![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Whitefish_Mountain_Resort ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
William Foley conducted a hostile takeover of a regional ski resort in Whitefish Montana. The resort had been built and maintained by local stockholders. After 2 stock splits, one conducted in secret in order to deny stockholders their rights of transferal, the community was growing weary of this conduct. William Foley is now an important part of the Big Mountain history and should not be constantly reverted in order to sanitise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.60.2 ( talk) 14:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Violating BLP on the following (both in the articles and the talk pages):
Yworo ( talk) 00:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The correct name of the goalkeeper is HEURÉLIO DA SILVA GOMES and not "HEURELHO". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizarromg ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are both to be found, the tottenhan player page and you think they would know his name have Heurelho http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/players/player_profiles.html Off2riorob ( talk) 11:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Nakamura89 ( talk · contribs) has posted comments about a named person on Larkhall ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see DIFF I have reverted, but wp:REVDEL or even wp:OVERSIGHT may be required. Regards -- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 01:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
This forced change added misleading text and unreliable source from Sott.net. The recent edit is WEIGHT problem for a BLP and the material is discussed at Criticism of Wikipedia. There is a discussion on the talk page. See Talk:Larry Sanger#Child porn report section. For the material at the criticism article see Criticism of Wikipedia#Sexual content. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
If you have a problem with one source why are you deleting the entire section that has 4 sources? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
There's consensus on the talk page for including the content, there are multiple sources, and the incident is certainly notable. Most significantly, not a single specific criticism of the text has been offered anywhere; only efforts to expunge any mention of Sanger's letter to the FBI, groundless wikilawyering, and empty rhetoric. And as the "problem editor" comment above indicates, some name-calling. Rvcx ( talk) 08:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The text is strickly criticism that is already mentioned in the criticism article. See WEIGHT. This is clearly a BLP violation when there is no clarification. Editors continue to ignore my concerns. I request admin oversight. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Richard Arthur Norton has now added an unreliable reference about discussion logs. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The text is specifically about criticism and not written from a neutral point of view, and the clarification that is in the Criticism of Wikipedia article was left out of the Larry Sanger page. If editors want to violate WEIGHT they should at least write something that is factually accurate like what is written in the criticism page. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Richard Arthur Norton ignored that Jclemens wrote "It's not a reliable secondary source. It IS a primary source, with the attendant cautions and restrictions." That is clear to me the reference is an unreliable primary source according to Jclemens. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There is still an unreliable source added by Richard Arthur Norton for no reason. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Richard Arthur Norton also added a BLP violation to the talk page. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
You can read the references and you can read where there is consensus for the clarification at Criticism of Wikipedia#Sexual content. This was repeatedly ignored by Wikipedians at this talk page and at the Larry Sanger page. The entire event is of such small importance to a person's life, it is not sensible to include it at all. It's just recentism to include a new paragraph everytime the media gets excited about something Larry Sanger did. Frankly, filing a complaint to the FBI seems exciting but is not notable to a person's life. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I had thought that our previous two discussions about this ( [1] and [2]) had made some progress. That is sort of true in that the absurd claim about Jensen seeking separate curriculum for blacks and whites has been removed and, so far, stayed removed. But the issue has come up again. (Thanks MathSci!) So, we both need to discuss this one specifically and brainstorm about ways to solve this more permanently. (This discussion I started [3] at WP:BLP has not gone very far.)
I deleted [4] the second sentence of this section from History of the race and intelligence controversy.
Joan Freeman, a psychologist specialising in gifted education, wrote that Jensen found that after matching up black and white children according to socioeconomic level, although the IQ scores of black children were distributed over the whole range, their average score was 15 points less than that of the white children. As she wrote, "He proposed that different forms of education, more appropriate to their kind of intelligence, should be given to black children. There should be less conceptual flights of fancy and more rote learning for them."
1) I have no problem with the first sentence. That is, in fact, what Jensen (1969) [5] reports. 2) I deleted the second sentence, not because I doubt that Freeman herself wrote it (MathSci is very reliable when it comes to these details) but because Jensen (1969) does not, in fact, propose "different forms of education" for "black children." Doesn't WP:BLP require that we delete false claims about living people even if those claims are made in reliable sources? David.Kane ( talk) 04:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm beginning to see why the race and intelligence articles are so problematic on Wikipedia. Secondary sources in the field of psychology tend to marginalize the hereditary intelligence hypothesis through consequentialism: "if you accept X, then the natural result is Y". I expect a part of this is a defense of psychology itself (which is under threat to cede some of its historical territory to biology and statistics), and another part is an understandable societal reluctance to acknowledge racial differences (fearing that small differences in the means of two distributions will be misinterpreted as evidence that the distributions are largely disjoint). As a BLP problem, it's similar to attributing consequentialist arguments about evolution to Darwin, e.g. "Darwin thought it was all right to kill the poor and weak and to breed a master race, and so does anyone who believes evolution", and consequentialist arguments about free markets to Adam Smith, e.g. "Smith thought that people should be greedy and exploit others". The trouble is, both Darwin and Smith were merely scientists observing and documenting a phenomenon, not political activists trying to implement the societal changes attributed to their theories—in Wikipedia terms I suppose the relevant policy would be assigning undue weight to the "advocacy" side of their lives, combined with a tendency to synthesize theory with the social policy supported by that theory. Unfortunately, it's the secondary sources that are placing the weight and performing the synthesis here. If it's acceptable for Wikipedia to echo the cultural zeitgeist, even when that zeitgeist misinterprets people and their work, then most of the material about Jensen should remain—only those few cases where Wikipedia performs additional synthesis and adds additional undue weight (which has occurred as editors have tried to "summarize" sources by removing caveats, context, and nuance) need be fixed (usually with a minor rewording). If that's not acceptable, then I suppose we'd need to attribute every synthesis that isn't directly supported by primary sources (which is a huge pain in the ass, and very hard to reconcile with WP:OR). My one piece of advice is that the interpretation of race and intelligence primary sources may be different in secondary sources devoted to biology, genetics, and statistics (of which there are fewer—most of the non-specialist literature on intelligence is written by psychologists), so looking these out may be valuable. Rvcx ( talk) 11:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Melissa Kirsch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am the subject of this entry. It seems to have been cobbled together from various biographical materials on me, some of which is correct, much of which is incorrect, and all of which seems to be written in a style inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards. Please advise. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.171.102 ( talk) 03:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute at this article concerning the adequacy of sources being used to support a section on one of the leading members of this organization. I would be grateful if other editors could take a look and offer their opinions. CIreland ( talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it this content....
During a radio broadcast in 1996, Smith was asked, "[at] some point there was a prediction of Christ's return through Calvary Chapel. Is that real? ... Did that happen?" Notwithstanding the published books, Smith responded, "No! Never, we all, we do believe he is going to return soon, never any date, no, never any date, because no man knows the day or the hour. http://calvarychapel.pbwiki.com/f/Smith%20-%20Date%20setting%20denial%20-%20TEMAA.ram
with these hidden references to the broadcast
If it is, I see what looks like the primary interview (which I have not clicked on) we are not here to report primary content, and a bunch of not reliable citations, so ..no, imo there are not adequate. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a few considerations:
Kind of liked the mucky fish analogy, cute. And thank you for participating.
Sliceofmiami ( talk) 15:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a follow-up question related to this discussion, but I'm not sure if it belongs here. While reading WP:Burden, I came across a surprising nugget: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page", which also included a crystal clear quote by Mr. Wales, himself. The thing that shocked me is the part about the talk pages - I always thought they were (nearly) sacrosanct per talk page policy. But my quoted reference from WP:Burden seems to suggest that poor references and any material based on such references could potentially be stricken from talk pages, as well. Is this correct? Or am I misreading? Thanks in advance for your time. 66.177.182.247 ( talk) 02:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
A new user initially posted on a different forum, but I thought I would cross post here as a more appropriate forum to bring more eyes to watch for the insertion of names of living people without proper sourcing. Active Banana ( talk) 18:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Just wanting a second opinion on this page which is currently being edited by a User:TimMacindoe. Edits are mostly fine although s/he is removing any "citation needed" tags I place. I don't want to have an edit war so am asking for opinions/advice/help. Mattlore ( talk) 03:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have been involved in a series of disputes about contentious claims made about Arthur Jensen, a living person. Although the details differ in each one (see the box for background), the most common pattern seems to involve:
For now, I am not seeking opinions about the content dispute. Indeed, I think that Ornstein is much more reasonable than some of the previous deletions that I have made. In fact, after discussion, I could imagine keeping it. Instead, I am seeking opinions from uninvolved editors about the generic way I should handle contentious claims made about a living person. Specifically, is my current practice of immediate deletion (following WP:BLP, followed by an attempt to engage in discussion at the appropriate Talk page justified? Thanks. David.Kane ( talk) 12:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The non SPA editors have agreed every time on every one of the BLPN postings. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
And the mayhem spills into section after section on this page too? So many weighing in here who profess to hold the "proper" interpretation of Jensen, but I don't see many giving much feedback on the "proper" application of the WP:BLP policy. Unfortunately, our own brilliant expertise on the subject of Arthur Jensen is the one thing that counts for nothing at wikipedia. And this board is certainly not the proper venue to share it. Here, explain how the policy relates to the use of reliably sourced material, primary sources, and the proper framing of controversial claims. Otherwise, detailed discussions about the topic itself properly belongs on the article's talk page. Professor marginalia ( talk) 00:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Melissa Francis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thedubaipost ( talk · contribs) has twice inserted a section on Francis's recent pregnancy sourced to Blogspot.com, plus speculation on the Talk page, which I removed. Input on whether this content is appropriate for the article – even if improved sourcing could be found – would be appreciated. Also, I'm not sure if the reference to the fictional character Avery Jessup should be included, especially considering the character's pregnancy. Flatscan ( talk) 04:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Main heading of commonly used name of "Sammy Hagar" is correct. The incorrect birthname of "Samuel" is used in bold type at the beginning of the article. Birthname is "Sam Roy Hagar" Could not edit that portion of article. Please correct. Thank you. RedJeanette —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedJeanette ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Can I request a quick review of this? There has been some recent issues relating to a political campaign and we got an OTRS message ( OTRS:4954309) complaining about it. Stifle ( talk) 15:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to request input at Talk:Don King (boxing promoter) regarding an IP who has repeatedly changed the lead from:
"Donald "Don" King (born August 20, 1931) is an American boxing promoter particularly known for his hairstyle and flamboyant personality."
to
"Donald "Don" King (born August 20, 1931) is an American boxing promoter and convicted murderer particularly known for his hairstyle and flamboyant personality."
This seems a bit much for the lead sentence, especially given the details of the case. The IP has violated 3RR, but I think they may be operating in good faith. I've temporarily semi-protected the page, and am acting as an admin here, so additional opinions are required. Thanks in advance. -- Ckatz chat spy 16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
More eyes are needed here, as two editors have been reverting one another over some contentious (but sourced) negative material. A third opinion was sought regarding one specific section (see Talk:Helena Guergis#Phony letter writing campaign) but the reverting has now encompassed more of the material in this BLP. Helena Guergis is a Canadian politician who was forced by the prime minister to resign from Cabinet this year, after a series of controversies. My impression, without having weighed into this too heavily, is that is it challenging to document all the controversies in a neutral way, as there are many unproven allegations. Any help is appreciated. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Article history: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Max_Yong&action=history
The article is well written, but:
User contributions:
Note that it is a shared IP and more recent contributions seems to be Ok.
-- Dc987 ( talk) 07:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm Rep. Raul M. Grijalva's communications director, posting as Owen Ruagh McCarthy, and I recently made several updates and changes to his page that I wanted to bring to Wikipedia management's attention out of an abundance of caution. I did not make these changes to slant or burnish his reputation -- much of the policy information dated from 2005 or earlier and was in need of updating. I have posted a similar notice on his talk page and do not want there to be any confusion about what happened. I am new to Wikipedia and would be grateful for any quick pointers if I've done anything wrong or violated the conflict of interest policy. From what I've seen, I don't believe I have, and the content is strictly neutral and well-sourced. If there are any problems, please let me know.
Update: I made several rounds of edits, but then immediately reverted them to allow Wikipedia officials to make the final call. A Wikipedia editor has been made aware of this situation on the Raul Grijalva talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen Ruagh McCarthy ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Owen Ruagh McCarthy ( talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Both of these articles are getting BLP violating edits due to tonight's game. They need watching. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 05:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Since being a fugitive is not a career and to balance out the undue weight, that version must be used. 124.105.21.3 ( talk) 07:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
William Lane Craig ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - William Lane Craig is a popular Christian apologist and philosopher, or, depending on your persepctive, a popular philosopher and Christian apologist. Most people who know of him - such as his students - are very much in his pocket. And it's difficult to explain that while one might have the perspective of Dr. Craig as a great philospher and thinker, most people - which is to say the far more objective persecptive - find him to be far from a philosopher first and apologist second. His page is currently riddled with extraneous information and has, I feel, a celebratory tone about it. I have begun to isolate these in the discussion page and asking for commentary. Two examples, the biography contains bibliographic statements (like recounting a specific article that Dr. Craig wrote) without explain why it noteworthy among the hundreds of articles that he's written. Or, the article simply listes a few books that are mentioned in the actual bibliography without any clarification. I will be cleaning up this sort of clutter.
There are more specific and controversial edits which I would like some advice from other Wikipedia editors. For example, Dr. Craig is an advisor of the Center for Science and Culture which is a program of the Discovery Institute and, some people would say, is indistinguishable from the Discovery Institute. I believe that this is a rich and salient detail that the uninitiated needs to know when reading about Dr. Craig. Therefore, I would place it early in his biogrpahy. Others want to bury deep within the article or omit it entirely.
More to come! And thanks! Theowarner2 ( talk) 16:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The BLP policy was recently changed to establish 123 years as the age at which we assume that an individual is dead. Please join in discussion on what the cutoff age for BLPs should be on the BLP talk page. Thanks -- Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 20:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Eliseo Soriano (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
and
Shannon Rose (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
The article is the victim of
BLP dispute issues regarding the notability of the subject as an "international fugitive". The latter, libelous claim, is only backed by a web archive. People have diverse opinions on the true reason why the subject is notable: some users say he is notable for being a critic to other religions while others (i.e. the user reported below) firmly believes that the article is notable for being an "international fugitive and a televangelist" at the same time. In the eyes of the Filipinos, the first "notability reason" is the real reason.
The "POV pusher", being a critic of Soriano to the point she calls Soriano as a "cult leader", had a long history of edit wars and 3RR reverts. Shannon Rose had commented harshly against another similar article, Daniel Soriano Razon. She is extremely harsh against users who just wants to add referenced, good information about the subject. Soriano, having been charged with rape, has a "counter-affidavit" covered by the press. When a pro-Soriano editor adds the counter affidavit in defense of the article, the POV user immediately rejects it without giving a chance for someone to find sources. Someone finally found a reference but the POV-pusher immediately removed it without trying to trim it down. I, the IP, only tried to remove unnotable and libellous statements agaist the subject, which is Soriano. Shannon Rose, being a POV pusher and a critic to Soriano (see this talk page and also this this talk page) has tried to offensively destroy the credibility of the editors who tried to simply add more positive edits to the subject. Thanks! 120.28.114.16 ( talk) 03:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
@Off2riorob: The first rationale provided by Shannon Rose (Rationale 1:Interpol website, broadsheet articles, as well as documentaries complete with dramatizations from major Philippine TV networks such as can be seen in this YouTube upload.) cannot be used as a valid reason. Here are the reasons:
Second Question: Why is the article notable? Take note that he is known for criticizing various other religious groups (even the influential Iglesia ni Cristo is one) for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible ( Not a valid RS but this link shows the reactions of the Filipinos to his actions: like criticizing various other religious groups). Here is an edit done by a nonpartisan user: He removed the international fugitive part and tried to discuss it in the talk page. 180.191.65.41 ( talk) 10:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), an international fugitive and a controversial Filipino televangelist, is the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).
Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.
Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), a Filipino televangelist and the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).
Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the
Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.
(legal issues part)
Soriano is currently facing charges of rape in his home country, the Philippines.
Soriano fled his home country after being indicted for same-sex rape, this, along with other lawsuits and issues, have been widely-publicized thereby compromising his reputation as clergy.
The reason for suggesting this is because the present contents of the second paragraph i.e. being "known" for criticizing other religious groups, believed to be a Pantas by his followers according to a certain verse in the Bible, and being able to answer any question using the Bible, are wholly unsourced. My position is either we replace the second paragraph or we scrap it altogether. – Shannon Rose Talk 14:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
from Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), a Filipino televangelist and the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).
He is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.
In 2009 Soriano failed to attend his bail hearing in regards to allegations of male rape and there is a Philippine warrant out for his arrest. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The uncited can clearly go. So he has failed to answer bail, that is simple and exactly as my comment.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang_Dating_Doon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZK7mjqYXR4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG3zXLfanko
I have a concern the the adding of international fugitive as the primary comment in the lede and the primary reason for this persons notability is a BLP violation as this is beng given undue weight. Shannon Rose thinks that is the most notable thing about him and supports the present lede. Would users comment as to their preference within policy.
Rewrite
Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), a Filipino televangelist and the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).
Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible. In 2006 Soriano failed to attend his bail hearing in regards to allegations of male rape and there is a Philippine warrant out for his arrest.
Present lede
Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), an international fugitive and a controversial Filipino televangelist, is the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).
Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.
Please post your preference here. Thanks.
Be vigilant, Wikipedians, as members of Soriano's group (removing the rape case part) and critics of Soriano's group (rejecting the duly-sourced awards) are tilting the article to extreme levels of POV: (whitewashing). I'm voting for the rewrite. Shannon Rose I am gently advising you to please, (pretty please) be more open-minded and please accept the fact the prior to his legal troubles, Soriano was already notable for being a televangelist and a critic to many religions. 180.191.61.132 ( talk) 02:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I have insisted that a source be provided that backs up the assertions I removed in the above link. Until the source is provided, the paragraph remains out of the article.-- Father Goose ( talk) 02:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No idea why you keep removing it. It was sourced and the sources stating there was another knee were purely speculative. I remember some of them asking a question in the title ("Did he get hit by another knee") so it wasn't conclusive whatsoever. Paralympiakos ( talk) 21:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
born 5.02.1990 is Bosnian football player whit pre-contract agreement to Ary United —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vederan ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I cannot verify Susan Wise Bauer's rank or position on the faculty of William and Mary College. I suspect that she may have moved on, probably to a more prestigious post. The rank noted in the article tends to lower her credibility as an authority on world history education, the area of some of her books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrennenderSorge ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
A dispute has arisen regarding whether one version of the lede is problematic with regard to the biographies of living persons policy. Further opinions would be welcome at the article talk page.
CIreland ( talk) 02:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
User page was edited by coryburnell. Edits have been undone. Discussion page noted with link to WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ELH50 ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hayek1818 ( talk · contribs) Seems to be a case of a new editor on a mission who isn't terribly familiar with Wikipedia's processes. He's inserting information into the BLP of a challenger to a U.S. Senate seat, which includes information that may or may not be valid (I haven't looked in detail -- just noticed on vandalism patrol). In any case his editing is problematic because he's reverting to a version that contains what appears to be some commentary directed at editors reverting him. Some more attention to the article would be appreciated. — e. ripley\ talk 22:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Limmie Snell has a death date of 1986 sourced offline, and seems to be performing this year. Are there two musicians of that name or is one source incorrect? Fresh eyes appreciated. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The information contained in this biography is false. It only alludes to the down points in his career and doesn't speak to the real " Michael Cohl". This is slander against a great man. It also highlights two positions which Michael Cohl no longer holds. It is misleading and a vast misrepresentation of the man and his accomplishments. I suggest it be removed immediately. Thanks You, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.131.123 ( talk) 15:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Now has a section titled "Her Exit from the Financial Times" which starts with "A search of the ""Financial Times"" archives reveals that here final three articles were written in September, 2005.[4]" based on a FT search. Is this OR in a BLP? Further the section posits cause and effect for her leaving the FT. Is there any problem with the section title or contents? Additional input as to where the line on OR and SYNTH ought to be drawn would be highly welcome. Collect ( talk) 19:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
GoldieLocks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have no first or second hand knowledge of the subject, I simply found the page a few days ago while reading through articles on the music genre and did some cleanup and one reversion. Apparently, IP is attempting to substantiate what I reverted. I am not afraid to revert this, but would rather have a more BLP-concerned admin handle the situation, the current pattern is dubious and I am not interested in going to war over it. Thank you. Sswonk ( talk) 02:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This edit needs attention, and I'm traveling and can't get to it. I haven't checked the reliability of some of the obscure sources, and the claims are not represented neutrally (the claims are made by a convict, of dubious credibility, which isn't elaborated at all in the text). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
For some reason, I think "Allegations of homosexuality and homophobia" forms a red flag in any BLP. [15] shows the restoration of that section in Matt Drudge. Does anyone else find this to be per se "contentious" and ill-suited to an encyclopedic BLP? Past precedent is that "outing" a person as gay (source is a gay publication specifically opposed to Drudge) where they have said they are not gay is specifically beyond the pale, and labelling such a person as "homophobic" likely hits the same policy and rules for BLPs. Collect ( talk) 09:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Geoff Hoon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This derogatory not notable nickname which is just a simple insult has been added to the Geoff Hoon BLP, its not well known, its just a valueless insult of little or no notability and should be removed, content is a derogatory, non encyclopedic and not notable nickname. Here is a google search result for Hoon the buffoon , this is the kind of valueless derogatory insult with a citation that BLP policy should be there to remove, its a simple attack on a living subject, started elsewhere but the attempt is to propagate it through wikipedia. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
A reliably sourced BLP issue, super, fantastic, a valueless insult wikipedia can be proud of. I have previously removed other derogatory nicknames and this is no better at all, a simple insult to a living person of no value to the reader at all. Hoon the buffoon Off2riorob ( talk) 20:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like you mean WP:UNDUE vs. BLP. You need to look at the body of coverage on the subject, the current size of the article, and the ideal size of the article, and decide if it merits mention. Is it too much of the article now? Will it be too much of the article if it was a full size FA style article? I don't know the guy well enough, but there is a certain amount of usage of the term. [16] It sounds like he's pretty famous, so that may not be a large part of the total coverage. I'm American and I've never heard of him, to show you how much I know. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 04:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not widely used and just an insult, I wouldn't ever add it but hey, if users think it is a good addition then enjoy. 09:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob ( talk • contribs)
Nazir Ahmad (Burewala resident) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a possibly living person known solely for an alleged honour killing (I previously nominated the article for deletion, but there was no consensus). His trial must have been over by now, and yet the verdict hasn't been reported. Only a single sentence in the article is referenced. Should I delete everything that isn't referenced, slap a tag on it, or send it to AFD again? Andjam ( talk) 09:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The Revision History of the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bill_Phillips_(author)&action=history, shows more than four years of persistent misuse by “Yankees76.”
In that time, Yankees76 has displayed extreme bias against Bill Phillips. As the Revision History clearly shows, Yankees76 promptly deletes/undoes any good faith additions to the page that would make it more balanced and compliant with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.
Yankees76 insists on being the primary contributor to the page, and the majority of what he contributes is defamatory and irrelevant except to him, as it supports his extreme bias/personal resentment toward Bill Phillips.
The sources Yankees76 often cites refer to http://tmuscle.com/tmuscle.com, an online newsletter published by TC Luoma, a former employee of Bill Phillips who was dismissed from one of his companies 15 years ago. These citations are biased and not reliable.
TC Luoma has made defamatory claims about Bill Phillips for many years in his newsletter, which Yankees76 then adds to the Bill Phillips (author) page. (TC Luoma also sells nutrition products that compete with those sold by Phillips.) Whether or not TC Luoma and Yankees76 are the same person, they share the same agenda, which is to control the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia.
Throughout the past four years, Yankees76 has bullied many contributors with insults and accusations that they are vandalizing his work on the page. This behavior goes directly against Wikipedia’s founding intention of providing objective, unbiased, and fair information. As it stands now, the Bill Phillips (author) page is defamatory, biased, and based on unreliable sources.
The bottom line is that Yankees76 has persistently misused his position as an admin with improper deletions and unreliable sources.
Getfit1980 ( talk) 16:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
1) In that time, Yankees76 has displayed extreme bias against Bill Phillips. As the Revision History clearly shows, Yankees76 promptly deletes/undoes any good faith additions to the page that would make it more balanced and compliant with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.
2) Yankees76 insists on being the primary contributor to the page, and the majority of what he contributes is defamatory and irrelevant except to him, as it supports his extreme bias/personal resentment toward Bill Phillips.
3) The sources Yankees76 often cites refer to http://tmuscle.com/tmuscle.com, an online newsletter published by TC Luoma, a former employee of Bill Phillips who was dismissed from one of his companies 15 years ago. These citations are biased and not reliable.
4) TC Luoma has made defamatory claims about Bill Phillips for many years in his newsletter, which Yankees76 then adds to the Bill Phillips (author) page. (TC Luoma also sells nutrition products that compete with those sold by Phillips.) Whether or not TC Luoma and Yankees76 are the same person, they share the same agenda, which is to control the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia.
5) Throughout the past four years, Yankees76 has bullied many contributors with insults and accusations that they are vandalizing his work on the page. This behavior goes directly against Wikipedia’s founding intention of providing objective, unbiased, and fair information. As it stands now, the Bill Phillips (author) page is defamatory, biased, and based on unreliable sources.
6) The bottom line is that Yankees76 has persistently misused his position as an admin with improper deletions and unreliable sources.
Please note that Getfit1980 has been blocked indefinitely. -- Yankees76 ( talk) 20:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The user Rihanna Knowles repeatedly is changing the birthdate of Flo Rida from December 16 to September 17, both in 1979, even though there are two sources cited in the article supporting the December birthdate ( Reuters and Allmusic). RK has never cited a source that directly supports the alternatively claimed birthdate. Recently User:HipHopStan also followed RK's lead. Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 19:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
There may be others involved as well. I have given both of the 2 above accounts warnings that if the disruption continues, they will be blocked. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: Added two more accounts to above list, related to issues with same article. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HipHopfan4life. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 21:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Boyce appears to be under partisan attack from his political opponents. I have left a couple of comments on the accounts talkpages but I holdout little hope, if it continues use guidelines and attempt discussion if that doesn't work ask for semi protection. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Could anybody have a look at Walter Jens' biographic entry, please. It's slightly unbalanced as to his achievements vs. his alleged Nazi past. -- Dodo19 ( talk) 15:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The pages Ángel di María ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Aleksandar Kolarov ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are being constantly vandalized with transfer rumours to Real Madrid C.F.. Please, I am requesting to protect these pages. B.Lameira ( talk) 17:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The place to ask for protection is Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. I have requested these two semi protection for you, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Semi protected for a week and two weeks respectively by Administrator Fastily, thanks to him for that. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
A new user, User:Luke18:2-8, attempted to add some negative information [20] to the David Eppstein article. I saw several problems with it. First, the information added did not really correspond to the source: the letter referenced actually states that the complaint against Eppstein was found to be groundless, while the edit of User:Luke18:2-8 appears to indicate otherwise. Second, it looks doubtful to me that the source cited [21] satisfies WP:V. The cite meami.org appears to be some kind of a search engine and somebody seems to have posted a privately addressed letter there. I don't think this qualifies as "published" material (such as, say, an article in a newspaper would have been). I have reverted the edits of User:Luke18:2-8, but I'd like someone else, experienced in BLP matters, to take a look. Nsk92 ( talk) 12:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The articles all relate to British Law Lords (senior judges), the material added, and the contents of the userpage of the editor adding it, suggest that the editor is probably personally involved in the case. No sources have been provided, although a bald statement taht everythign is verifiable has been included. I've made a first attempt to engage the user on their talkpage, which may be successful, but I'd appreciate more eyes on these articles at the moment. David Underdown ( talk) 10:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
-- Hi David(?) and Newyorkbrad I'm struggling a bit on the use of this site and I trust this is the correct way to contact you (by using the 'edit' button?)
My other struggle is to establish quite what part of my addition to the relevant biography's could be construed as misplaced. All of the material facts I have stated are a matter of Public Record and contained within the court documents, the Metropolitan Police records and the DPP/CPS departments, or should be! There clearly should be no information to which I have referred that is not contained within the records mentioned. There is also much relevant material held by the Ministry of Justice although they have been reticent to supply it under the Freedom of Information Act and, as related, only did so upon the intervention of The Lord President of The Privy Council
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/david_schiller - is relevant
I do, of course, understand the concerns you might have, especially upon first sight of my 'edit'
It would appear Wikipedia may not be the appropriate place to add information that does not reflect well on any (Honourable!) persons 'Biography'
I will copy my comments to Lord Hope for any comment he may wish to make Regards DAS
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 20:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
story is from 14 months ago that he used his union credit card for hookers and suchlike and one from three months ago saying he is suing all and sundry.
http://www.thecoastnews.com.au/central-coast/565-craig-thomsons-1-million-union-fight.html
http://www.smh.com.au/national/how-a-union-boss-won-the-dobell-prize-20090409-a27o.html
Personally I would leave it out until we know if he is guilty of anything, no charges after 15 months and now he is suing for a million...seems a bit like he may have a case, funny that it is only being added now, at the most I would add a sentence with the coast news cite saying that ...
In April 2009 in was reported that Thompson's Health Services Union credit card had been misused for election campaign spending and inappropriate use of union funds. In 2010 Thompson was reported to be suing the union executive for damages. It is further reported that he is also suing Fairfax Media for publishing the allegations. Mr Thomson is fervently denying the allegations. [1] [2]
I think I will boldly add this as it is not undue and conservatively written. I will leave a note on the talkpage there regarding this thread. Off2riorob ( talk) 09:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Parts of this politician's biography (specifically, the last two paragraphs) are sourced only to a primary source, C-SPAN. Is this acceptable practice, or does it amount to original research?
This is a general issue for articles about politicians: is it ever acceptable to write about their views, voting records and speeches based purely on government records, or are secondary sources always required? If the latter is the case, we have many articles that will need to be cut down to comply. Robofish ( talk) 01:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
There's a "Living people" section in this footer navbox. Is this a concern from a BLP-policy standpoint? What about those people that deny being con artists. Peter Popoff for instance, there's no doubt that he's a fraud, and is widely known for being a fraud.. but he's also primarily a televangelist. Is it right to include a con-artist navbox at the bottom of his page but not one for televangelists or faith healers? (don't know if such a navbox exists, but just for the sake of argument..) How much weight should be given to the actual self-professed professions of these people vs. their public-bestowed notoriety for being fraudsters? -- œ ™ 12:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Bill Clinton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Clarence Thomas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) both appropriately have "sex" mentioned in their Wikipedia articles. After all, Clinton had the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, and Thomas had the Anita Hill accusations about sexual comments in the workplace.
The question I have here is about the lede in those two articles. Should the lede mention "sex" or not? Currently, the lede for Thomas does, but the lede for Clinton does not. I presently have no opinion about it, and would like some advice. One thing's for sure: the treatment should be consistent between these two articles, because there's no reason to mention "sex" for one and not the other. This may seem trivial, but using the word "sex" in the lead does tend to sensationalize things quite a bit.
Anyway, the Thomas lede currently mentions an "accusation that he had made unwelcome sexual comments" (emphasis added). The Clinton article lede currently mentions his impeachment "in connection with a scandal involving a White House intern." Shall we remove "sexual" from the former, or insert it into the latter? We ought to do one or the other, and it would be nice to get this minor issue settled by wide community input. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think WP:WEIGHT strongly favors at least some detail on the hearings in the lead of Thomas article, given its prominence in reputable published biographical material (including Thomas' own autobiography). I don't edit Bill Clinton and have no strong opinion about the level of detail to give the Lewinsky scandal in the lead. MastCell Talk 17:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Whitefish_Mountain_Resort ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
William Foley conducted a hostile takeover of a regional ski resort in Whitefish Montana. The resort had been built and maintained by local stockholders. After 2 stock splits, one conducted in secret in order to deny stockholders their rights of transferal, the community was growing weary of this conduct. William Foley is now an important part of the Big Mountain history and should not be constantly reverted in order to sanitise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.60.2 ( talk) 14:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Violating BLP on the following (both in the articles and the talk pages):
Yworo ( talk) 00:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The correct name of the goalkeeper is HEURÉLIO DA SILVA GOMES and not "HEURELHO". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizarromg ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are both to be found, the tottenhan player page and you think they would know his name have Heurelho http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/players/player_profiles.html Off2riorob ( talk) 11:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Nakamura89 ( talk · contribs) has posted comments about a named person on Larkhall ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see DIFF I have reverted, but wp:REVDEL or even wp:OVERSIGHT may be required. Regards -- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 01:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
This forced change added misleading text and unreliable source from Sott.net. The recent edit is WEIGHT problem for a BLP and the material is discussed at Criticism of Wikipedia. There is a discussion on the talk page. See Talk:Larry Sanger#Child porn report section. For the material at the criticism article see Criticism of Wikipedia#Sexual content. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
If you have a problem with one source why are you deleting the entire section that has 4 sources? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
There's consensus on the talk page for including the content, there are multiple sources, and the incident is certainly notable. Most significantly, not a single specific criticism of the text has been offered anywhere; only efforts to expunge any mention of Sanger's letter to the FBI, groundless wikilawyering, and empty rhetoric. And as the "problem editor" comment above indicates, some name-calling. Rvcx ( talk) 08:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The text is strickly criticism that is already mentioned in the criticism article. See WEIGHT. This is clearly a BLP violation when there is no clarification. Editors continue to ignore my concerns. I request admin oversight. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Richard Arthur Norton has now added an unreliable reference about discussion logs. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The text is specifically about criticism and not written from a neutral point of view, and the clarification that is in the Criticism of Wikipedia article was left out of the Larry Sanger page. If editors want to violate WEIGHT they should at least write something that is factually accurate like what is written in the criticism page. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Richard Arthur Norton ignored that Jclemens wrote "It's not a reliable secondary source. It IS a primary source, with the attendant cautions and restrictions." That is clear to me the reference is an unreliable primary source according to Jclemens. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There is still an unreliable source added by Richard Arthur Norton for no reason. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Richard Arthur Norton also added a BLP violation to the talk page. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
You can read the references and you can read where there is consensus for the clarification at Criticism of Wikipedia#Sexual content. This was repeatedly ignored by Wikipedians at this talk page and at the Larry Sanger page. The entire event is of such small importance to a person's life, it is not sensible to include it at all. It's just recentism to include a new paragraph everytime the media gets excited about something Larry Sanger did. Frankly, filing a complaint to the FBI seems exciting but is not notable to a person's life. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I had thought that our previous two discussions about this ( [1] and [2]) had made some progress. That is sort of true in that the absurd claim about Jensen seeking separate curriculum for blacks and whites has been removed and, so far, stayed removed. But the issue has come up again. (Thanks MathSci!) So, we both need to discuss this one specifically and brainstorm about ways to solve this more permanently. (This discussion I started [3] at WP:BLP has not gone very far.)
I deleted [4] the second sentence of this section from History of the race and intelligence controversy.
Joan Freeman, a psychologist specialising in gifted education, wrote that Jensen found that after matching up black and white children according to socioeconomic level, although the IQ scores of black children were distributed over the whole range, their average score was 15 points less than that of the white children. As she wrote, "He proposed that different forms of education, more appropriate to their kind of intelligence, should be given to black children. There should be less conceptual flights of fancy and more rote learning for them."
1) I have no problem with the first sentence. That is, in fact, what Jensen (1969) [5] reports. 2) I deleted the second sentence, not because I doubt that Freeman herself wrote it (MathSci is very reliable when it comes to these details) but because Jensen (1969) does not, in fact, propose "different forms of education" for "black children." Doesn't WP:BLP require that we delete false claims about living people even if those claims are made in reliable sources? David.Kane ( talk) 04:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm beginning to see why the race and intelligence articles are so problematic on Wikipedia. Secondary sources in the field of psychology tend to marginalize the hereditary intelligence hypothesis through consequentialism: "if you accept X, then the natural result is Y". I expect a part of this is a defense of psychology itself (which is under threat to cede some of its historical territory to biology and statistics), and another part is an understandable societal reluctance to acknowledge racial differences (fearing that small differences in the means of two distributions will be misinterpreted as evidence that the distributions are largely disjoint). As a BLP problem, it's similar to attributing consequentialist arguments about evolution to Darwin, e.g. "Darwin thought it was all right to kill the poor and weak and to breed a master race, and so does anyone who believes evolution", and consequentialist arguments about free markets to Adam Smith, e.g. "Smith thought that people should be greedy and exploit others". The trouble is, both Darwin and Smith were merely scientists observing and documenting a phenomenon, not political activists trying to implement the societal changes attributed to their theories—in Wikipedia terms I suppose the relevant policy would be assigning undue weight to the "advocacy" side of their lives, combined with a tendency to synthesize theory with the social policy supported by that theory. Unfortunately, it's the secondary sources that are placing the weight and performing the synthesis here. If it's acceptable for Wikipedia to echo the cultural zeitgeist, even when that zeitgeist misinterprets people and their work, then most of the material about Jensen should remain—only those few cases where Wikipedia performs additional synthesis and adds additional undue weight (which has occurred as editors have tried to "summarize" sources by removing caveats, context, and nuance) need be fixed (usually with a minor rewording). If that's not acceptable, then I suppose we'd need to attribute every synthesis that isn't directly supported by primary sources (which is a huge pain in the ass, and very hard to reconcile with WP:OR). My one piece of advice is that the interpretation of race and intelligence primary sources may be different in secondary sources devoted to biology, genetics, and statistics (of which there are fewer—most of the non-specialist literature on intelligence is written by psychologists), so looking these out may be valuable. Rvcx ( talk) 11:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Melissa Kirsch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am the subject of this entry. It seems to have been cobbled together from various biographical materials on me, some of which is correct, much of which is incorrect, and all of which seems to be written in a style inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards. Please advise. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.171.102 ( talk) 03:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute at this article concerning the adequacy of sources being used to support a section on one of the leading members of this organization. I would be grateful if other editors could take a look and offer their opinions. CIreland ( talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it this content....
During a radio broadcast in 1996, Smith was asked, "[at] some point there was a prediction of Christ's return through Calvary Chapel. Is that real? ... Did that happen?" Notwithstanding the published books, Smith responded, "No! Never, we all, we do believe he is going to return soon, never any date, no, never any date, because no man knows the day or the hour. http://calvarychapel.pbwiki.com/f/Smith%20-%20Date%20setting%20denial%20-%20TEMAA.ram
with these hidden references to the broadcast
If it is, I see what looks like the primary interview (which I have not clicked on) we are not here to report primary content, and a bunch of not reliable citations, so ..no, imo there are not adequate. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a few considerations:
Kind of liked the mucky fish analogy, cute. And thank you for participating.
Sliceofmiami ( talk) 15:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a follow-up question related to this discussion, but I'm not sure if it belongs here. While reading WP:Burden, I came across a surprising nugget: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page", which also included a crystal clear quote by Mr. Wales, himself. The thing that shocked me is the part about the talk pages - I always thought they were (nearly) sacrosanct per talk page policy. But my quoted reference from WP:Burden seems to suggest that poor references and any material based on such references could potentially be stricken from talk pages, as well. Is this correct? Or am I misreading? Thanks in advance for your time. 66.177.182.247 ( talk) 02:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
A new user initially posted on a different forum, but I thought I would cross post here as a more appropriate forum to bring more eyes to watch for the insertion of names of living people without proper sourcing. Active Banana ( talk) 18:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Just wanting a second opinion on this page which is currently being edited by a User:TimMacindoe. Edits are mostly fine although s/he is removing any "citation needed" tags I place. I don't want to have an edit war so am asking for opinions/advice/help. Mattlore ( talk) 03:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have been involved in a series of disputes about contentious claims made about Arthur Jensen, a living person. Although the details differ in each one (see the box for background), the most common pattern seems to involve:
For now, I am not seeking opinions about the content dispute. Indeed, I think that Ornstein is much more reasonable than some of the previous deletions that I have made. In fact, after discussion, I could imagine keeping it. Instead, I am seeking opinions from uninvolved editors about the generic way I should handle contentious claims made about a living person. Specifically, is my current practice of immediate deletion (following WP:BLP, followed by an attempt to engage in discussion at the appropriate Talk page justified? Thanks. David.Kane ( talk) 12:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The non SPA editors have agreed every time on every one of the BLPN postings. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
And the mayhem spills into section after section on this page too? So many weighing in here who profess to hold the "proper" interpretation of Jensen, but I don't see many giving much feedback on the "proper" application of the WP:BLP policy. Unfortunately, our own brilliant expertise on the subject of Arthur Jensen is the one thing that counts for nothing at wikipedia. And this board is certainly not the proper venue to share it. Here, explain how the policy relates to the use of reliably sourced material, primary sources, and the proper framing of controversial claims. Otherwise, detailed discussions about the topic itself properly belongs on the article's talk page. Professor marginalia ( talk) 00:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Melissa Francis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thedubaipost ( talk · contribs) has twice inserted a section on Francis's recent pregnancy sourced to Blogspot.com, plus speculation on the Talk page, which I removed. Input on whether this content is appropriate for the article – even if improved sourcing could be found – would be appreciated. Also, I'm not sure if the reference to the fictional character Avery Jessup should be included, especially considering the character's pregnancy. Flatscan ( talk) 04:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Main heading of commonly used name of "Sammy Hagar" is correct. The incorrect birthname of "Samuel" is used in bold type at the beginning of the article. Birthname is "Sam Roy Hagar" Could not edit that portion of article. Please correct. Thank you. RedJeanette —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedJeanette ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Can I request a quick review of this? There has been some recent issues relating to a political campaign and we got an OTRS message ( OTRS:4954309) complaining about it. Stifle ( talk) 15:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to request input at Talk:Don King (boxing promoter) regarding an IP who has repeatedly changed the lead from:
"Donald "Don" King (born August 20, 1931) is an American boxing promoter particularly known for his hairstyle and flamboyant personality."
to
"Donald "Don" King (born August 20, 1931) is an American boxing promoter and convicted murderer particularly known for his hairstyle and flamboyant personality."
This seems a bit much for the lead sentence, especially given the details of the case. The IP has violated 3RR, but I think they may be operating in good faith. I've temporarily semi-protected the page, and am acting as an admin here, so additional opinions are required. Thanks in advance. -- Ckatz chat spy 16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
More eyes are needed here, as two editors have been reverting one another over some contentious (but sourced) negative material. A third opinion was sought regarding one specific section (see Talk:Helena Guergis#Phony letter writing campaign) but the reverting has now encompassed more of the material in this BLP. Helena Guergis is a Canadian politician who was forced by the prime minister to resign from Cabinet this year, after a series of controversies. My impression, without having weighed into this too heavily, is that is it challenging to document all the controversies in a neutral way, as there are many unproven allegations. Any help is appreciated. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Article history: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Max_Yong&action=history
The article is well written, but:
User contributions:
Note that it is a shared IP and more recent contributions seems to be Ok.
-- Dc987 ( talk) 07:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm Rep. Raul M. Grijalva's communications director, posting as Owen Ruagh McCarthy, and I recently made several updates and changes to his page that I wanted to bring to Wikipedia management's attention out of an abundance of caution. I did not make these changes to slant or burnish his reputation -- much of the policy information dated from 2005 or earlier and was in need of updating. I have posted a similar notice on his talk page and do not want there to be any confusion about what happened. I am new to Wikipedia and would be grateful for any quick pointers if I've done anything wrong or violated the conflict of interest policy. From what I've seen, I don't believe I have, and the content is strictly neutral and well-sourced. If there are any problems, please let me know.
Update: I made several rounds of edits, but then immediately reverted them to allow Wikipedia officials to make the final call. A Wikipedia editor has been made aware of this situation on the Raul Grijalva talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen Ruagh McCarthy ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Owen Ruagh McCarthy ( talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Both of these articles are getting BLP violating edits due to tonight's game. They need watching. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 05:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Since being a fugitive is not a career and to balance out the undue weight, that version must be used. 124.105.21.3 ( talk) 07:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
William Lane Craig ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - William Lane Craig is a popular Christian apologist and philosopher, or, depending on your persepctive, a popular philosopher and Christian apologist. Most people who know of him - such as his students - are very much in his pocket. And it's difficult to explain that while one might have the perspective of Dr. Craig as a great philospher and thinker, most people - which is to say the far more objective persecptive - find him to be far from a philosopher first and apologist second. His page is currently riddled with extraneous information and has, I feel, a celebratory tone about it. I have begun to isolate these in the discussion page and asking for commentary. Two examples, the biography contains bibliographic statements (like recounting a specific article that Dr. Craig wrote) without explain why it noteworthy among the hundreds of articles that he's written. Or, the article simply listes a few books that are mentioned in the actual bibliography without any clarification. I will be cleaning up this sort of clutter.
There are more specific and controversial edits which I would like some advice from other Wikipedia editors. For example, Dr. Craig is an advisor of the Center for Science and Culture which is a program of the Discovery Institute and, some people would say, is indistinguishable from the Discovery Institute. I believe that this is a rich and salient detail that the uninitiated needs to know when reading about Dr. Craig. Therefore, I would place it early in his biogrpahy. Others want to bury deep within the article or omit it entirely.
More to come! And thanks! Theowarner2 ( talk) 16:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The BLP policy was recently changed to establish 123 years as the age at which we assume that an individual is dead. Please join in discussion on what the cutoff age for BLPs should be on the BLP talk page. Thanks -- Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 20:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Eliseo Soriano (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
and
Shannon Rose (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
The article is the victim of
BLP dispute issues regarding the notability of the subject as an "international fugitive". The latter, libelous claim, is only backed by a web archive. People have diverse opinions on the true reason why the subject is notable: some users say he is notable for being a critic to other religions while others (i.e. the user reported below) firmly believes that the article is notable for being an "international fugitive and a televangelist" at the same time. In the eyes of the Filipinos, the first "notability reason" is the real reason.
The "POV pusher", being a critic of Soriano to the point she calls Soriano as a "cult leader", had a long history of edit wars and 3RR reverts. Shannon Rose had commented harshly against another similar article, Daniel Soriano Razon. She is extremely harsh against users who just wants to add referenced, good information about the subject. Soriano, having been charged with rape, has a "counter-affidavit" covered by the press. When a pro-Soriano editor adds the counter affidavit in defense of the article, the POV user immediately rejects it without giving a chance for someone to find sources. Someone finally found a reference but the POV-pusher immediately removed it without trying to trim it down. I, the IP, only tried to remove unnotable and libellous statements agaist the subject, which is Soriano. Shannon Rose, being a POV pusher and a critic to Soriano (see this talk page and also this this talk page) has tried to offensively destroy the credibility of the editors who tried to simply add more positive edits to the subject. Thanks! 120.28.114.16 ( talk) 03:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
@Off2riorob: The first rationale provided by Shannon Rose (Rationale 1:Interpol website, broadsheet articles, as well as documentaries complete with dramatizations from major Philippine TV networks such as can be seen in this YouTube upload.) cannot be used as a valid reason. Here are the reasons:
Second Question: Why is the article notable? Take note that he is known for criticizing various other religious groups (even the influential Iglesia ni Cristo is one) for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible ( Not a valid RS but this link shows the reactions of the Filipinos to his actions: like criticizing various other religious groups). Here is an edit done by a nonpartisan user: He removed the international fugitive part and tried to discuss it in the talk page. 180.191.65.41 ( talk) 10:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), an international fugitive and a controversial Filipino televangelist, is the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).
Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.
Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), a Filipino televangelist and the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).
Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the
Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.
(legal issues part)
Soriano is currently facing charges of rape in his home country, the Philippines.
Soriano fled his home country after being indicted for same-sex rape, this, along with other lawsuits and issues, have been widely-publicized thereby compromising his reputation as clergy.
The reason for suggesting this is because the present contents of the second paragraph i.e. being "known" for criticizing other religious groups, believed to be a Pantas by his followers according to a certain verse in the Bible, and being able to answer any question using the Bible, are wholly unsourced. My position is either we replace the second paragraph or we scrap it altogether. – Shannon Rose Talk 14:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
from Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), a Filipino televangelist and the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).
He is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.
In 2009 Soriano failed to attend his bail hearing in regards to allegations of male rape and there is a Philippine warrant out for his arrest. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The uncited can clearly go. So he has failed to answer bail, that is simple and exactly as my comment.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang_Dating_Doon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZK7mjqYXR4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG3zXLfanko
I have a concern the the adding of international fugitive as the primary comment in the lede and the primary reason for this persons notability is a BLP violation as this is beng given undue weight. Shannon Rose thinks that is the most notable thing about him and supports the present lede. Would users comment as to their preference within policy.
Rewrite
Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), a Filipino televangelist and the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).
Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible. In 2006 Soriano failed to attend his bail hearing in regards to allegations of male rape and there is a Philippine warrant out for his arrest.
Present lede
Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), an international fugitive and a controversial Filipino televangelist, is the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).
Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.
Please post your preference here. Thanks.
Be vigilant, Wikipedians, as members of Soriano's group (removing the rape case part) and critics of Soriano's group (rejecting the duly-sourced awards) are tilting the article to extreme levels of POV: (whitewashing). I'm voting for the rewrite. Shannon Rose I am gently advising you to please, (pretty please) be more open-minded and please accept the fact the prior to his legal troubles, Soriano was already notable for being a televangelist and a critic to many religions. 180.191.61.132 ( talk) 02:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I have insisted that a source be provided that backs up the assertions I removed in the above link. Until the source is provided, the paragraph remains out of the article.-- Father Goose ( talk) 02:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No idea why you keep removing it. It was sourced and the sources stating there was another knee were purely speculative. I remember some of them asking a question in the title ("Did he get hit by another knee") so it wasn't conclusive whatsoever. Paralympiakos ( talk) 21:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
born 5.02.1990 is Bosnian football player whit pre-contract agreement to Ary United —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vederan ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I cannot verify Susan Wise Bauer's rank or position on the faculty of William and Mary College. I suspect that she may have moved on, probably to a more prestigious post. The rank noted in the article tends to lower her credibility as an authority on world history education, the area of some of her books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrennenderSorge ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
A dispute has arisen regarding whether one version of the lede is problematic with regard to the biographies of living persons policy. Further opinions would be welcome at the article talk page.
CIreland ( talk) 02:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
User page was edited by coryburnell. Edits have been undone. Discussion page noted with link to WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ELH50 ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hayek1818 ( talk · contribs) Seems to be a case of a new editor on a mission who isn't terribly familiar with Wikipedia's processes. He's inserting information into the BLP of a challenger to a U.S. Senate seat, which includes information that may or may not be valid (I haven't looked in detail -- just noticed on vandalism patrol). In any case his editing is problematic because he's reverting to a version that contains what appears to be some commentary directed at editors reverting him. Some more attention to the article would be appreciated. — e. ripley\ talk 22:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Limmie Snell has a death date of 1986 sourced offline, and seems to be performing this year. Are there two musicians of that name or is one source incorrect? Fresh eyes appreciated. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The information contained in this biography is false. It only alludes to the down points in his career and doesn't speak to the real " Michael Cohl". This is slander against a great man. It also highlights two positions which Michael Cohl no longer holds. It is misleading and a vast misrepresentation of the man and his accomplishments. I suggest it be removed immediately. Thanks You, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.131.123 ( talk) 15:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Now has a section titled "Her Exit from the Financial Times" which starts with "A search of the ""Financial Times"" archives reveals that here final three articles were written in September, 2005.[4]" based on a FT search. Is this OR in a BLP? Further the section posits cause and effect for her leaving the FT. Is there any problem with the section title or contents? Additional input as to where the line on OR and SYNTH ought to be drawn would be highly welcome. Collect ( talk) 19:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
GoldieLocks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have no first or second hand knowledge of the subject, I simply found the page a few days ago while reading through articles on the music genre and did some cleanup and one reversion. Apparently, IP is attempting to substantiate what I reverted. I am not afraid to revert this, but would rather have a more BLP-concerned admin handle the situation, the current pattern is dubious and I am not interested in going to war over it. Thank you. Sswonk ( talk) 02:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This edit needs attention, and I'm traveling and can't get to it. I haven't checked the reliability of some of the obscure sources, and the claims are not represented neutrally (the claims are made by a convict, of dubious credibility, which isn't elaborated at all in the text). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
For some reason, I think "Allegations of homosexuality and homophobia" forms a red flag in any BLP. [15] shows the restoration of that section in Matt Drudge. Does anyone else find this to be per se "contentious" and ill-suited to an encyclopedic BLP? Past precedent is that "outing" a person as gay (source is a gay publication specifically opposed to Drudge) where they have said they are not gay is specifically beyond the pale, and labelling such a person as "homophobic" likely hits the same policy and rules for BLPs. Collect ( talk) 09:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Geoff Hoon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This derogatory not notable nickname which is just a simple insult has been added to the Geoff Hoon BLP, its not well known, its just a valueless insult of little or no notability and should be removed, content is a derogatory, non encyclopedic and not notable nickname. Here is a google search result for Hoon the buffoon , this is the kind of valueless derogatory insult with a citation that BLP policy should be there to remove, its a simple attack on a living subject, started elsewhere but the attempt is to propagate it through wikipedia. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
A reliably sourced BLP issue, super, fantastic, a valueless insult wikipedia can be proud of. I have previously removed other derogatory nicknames and this is no better at all, a simple insult to a living person of no value to the reader at all. Hoon the buffoon Off2riorob ( talk) 20:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like you mean WP:UNDUE vs. BLP. You need to look at the body of coverage on the subject, the current size of the article, and the ideal size of the article, and decide if it merits mention. Is it too much of the article now? Will it be too much of the article if it was a full size FA style article? I don't know the guy well enough, but there is a certain amount of usage of the term. [16] It sounds like he's pretty famous, so that may not be a large part of the total coverage. I'm American and I've never heard of him, to show you how much I know. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 04:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not widely used and just an insult, I wouldn't ever add it but hey, if users think it is a good addition then enjoy. 09:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob ( talk • contribs)
Nazir Ahmad (Burewala resident) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a possibly living person known solely for an alleged honour killing (I previously nominated the article for deletion, but there was no consensus). His trial must have been over by now, and yet the verdict hasn't been reported. Only a single sentence in the article is referenced. Should I delete everything that isn't referenced, slap a tag on it, or send it to AFD again? Andjam ( talk) 09:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The Revision History of the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bill_Phillips_(author)&action=history, shows more than four years of persistent misuse by “Yankees76.”
In that time, Yankees76 has displayed extreme bias against Bill Phillips. As the Revision History clearly shows, Yankees76 promptly deletes/undoes any good faith additions to the page that would make it more balanced and compliant with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.
Yankees76 insists on being the primary contributor to the page, and the majority of what he contributes is defamatory and irrelevant except to him, as it supports his extreme bias/personal resentment toward Bill Phillips.
The sources Yankees76 often cites refer to http://tmuscle.com/tmuscle.com, an online newsletter published by TC Luoma, a former employee of Bill Phillips who was dismissed from one of his companies 15 years ago. These citations are biased and not reliable.
TC Luoma has made defamatory claims about Bill Phillips for many years in his newsletter, which Yankees76 then adds to the Bill Phillips (author) page. (TC Luoma also sells nutrition products that compete with those sold by Phillips.) Whether or not TC Luoma and Yankees76 are the same person, they share the same agenda, which is to control the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia.
Throughout the past four years, Yankees76 has bullied many contributors with insults and accusations that they are vandalizing his work on the page. This behavior goes directly against Wikipedia’s founding intention of providing objective, unbiased, and fair information. As it stands now, the Bill Phillips (author) page is defamatory, biased, and based on unreliable sources.
The bottom line is that Yankees76 has persistently misused his position as an admin with improper deletions and unreliable sources.
Getfit1980 ( talk) 16:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
1) In that time, Yankees76 has displayed extreme bias against Bill Phillips. As the Revision History clearly shows, Yankees76 promptly deletes/undoes any good faith additions to the page that would make it more balanced and compliant with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.
2) Yankees76 insists on being the primary contributor to the page, and the majority of what he contributes is defamatory and irrelevant except to him, as it supports his extreme bias/personal resentment toward Bill Phillips.
3) The sources Yankees76 often cites refer to http://tmuscle.com/tmuscle.com, an online newsletter published by TC Luoma, a former employee of Bill Phillips who was dismissed from one of his companies 15 years ago. These citations are biased and not reliable.
4) TC Luoma has made defamatory claims about Bill Phillips for many years in his newsletter, which Yankees76 then adds to the Bill Phillips (author) page. (TC Luoma also sells nutrition products that compete with those sold by Phillips.) Whether or not TC Luoma and Yankees76 are the same person, they share the same agenda, which is to control the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia.
5) Throughout the past four years, Yankees76 has bullied many contributors with insults and accusations that they are vandalizing his work on the page. This behavior goes directly against Wikipedia’s founding intention of providing objective, unbiased, and fair information. As it stands now, the Bill Phillips (author) page is defamatory, biased, and based on unreliable sources.
6) The bottom line is that Yankees76 has persistently misused his position as an admin with improper deletions and unreliable sources.
Please note that Getfit1980 has been blocked indefinitely. -- Yankees76 ( talk) 20:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The user Rihanna Knowles repeatedly is changing the birthdate of Flo Rida from December 16 to September 17, both in 1979, even though there are two sources cited in the article supporting the December birthdate ( Reuters and Allmusic). RK has never cited a source that directly supports the alternatively claimed birthdate. Recently User:HipHopStan also followed RK's lead. Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 19:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
There may be others involved as well. I have given both of the 2 above accounts warnings that if the disruption continues, they will be blocked. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: Added two more accounts to above list, related to issues with same article. -- Cirt ( talk) 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HipHopfan4life. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 21:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Boyce appears to be under partisan attack from his political opponents. I have left a couple of comments on the accounts talkpages but I holdout little hope, if it continues use guidelines and attempt discussion if that doesn't work ask for semi protection. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Could anybody have a look at Walter Jens' biographic entry, please. It's slightly unbalanced as to his achievements vs. his alleged Nazi past. -- Dodo19 ( talk) 15:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The pages Ángel di María ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Aleksandar Kolarov ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are being constantly vandalized with transfer rumours to Real Madrid C.F.. Please, I am requesting to protect these pages. B.Lameira ( talk) 17:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The place to ask for protection is Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. I have requested these two semi protection for you, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Semi protected for a week and two weeks respectively by Administrator Fastily, thanks to him for that. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
A new user, User:Luke18:2-8, attempted to add some negative information [20] to the David Eppstein article. I saw several problems with it. First, the information added did not really correspond to the source: the letter referenced actually states that the complaint against Eppstein was found to be groundless, while the edit of User:Luke18:2-8 appears to indicate otherwise. Second, it looks doubtful to me that the source cited [21] satisfies WP:V. The cite meami.org appears to be some kind of a search engine and somebody seems to have posted a privately addressed letter there. I don't think this qualifies as "published" material (such as, say, an article in a newspaper would have been). I have reverted the edits of User:Luke18:2-8, but I'd like someone else, experienced in BLP matters, to take a look. Nsk92 ( talk) 12:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The articles all relate to British Law Lords (senior judges), the material added, and the contents of the userpage of the editor adding it, suggest that the editor is probably personally involved in the case. No sources have been provided, although a bald statement taht everythign is verifiable has been included. I've made a first attempt to engage the user on their talkpage, which may be successful, but I'd appreciate more eyes on these articles at the moment. David Underdown ( talk) 10:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
-- Hi David(?) and Newyorkbrad I'm struggling a bit on the use of this site and I trust this is the correct way to contact you (by using the 'edit' button?)
My other struggle is to establish quite what part of my addition to the relevant biography's could be construed as misplaced. All of the material facts I have stated are a matter of Public Record and contained within the court documents, the Metropolitan Police records and the DPP/CPS departments, or should be! There clearly should be no information to which I have referred that is not contained within the records mentioned. There is also much relevant material held by the Ministry of Justice although they have been reticent to supply it under the Freedom of Information Act and, as related, only did so upon the intervention of The Lord President of The Privy Council
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/david_schiller - is relevant
I do, of course, understand the concerns you might have, especially upon first sight of my 'edit'
It would appear Wikipedia may not be the appropriate place to add information that does not reflect well on any (Honourable!) persons 'Biography'
I will copy my comments to Lord Hope for any comment he may wish to make Regards DAS
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 20:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
story is from 14 months ago that he used his union credit card for hookers and suchlike and one from three months ago saying he is suing all and sundry.
http://www.thecoastnews.com.au/central-coast/565-craig-thomsons-1-million-union-fight.html
http://www.smh.com.au/national/how-a-union-boss-won-the-dobell-prize-20090409-a27o.html
Personally I would leave it out until we know if he is guilty of anything, no charges after 15 months and now he is suing for a million...seems a bit like he may have a case, funny that it is only being added now, at the most I would add a sentence with the coast news cite saying that ...
In April 2009 in was reported that Thompson's Health Services Union credit card had been misused for election campaign spending and inappropriate use of union funds. In 2010 Thompson was reported to be suing the union executive for damages. It is further reported that he is also suing Fairfax Media for publishing the allegations. Mr Thomson is fervently denying the allegations. [1] [2]
I think I will boldly add this as it is not undue and conservatively written. I will leave a note on the talkpage there regarding this thread. Off2riorob ( talk) 09:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Parts of this politician's biography (specifically, the last two paragraphs) are sourced only to a primary source, C-SPAN. Is this acceptable practice, or does it amount to original research?
This is a general issue for articles about politicians: is it ever acceptable to write about their views, voting records and speeches based purely on government records, or are secondary sources always required? If the latter is the case, we have many articles that will need to be cut down to comply. Robofish ( talk) 01:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
There's a "Living people" section in this footer navbox. Is this a concern from a BLP-policy standpoint? What about those people that deny being con artists. Peter Popoff for instance, there's no doubt that he's a fraud, and is widely known for being a fraud.. but he's also primarily a televangelist. Is it right to include a con-artist navbox at the bottom of his page but not one for televangelists or faith healers? (don't know if such a navbox exists, but just for the sake of argument..) How much weight should be given to the actual self-professed professions of these people vs. their public-bestowed notoriety for being fraudsters? -- œ ™ 12:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Bill Clinton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Clarence Thomas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) both appropriately have "sex" mentioned in their Wikipedia articles. After all, Clinton had the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, and Thomas had the Anita Hill accusations about sexual comments in the workplace.
The question I have here is about the lede in those two articles. Should the lede mention "sex" or not? Currently, the lede for Thomas does, but the lede for Clinton does not. I presently have no opinion about it, and would like some advice. One thing's for sure: the treatment should be consistent between these two articles, because there's no reason to mention "sex" for one and not the other. This may seem trivial, but using the word "sex" in the lead does tend to sensationalize things quite a bit.
Anyway, the Thomas lede currently mentions an "accusation that he had made unwelcome sexual comments" (emphasis added). The Clinton article lede currently mentions his impeachment "in connection with a scandal involving a White House intern." Shall we remove "sexual" from the former, or insert it into the latter? We ought to do one or the other, and it would be nice to get this minor issue settled by wide community input. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think WP:WEIGHT strongly favors at least some detail on the hearings in the lead of Thomas article, given its prominence in reputable published biographical material (including Thomas' own autobiography). I don't edit Bill Clinton and have no strong opinion about the level of detail to give the Lewinsky scandal in the lead. MastCell Talk 17:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)