. Guy ( Help!) 18:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The article on Dan Coats has been getting quite a number of anonymous edits in the past number of days that have been trying to sway the pov of the article out of balance. A number of these edits have centered on his lobbying, gun law activities and current senate run. I have been working on cleaning up some of these conflicts, but I am fairly new at dealing with these types of conflicts so I was looking for some advice on what to do next. Thanks, TheIguana ( talk) 18:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Tony Cornell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Subject now deceased - page needs update
Thank you. Done
Off2riorob (
talk)
21:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The article on Herb Schildt is in violation of wikipedia's own policies as regards Biographies of Living Persons since it cites two NNPOV polemics, one of which was a copycat drive by, and a book that was mistakenly based on the first NNPOV source.
Furthermore, these notices to this site are being vandalized by someone who apparently sees they are not archived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.80.153 ( talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]"
"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."
- Wikipedia "Biographies of Living Persons"
This is the policy, and it is quite independent of my harassment by a bunch of half-educated convenience store clerks and the former options speculator Jimbo Wales, who saw fit to make offensive comments at my blog whilst supporting the harassment I have been subject to on wikipedia.
Neither "C: the Complete Nonsense 3rd Ed", nor "C" the Complete Nonsense 4 ed", nor "The Annotated Annotated" can be considered "high quality sources". As Dr. Malcolm McClean concluded last month on comp.lang.c, these are polemics. They are disorganized lists of genuine errors (of the sort that appear in many computer books), trivial pursuits, and linux-centric shibboleths with a clearly polemical purpose of putting down a Windows-centric author helping primarily Windows programmers get started on C.
A high quality source would be an analysis of Herb's "errors" by a reputable academic computer scientist such as Brian Kernighan with at least Herb's track record of publication (Herb has published several books which the market has judged to be of sufficient quality for multiple editions).
But note that although Brian Kernighan did mention the problem of software listings in books being incorrect in his 1975 "Elements of Programming Style", and that Edsger Dijkstra was equally concerned with the cavalier attitude towards bugs exhibited by his colleagues, neither of them ever targeted any author or computer scientist by name.
Why?
Because until Watson, Crick, Edward Teller and Thomas "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Kuhn and to a great extent after the 1950s, there has been, in the interest of real scientific progress, a collective agreement, which used to be called a "gentleman's agreement" and has received unmerited scorn for that term, that the focus be on ideas and not individuals; that no one individual need be singled out and made into a byword as was Schildt. Dijkstra and Kernighan were of this school.
It is true that Edward Teller waged a campaign of personal destruction against Robert Oppenheimer, and that Watson and Crick were pond scum who dealt with colleagues and women in bounderish fashion, and that Thomas Kuhn blessed this blackguard conduct as somehow being progress. But in general, real scientists (as opposed to computer thugs and their hosts of frightened clerks) continue to focus on ideas and not personalities...which is why wikipedia is relatively reliable on mathematics and real science as opposed to computer science as it is practised.
However, once corporations commercialize things like DNA and programming languages, the gentleman's agreement means that the "gentleman" loth to name specific scapegoats is at risk for the consequences of speaking truth to corporate power including, here, the corporate power which has ranged itself behind Open Source in order to protect its expropriation of the theft of intellectual production by postmodern slaves.
To criticize Schildt without naming him is to interrogate the C99 and C98 standards, both of which were highjacked by vendors to preserve their investment in bad C compilers. It is to find (for example) that the "void main" controversy results from language in the C99 standard which inappropriately recognized a Linux practice while continuing to allow "freestanding" programs in which void main() is permitted.
It is easier to spend, as Seebach and Feather have spent, minutes gaily and randomly sniping at code snippets and exhibiting what these two individuals think is a superior insight, while trashing Schildt.
The Schildt article is poorly sourced on the work of an individual (Seebach) who was not invited to join the C99 standard, but who paid his way in as a volunteer. Feather's work is slightly better and was reviewed by some real professionals (one of whom I worked with when he was at Princeton). But like Seebach's Snarky Tirade, Feather's is poorly organized as a laundry list of genuine errors (of the sort which appear in many computer books and are indemnified by disclaimers of warranty as is software), trivia, and shibboleth. Feather's is a drive-by, copy cat shooting. Steve Summit witlessly sourced his C FAQ on Seebach and the result has no more meaning than the echoes of the Malabar caves in Forster's A Passage to India.
Edward G. Nilges Hong Kong 21 April 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.48.168.124 ( talk) 13:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I have just removed another long text by the banned user. I used to be more careful, but in a previous similar case concerning the same page, it was determined that the user is banned. Presumably these confused and unhelpful messages were part of the reason for the ban. The user's argument that he cannot be banned because we are not enforcing the ban with a block of his entire internet provider in Hong Kong is of course absurd. Hans Adler 12:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Philip Vidal Streich ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article does not deal with a subject of great enough importance to warrant a Wikipedia entry and appears to be written by the subject himself. // 140.247.44.193 ( talk) 20:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I have removed a 'controversy' section from the article, it was added here.
I have placed the information on the talk page.
I do not believe that the facts are covered appropriately in reliable sources. Chzz ► 17:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The first citation only mentions Swamy once http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl1819/18190100.htm saying..
"The cases had their origin in 1993 when Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy sought permission from Governor M. Channa Reddy to prosecute Jayalalithaa on charges of corruption."
this is being used in the BLP to support
"Subramanian Swamy has a record of making defamatory remarks against prominent leaders like Jayalalithaa , Sonia Gandhi , P.chidambram etc , he has been accused of writting articles with false information and has lost lakhs of money due to defamation suits" Off2riorob ( talk) 18:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor Murray McDonald ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly re-adding poorly sourced POV-pushing (coatrack) controversial material on living persons.
The WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV policies have been repeatedly pointed out to him & material removed per WP:BLP. He refuses to stop, preferring insults, complaining the remover hadn't contacted earlier authors and it's all "true" and, most recently, accusations of silencing the truth.
He continued after a level 4 warning on usertalkpage - see his reply, so I reported it [22] to WP:AIV. MuZemike suggested ANI. It's about a living person so I've brought it here.
It will be clear to participants with experience of BLPs that the additions coatrack, poorly sourced to a community blog site whose About page says anyone can contribute an article (somewhat like Examiner.com).
He repeatedly reinserts. Help is requested both with removal and administrative prevention of the living person content violations. 92.30.27.56 ( talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Brittny Gastineau ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This has been previously covered twice on this noticeboard, here [23] and here [24], as well as in a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Brittny Gastineau (See "Bruno" section).
There is once again a discussion going on as to whether or not to include details on the subject's appearance in the movie "Bruno," where she made comments (which she later said were a joke) about the pregnancy of Jamie Lynn Spears and abortion.
The consensus has been that including this information is giving undue weight to a comment made in passing in a comedy that all parties agree was a joke, and that it's disparaging to the pregnant person to include details on a trivial mention. The material has been out of the article for months after the previous discussion, but a new editor Reswobslc has come along to readd the information, and claim there is no consensus. I've reverted in hopes of continuing the discussion on the talk page, but I was in turn reverted by 128.104.truth, who was one of the original editors pushing for inclusion of the material, claiming it was "the truth" [25].
I'm not going to edit war over this, but more opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for the attention. Dayewalker ( talk) 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
You want to add this.. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
In 2009 she appeared in the Sacha Baron Cohen documentary comedy Brüno http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0889583/fullcredits#cast, in a talk show scene she later described as herself "joking around" . She is depicted cheerfully agreeing with suggestions that a pregnant teen actress should abort her baby. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=43723
(OD) I'm certainly glad for the discussion on the matter this time around. 128.104.truth, you were adamant about including this information in the previous discussion because it's your personal opinion this shows "the truth" about her, your above comment about "saving her some embarrasment" seem to indicate that's still how you see it. Whatever your personal opinions are, that's no reason for inclusion.
As for the new suggested version of the incident, I will agree it's better, but I still see no reason for inclusion. It was a comment made in a comedy that no one says was meant seriously. Including it gives undue weight to an off-the-cuff remark, which should be avoided on a BLP.
I'll obviously abide by whatever consensus develops here but my main question is, what exactly does this section add to the BLP? Dayewalker ( talk) 01:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Should every comment this person makes be included in the article? What makes this comment special? Oh, that's right, some people think it makes her look bad so they want it included. It's been covered by gossip pages, tabloids and blogs after all so it's obviously notable. </sarcasm> -- Onorem ♠ Dil 15:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
You also removed productive edits to the page. Be more careful in the future. And in response to Dayewalker, I do not see it as a battleground, but you must if you're assuming others do. And you obviously misunderstood my point: I do not think that the article should be deleted; but the argument Onorem Dil made could also be made as an argument for deleting the entire article. Which illustrates how useless of an argument it is. 128.104.truth ( talk) 14:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
More eyes are needed at Dell Schanze ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Information is being repeatedly by several users added regarding legal arrests and convictions despite poor sourcing. Brad 21:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thorwald ( talk · contribs) insist on inserting material Weaponbb7 ( talk · contribs) considers libelous OR against J. Gordon Melton Disscussion here Weaponbb7 ( talk) 02:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The article Paul Sheehan (Journalist) has him labelled as a "conservative commentator" on the basis of these references;
The first of these doesn't really support the claim. The next two come from Australian Options Magazine, which appears to be a very small publication published as "an open discussion journal of the left". The other source is the World Socialist Web Site. I would have expected that neither would be appropriate for sourcing a BLP claim?
I've posted a message on the article talkpage, but it's not a very active page, so I'm posting here as well. Thepm ( talk) 04:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Bill Moyers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have introduced two items to the Bill Moyers article. These items were objected to on the basis of not meeting BLP requirements. Please look over and give your opinion, quoting specifics of BLP policy:
Chris Cohan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I came across this articles and see that there are several controversial statements that could violate BLP. I just want someone who is more knowledgeable to see whether the statements are ok. Thanks— Chris! c/ t 05:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Jclemens ( talk) 21:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Clearly there are private interests astroturfing the Chris Cohan page and censoring it to look better. I find this wildly irresponsible, and not in the spirit of wikipedia at all. -jcreager
I think I will go ask at the NPOV noticeboard. While they are sourced, only adding negative stuff make the article not neutral, violating Wikipedia policy.— Chris! c/ t 22:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Only adding positive material (or restricting content to positive material) when the sale of the team partially depends on his public image certainly isn't neutral. In fact it constitutes a clear conflict of interest.
Actually I made those posts to make the article neutral, but whatever. I'm done burning the plantlife. If wikipedia wants to act complicitly in misdirecting the public for the monetary benefit of another entity that is not my personal problem, and will only compromise the integrity of wikipedia in the long run. -Nuck
As have I. 67.180.72.59 ( talk) 21:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Colleen LaRose ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There are two sections which are causing me concern at the above. I am meeting resistance to having it removed. Please go to talk:Colleen LaRose#COATRACKS Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Stevie Vallance ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An SPA, [28] who appears to be a fan of Stevie Vallance, or possibly even the actress herself is editing disruptively at the page. We had some discussions about the accuracy of the actress' birthdate on the article's talk page, as the birthdate in the article and at IMDB did not match the bio at the actress' website or her appearance in the programs in which she has had roles. For example, in The Ropers she appeared in an adult role while the article and IMDB would have you believe she was only 13. During the discussion, the pages on the website changed to support User:FilmFan123's stance that she was a child actress aged 13 when she appeared as an adult in The Ropers and Knots Landing. [29] The Google cache version of the same page says that she was at least 20 at the time. [30] Shortly after I pointed out that one page on the website still showed that she was 20, [31] the page in question was removed from the website. [32] Fortunately I thought to store a copy via WebCite in case that occurred. That the actress' website was being manipulated as we were discussing it, made me suspicious that at best the actress was watching the discussion and at worst was actually FilmFan123. There have previously been concerns raised at the article that there may have been some COI edits. While this was back in 2007, I assume that it was because it had been edited by User:StevieVallance and was essentially lifted from a previous version of her website.
Today an IP removed two {{ Citation needed}} templates from the page. [33] Shortly after I restored them, [34] FilmFan123 added citations from the actress' website. [35] While this resolve the issue identified by the {{ UnreferencedBLP}} template on the page, it raised other issues so I added {{ Multiple issues}} with three parameters:
|primarysources=
because nine of the ten references used were the actress' own websites (one page was used six times),|refimproveBLP=
because of the obvious problem that the page lacked references from reliable, secondary sources, and|onesource=
because most of what is in the article appears to have been sourced from the actress' website.FilmFan123's response was to remove the entire template. In the edit war that followed (yes, I've already slapped myself on the wrists!) I explained the various issues on FilmFan123's talk page, [36] but FilmFan123's response was to pepper the page with an additional 38 citations and remove the template again. [37] Ten citations from reliable secondary sources would have been sufficient for the claims that had been challenged but I assume the purpose of adding all of these extra cites was to add enough citations so that, in her mind at least, this satisfied the wording of the template. Unfortunately, 38 of the citations are the same page on IMDB. This is in addition to the six identical citations from http://stevievallance.com. I've consolidated the references but I have concerns about the validity of using these references, given that nine of the references are from a primary source and all of the others are IMDB. There's also the issue that most of the IMDB references aren't necessary. Could somebody please have a look at the article. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 20:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Bill_Frist ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - brief explanation // Geopilotwiki ( talk) 01:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is mostly a puff piece that is completely misleading by exclusion of hugely relvent factors inhis life. It sufffers edits by some to delete multiple sourced content relating to Frist's HCA source of his huge family wealth and family business as the largest medicare fraud settlement by the history of the US justice department. also Frist father's starting that organization is being deleted while someone insists on keeping him in as a "doctor", Frist's brother running that HCA organization particulary during times when activities occured and Bill Frist was in the Senate working on bills that affected that organization's potential profitability. The exclusion of Frist's FEC violations during the 2000 election. The fact that Frist himself had huge holdings in the hospitable corporation when he was working in the senate to slow down helathcare reforms which would have lessened that company's profits and that it later turned out his "blind trust" for those holdings wasn't very "blind".
on and on
this article needs to be closely watched.
First is considering running for governor of Tennessee and as recently as 2009 appeared on TV lobbying agaisnt Obama's health care reform so this is very relevant and important to a figure still prominent. There is no doubt many supporter or PR companies are trying to make this article a puff piece for his campaign in violation of wiki guidelines about deleting sourced material.
There is so much mentioned about Frist's charity and no mention of the largest healthcare company in the world which made Frist rich and which plead guilty to fraud charges while paying the largest settlement to the US Justice department EVER.
It ridiculous.
John Hemming (politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - repeated use of article by numerous IP addresses, two of which have been traced to John Hemming himself and to the main Liberal Democrats office, as a personal advertisement for John Hemming rather than as an encyclopedia article as it should be. POV and unsourced claims have been removed repeatedly, only to be restored by anonymous editors from these IP addresses on numerous occasions. Attempts to have the article blocked have also failed because the disrtuptive edits are not numerous enough to justify an edit block. // Crablogger ( talk) 05:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Madhuri Gupta ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I came across Madhuri Gupta while doing new pages patrol and tagged it as an unreferenced BLP PROD. It's been somewhat improved since then and the prod tag removed but I am concerned about the article because of its newness and the passions this sort of thing can inflame (this woman has been arrested on suspicion of spying on India for Pakistan). I've already removed some drive-by attacks, and removed her from the categories "Spies" and "Pakistani spies" (after all, she's not been convicted). I'm posting here hoping that a couple other neutral parties will add the article to their watchlists and help me clean it up a bit and ensure that it doesn't devolve into an attack page. Thanks. — e. ripley\ talk 14:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Andrew Brons ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Mr. Brons is an MEP for the BNP, and a candidate for the UK General Election on May 6. He was a member of a Neo-Nazi movement as a teenager, and is quoted in the article as saying "People do silly things when they are 17. Peter Mandelson was once a member of the Young Communist League but we don't continue to call him a communist."
Various users have attempted to add Brons to the category Category:British neo-Nazis. I believe that as a living person, it is inappopriate to have the highly pejorative label 'neo-Nazi' at the bottom of the page, given that the subject of the article has repudiated it, and it is clearly a damaging accusation, even among many sympathisers with Mr. Brons' current brand of politics.
The claim for inclusion of the tag is that the tag actually means 'current and former' Neo-Nazis, and that this is explained, not on Mr. Brons' page, not on the Category British Neo-Nazis, but no less than three clicks away on Category:Neo-Nazis.
I do not see that it is sufficient to justify defamatory labels on the basis that 'the category actually means something else' from what it says. Here the plain and simple reading is that Mr. Brons IS a Neo-Nazi, and there is nothing to justify this claim. Sumbuddi ( talk) 15:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
So let's think this through: a reader has to go from the article, to the category, to the PARENT category to see that a current living politician doesn't have to be a current member of a neo-Nazi party to be included in the "British neo-Nazi" category? On WHAT planet was THAT OK? Y'all who thought this wasn't a problem better be glad blocks aren't punitive, because if they were, that level of boneheadedness would certainly earn one. Jclemens ( talk) 05:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thomas Friedman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has had a number of IP edits like this one trying to claim he is a Scientologist. The reference provided do not back up the claim and Im not sure I would view 'adherents.org' as a reliable source anyway. Can we semi-protect this page for a week or two and see if these people either go away or bring a better source to the talk page? Bonewah ( talk) 20:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's happening at http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=6813&page=10, but it sounds like they're trying to put false information into the Levi Leipheimer article, then getting it protected so they can use the protection as a source somewhere else. Woogee ( talk) 01:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion on this talk page which could use more eyes. Questions boil down to:
Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 20:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
She has never publicly released her name, so it is only "expected" on Wikipedia if it is covered by high quality reliable sources. The fact that USER:Jclemens considers her privacy concerns "illegitimate" is irrelevant. Her name is NOT reliably sourced. That's the basis of this discussion. To reiterate, the source used is low quality and likely got the name from Wikipedia in the first place.
On Tuesday she wrote the following on Facebook: Just an FYI - I HAVE NEVER REVEALED MY FULL NAME IN PUBLIC. If you see a site claiming to know my "real name," do not believe it - and do not send me familiar "howdy, yada, yada" messages using it. The attempts at outing my personal information are entirely against my will by typical religious disrespecters of persons, and are obviously designed to endanger me and my family.
Further down she says: I am also the victim of violent crime, including the abduction of my small son out of my arms by three hired thugs, which triggered a nationwide Amber Alert. I had to go into hiding, and I have good reasons to do so.
Apparently this concern is not considered "legitimate" by some editors because the kidnapper already knows her full name. But publicizing her full name on Wikipedia is not going to help her keep a low profile. And it's really not for us to judge; we simply don't know all the details. ^^James^^ ( talk) 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Huh? I went to the BLP talk page to ask for clarification on what "contentious" means within the scope of the policy. Period. On the one hand you say I have to go to WP:RSN to question a source, but when I ask for a small policy clarification I'm "forum shopping"? The threats, cries of "censorship" and accusations are getting tiresome. ^^James^^ ( talk) 21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Jclemens, What a load of bullocks. You check one box of criteria that can affect reliability, and suddenly it is an iron-clad source and the burden is on me to prove otherwise. Your continued contortion of basic wiki policy is remarkable. But here you go - more time wasted to jump through arbitrary hoops to point out what should be obvious.
^^James^^ ( talk) 21:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I have quite serious concerns about the quality of the sources used for the forename; and the discussion has migrated here because the Talk page discussion has become deadlocked over interpretations of what BLP policy actually says. Now the authors Picknett and Prince publish in the field of fringe and conspiracy theories: to be scrupulous about the matter, it is not the subject area that is at issue, but the quality of their research on Acharya S, who is an author on topics that most people would regard as related. In other words we are not assessing what the authors Picknett and Prince say about the "Turin Shroud", say, but about a particular biographical matter. If there is attention paid to WP:BLP#Avoid gossip and feedback loops, I think there are serious issues about possible contamination of the information by (a) gossip from people who are not natural fact-checkers but rumour-mongers, and/or (b) extraction of information, quite unreferenced, from earlier versions of Acharya S. We know more than usual about the main author involved in the article in 2005, because of the arbitration case about the article. Does this raise "reasonable doubt" about the sourcing of the book in question? I think the answer is "yes". Does it support the idea that personal information that can be researched about D. M. Murdock is likely to be there because of malicious "outing"? Undoubtedly - but you may or may not think this is the point at issue here. The source cited from a Muslim news site, I think, should really be set aside: Acharya S is a strong critic of Islam as well as Christianity, the "information" cited is on search engines prominently, and the "feedback" and "malice" arguments seem quite good enough to undermine it (we don't accept random information on the Web as reliable sources anyway).
Which leaves the Picknett and Prince reference, in my view. Some of what they publish is with mainstream publishers (otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this at all). I found that their book Stargate Conspiracy from 2000 is (a) with the Sphere imprint, of what was then Little, Brown, (b) apparently not principally researched by them anyway, but by another conspiracy-oriented author called Philip Coppens [41]. That particular book being what it is, I conclude that a serious doubt exists. It really tips the balance for me, to see that in this genre, the "mainstream publisher" brand falls down on quality of editorial scrutiny and assurance; and Picknett and Prince do not necessarily do their own research. If they are collators, rather than researchers from primary sources, then that undermines the credibility of the reference.
One man's view, but on going into this area deeply I ended up with serious worries about the reliability. Other concerns of mine have been mentioned on Talk:Acharya S, and I think is fair to say that I think WP:NPF applies here also, while User:Jclemens rules out that section as irrelevant. I'm also concerned about that as too narrow a view. Charles Matthews ( talk) 12:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
As per User:Jclemens suggestion, I have brought the specific issue of whether Masks of Christ is a reliable source over to RS/N here. Hopefully we will get more community input on what appears to be a sticking point. ^^James^^ ( talk) 10:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
It was suggested we start a straw poll. Should the disputed material be removed from the article?
Support removal. ^^James^^ ( talk) 19:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Reject in favor of a separate RfC. Jclemens ( talk) 21:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Support removal, subject is not notable or well known as Dorothy and only notable under her pen name, the adding of the weakly cited first name that has mirror issues and outing issues is of such little informative or educational benefit as to be meaningless, so under the circumstsances nothing is lost by removal. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Support removal, for the moment, on the basis that the sources brought forward to support the inclusion don't hold up to scrutiny. I think it is unfortunate that User:Jclemens should backtrack on the decision to get input here, based on the way the input has turned out. Diff, ending I will accept the input of larger community consensus if my view is not upheld, which I would read against yet more forum discussion: this should be enough. The further opinions gathered here are on the other side of the question. There is no real reason to think that another forum will generate very different discussions; the ones we have had are not that satisfactory, but part of that is that User:Jclemens has so many opinions on where the onus of proof lies in this matter, poses false dichotomies, and lays down the law about how it should all go. The topic has been aired here, which is one appropriate place to get outside views. Charles Matthews ( talk) 05:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
We are an encyclopedia: the subject's wishes are, if not irrelevant, at the very least subordinated to what reliable sources already mention. The only reason the subject's wishes actually are taken into account, where we might be doing real harm, have been eviscerated. Our job is not to publish sourced info to the extent that people don't not like it, it's to publish sourced info unless actual harm can reasonably be expected to result from their publication. Stop trying to make this about me or the subject. It's about WP:5P: Is it RS'ed? Yes. Will it possibly hurt anyone? No. That should be the end of it, yet people keep trying to insert non-policy-based arguments to justify a desired outcome. Why on earth is that? Jclemens ( talk) 22:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Support We don't seem to have the quality of sources that I think are required in a case like this. As for Picknett and Prince, they are simply not a reliable source no matter who publishes them. Quite a few fringe writers have major publishers, that doesn't make their books reliable sources. As this is contentious (from my reading of the above), we should err on the side of caution and I think common sense and leave it out. And if Jclemens is claiming that Picknett and Prince are not questionable, all I can say is that it's a fringe book by writers whose books are not to be taken seriously and are poorly researched. That's questionable in my book. Dougweller ( talk) 11:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. (What a pathetic person.) Since she only uses the form "D.M. Murdock" on her website and her first name is not used in full in reliable sources it's out of the question for us to publish it here. That's without considering whether she was explicitly against it on Facebook, and that's without considering the potential feedback loop. We don't have to decide this question because a book full of ridiculous conjectures presented as fact, written by two regular pseudohistory/conspiracy theory authors [42] [43], is not a reliable source on anything other than what the book says and perhaps biographical details about the authors. Jclemens' arguments here are absolutely amazing. What's next? Using the output of these authors as sources for history articles? Hans Adler 12:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
In Schenectady City School District ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and several other articles about school districts, contracts between the school districts and supervisors are being used as sources. Some editors at the reliable sources noticeboard expressed concern about the privacy of individuals in a discussion about the sourcing of these documents. Accordingly, I have started this thread, although it is not why I raised the matter at WP:RSN. There is already a discussion at Talk:Schenectady City School District related to this issue, but it appears to be mired in personal conflict and is unlikely to be productive.
(Note that this is vaguely related to the recent discussions about Schenectady School District supervisor Eric Ely. See here, here, & here.) Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Katherine Doherty ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm afraid I'm not sure of the proper way to do this; I came across this page when searching for relevant information - a completely un-sourced and poorly written article on someone who does not appear to have a legitimate reason to even be on Wikipedia.
Gary_L._Stewart ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Has anyone got any idea about this person? Fat wedge of legal issues being added to a two line stub, IP claims it is by request of the organisation the subject was involved with. A couple of similar awarded people have articles so may be notable but right now it is pretty much uncited and unwatched with a load of legal claims? Off2riorob ( talk) 21:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The existing entire biography is written in such a lop-sided way, it is the obvious the work of a committed pro-abortionist. a cheap propaganda piece and, in the interest of Wikipedia reliability, should be taken off and completely rewritten. Senator Bond has a long admirable record of opposing the murdering of unborn children, a record of achievement completely ignored by the author of the present Wikipedia bio.
Dan Sullivan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.150.21 ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC) [44]
Poorly sourced BLP article, not sure about notability so sent it to AFD to assess that. Bringing here as well, due to the BLP issues. Could use some extra eyes and cleanup. -- Cirt ( talk) 13:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This aggregator http://www.molinu.org/wikipedia_new_pages seems to collect any new articles and publish them as soon as they are posted? Off2riorob ( talk) 14:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I've raised this issue at the RS/N. But it involves issues covered by BLP/N as well. This updates/replaces a prior post on the issue. There is also a related AN/I here.
The BLP issue has now expanded. I deleted from some BLPs highly contentious material, supported only by refs to FAIR. Annoy reverted my deletions. This is being discussed at the RS/N here.
Probably best, if you have comments, to leave them there, so they are all in one place. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 19:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Henry H. Bauer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to have become rather acrimonious lately in a dispute over the inclusion of a quote from a book by Kalichman about pseudo-science, denialism and the like which describes Bauer in very unflattering terms. One party to the dispute uses blog-sourced statements attributed to Bauer in which he rebuts a claim adjacent to the disputed quoted phrase, which to my mind does throw legitimate doubt on the quality of Kalichman's research on Bauer: to wit, in the book Kalichman says Bauer has done no scientific research at all, whereas Bauer apparently has a fairly long published career in a field of scientific research (albeit unrelated to medicine).
There has also been some problematic editing on the talk page, with blog-based counter-accusations of professional misconduct against Kalichman. The worst of these have been removed. I think some more attention to this dispute is merited. Please take a look. Tasty monster (= TS ) 16:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Basically, the issue is whether or not it is permissible to quote a defamatory accusation against a person that in its original context is an illogical non sequitur and absolutely false. One editor insists there is nothing wrong quoting Seth Kalichman from Denying AIDS to the effect that Henry Bauer is "a pseudoscientist's pseudoscientist". Here is Kalichman's context: "Bauer has never done AIDS research. In fact, he has never done any scientific research. Henry Bauer is a pseudoscientist's pseudoscientist!" (p. 71). Kalichman ignores the over 80 publications in Bauer's C.V. pertaining to his published research, mainly in electrochemistry. Thus, the second sentence in the passage is a false premise. In logic, the conclusion in the third sentence, based on this false premise, cannot be valid. I would also point out that one need not have personal experience in AIDS research to be qualified to judge the validity of the experimental design of AIDS research reported in the medical literature. Finally, having an interest in such subjects as UFOs and Loch Ness monster does not automatically make one a "pseudoscientist". Bauer's interest in such fringe topics, whose results have been the subject of books published by a university press, has been to examine how science deals with extraordinary claims. Labelling Bauer a "pseudoscientist" on the basis of Kalichman's illogical and erroneous accusation is unethical, at the least, and surely there must be some policy in Wikipedia that would forbid such a practice. It would be unreasonable to allow such a defamatory and patently false accusation to be quoted until it was refuted in a future "reliable source". There is no good reason to quote such defamatory material in the first place, unless an editor has some ulterior motive. My interest in this matter has nothing to do with any COI, as has been alleged by one editor. My interest is based on basic fairness and equity. Finally, how can a source, such as Kalichman, containing such illogical and patently erroneous information be considered "reliable", as one editor steadfastly maintains? Phaedrus7 ( talk) 20:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some review of my actions in the history of this BLP. A number of editors have moved in on the article (no doubt following an ARS tag) adding all kinds of weblinks to justify the retention of the article and the removal of the BLPunsourced tag. In my view, a BLPunsourced tag should only be removed if the article has reliable sources. If this right? -- Mkativerata ( talk) 06:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have an issue with some of the above templates on BLP grounds, and have initiated discussion on two of them. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone professionally connected with Sandra Worth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) complained that text they had added regarding her "Rose of York" series had been vandalised. I reviewed our coverage of this series with the aid of the good Dr. Google and found several blatantly promotional passages about the book, in many cases being the sole book discussed in a new "in fiction" section in articles on notable historical figures. Terms like "multi award winning" were much in evidence. I have no evidence that Sandra Worth requested this promotional editing, but I would suggest that a thorough review of the article on Worth, and any links to it form other articles, is in order. Also, any subject linked from that article (e.g. Perkin Warbeck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) appears to be subject to the same abuse. Guy ( Help!) 12:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
This entire article essntially reads like tabloid fodder, especially the "relationships" section. I'm not very savvy in recognizing reliable UK news sources from the more gossipy fare, so could someone with this knowledge possibly edit it down to retain only what can be verified by reliable sources? Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 16:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Grant_Shapps ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Politically motivated additions which attempt to represent this living person in a negative light being repeatedly added to wiki entry. See diff http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Grant_Shapps&action=historysubmit&diff=358802551&oldid=358618483 // 77.68.47.88 ( talk) 07:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC) — 77.68.47.88 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
<ref>{{cite web|url=web address here|title=title here|publisher=add the publisher here|date=date the article was written here|accessdate=date you accessed the article here}}</ref>
You have also accused the IP of vandalism when they have been removing this citation that appears to be a forum http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t1029.html. Seems to be a decent thing for the IP to do, I removed it when I found it and yet you haven't accused me of vandalism? Off2riorob ( talk) 21:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
content
For example...we have this comment in the article
He stepped down as a Director in the same week in 2009 when MP's expenses were made public during the expenses scandal, and it became clear that he had utilised PrintHouse for numerous transactions ..
supported by this PDF? http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/grant-shapps/grant_shapps_0708_CA.pdf which appears to be original research and a bit of synth and what looks very much like a primary document to me? Where is an actual report of this happening in this time frame? As wikipedia editors we report other published reliable sources reports. Off2riorob ( talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I've joined this discussion late but see there's a fair amount of traffic above. Today I tried to improve the article - as now described on the discussion page - only to find that WideFox later reverted it without explanation. True I hadn't at the time referenced on the discussion page the changes I made, but they were all fairly uncontroverial, for example removing a reference page which doesn't appear to refer to the individual at all and another from a gossip column which is not a reliable source for the bio of a living person. Could an editor have a further look at this article. Hackneymarsh ( talk) 21:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC) — Hackneymarsh ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.