This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Jessica Biel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Here is the text from her BLP Person section -
"Biel dated actor Adam LaVorgna from 1998 to 2001. They were co-stars in the film I'll Be Home for Christmas and on 7th Heaven.[33][34] She dated actor Chris Evans from 2001 to June 2006, and appeared opposite him in the films Cellular and London. She has also been romantically linked to actor Ryan Reynolds,[12] and baseball player Derek Jeter.[12][35][36] [37] She started dating singer Justin Timberlake in 2007, they broke up in March 2011.[38][39]"
This reads more like a magazine article. Should this text be kept? -- BweeB ( talk) 19:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
After getting what I thought was consensus for removal, here and on the article talk page, I removed the section. It was restored. I started a Request for Comments on the talk page: Talk:Jessica Biel#RfC: Relationships. Opinions welcome. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The article 'Lathika Srinivasan' is a sarcastic article created for the purpose of mocking. It has no reliable citations nor is the person well known. I suggest deleting the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castroby ( talk • contribs) 07:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Just happened to be researching titles of Chet Atkins songs and the list that came up on Wikipedia is mostly a list of Beatles (McCartney/Lennon) songs - when I clicked on the song titles, it forwarded me to your article on that song and that it was indeed written by either McCartney or Lennon. Just thought I should mention it - maybe someone should take the time to look at the page more closely for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.167.102 ( talk) 12:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Dawn Black is not the leader of the Opposition in the B.C. Legislature. Adrian Dix holds that position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.150.35 ( talk) 17:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Julian Kirzner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
he never played for western jets, only cental dragons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.50.20 ( talk) 09:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Gary McHale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Entry does not conform to NPOV Contributor(s) appear to have close connection with subject Attempts to provide alternative views are quickly deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.226.118 ( talk) 15:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Tamil Tigress ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This was already brought up at NORN, which is how I found it, but that doesn't seem to have solved the problem: a user is repeatedly reinserting personal analysis of interviews with the author of this book in an attempt to prove that she is lying, as well as unreliable sources such as blogs which criticize her. As per the instructions for this board, I won't copy/paste any of the quotes in question, but here is the most recent diff. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello.
Just reading the Wiki page for Andy Nicholson, former bass player for Arctic Monkeys.
The beginning of the article contains a description of Andy which is perhaps inappropriate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Nicholson
I thought it best to bring it to your attention as whether he is or isn't either of these things it's probably best to edit!
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.225.3 ( talk) 08:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Jeff Frederick ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Last week I discovered that the Jeff Frederick article contains many statements supported only by citations from partisan political websites. The use of these citations would appear to violate the rule against bias.
I quote from Wikipedia policy: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately...
After I deleted the biased references and the poorly-sourced material, the article was repeatedly reverted by unregistered editor(s). Next, on the advice of another editor I requested semi-protection for the article, since all the reversions had been done by unregistered editors. This was granted, but the article was then reverted by VaBio1.
It is claimed by editor VaBio1 that the citations are OK because he claims they contain quotes from the subject. However, the context of the citations is contrary to this, rather they are used to support assertions about the political career of the subject and to build his prestige. For example, it is claimed that one of his opponents is "powerful". Therefore these citations should be regarded as poorly sourced and contentious.
VaBio1 counters ( Talk:Jeff Frederick), "Zeamays has yet to provide any evidence or even argument as to why information is unreliable." I counter it is self-evident that any statement supported only from a biased source is not worthy of Wikipedia. Also note that on the Talk:Jeff Frederick page VaBio1 has responded to my earlier posts interpolated before my later posts, which may give an unwitting reader the idea that he responded prior to my later posts, which was not the case. VaBio1 also makes the point that more valid references may be identified by reading the citations on the partisan political website. However, that requires original research, which is not permitted as the basis for Wikipedia material or citations. -- Zeamays ( talk) 13:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
If using the word "powerful" was the only issue, we would have no problem. However, you omitted many relevant facts, none of which has been argued to be "contentious material", and in fact the material has been posted on this page for nearly two years without anyone suggesting that the material is contentious. Vabio1 ( talk) 17:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I see that two other registered editors have since agreed with me and edited the article. Vabio1 should do the work to seek find suitable authoritative citations if his opinions are supported. The fact that he does not shows that his position is weak. -- Zeamays ( talk) 19:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Once again, Vabio1 has reverted to include references to the partisan politican website votejeff. He needs to be barred. -- Zeamays ( talk) 23:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Once again, Zeamays refuses to provide specifics regarding his objections and simply wants his version of edits to stand with no or blanket justification, and we'd argue he is maliced and partisan due to his refusal to be specific and engage in a dialogue to resolve differences. We have asked for mediation on this. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/14_September_2011/Jeff_Frederick. We seem to be the only ones who want to discuss this to find consensus to get things resolved. Vabio1 ( talk) 16:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Barnaby Conrad ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
I'm writing to correct some minor errors in the article on my father, BARNABY CONRAD (born 1922).
The article on this author is more or less accurate except that his list of nonfiction books includes several books actually written by ME---BARNABY CONRAD III (born 1952).
These books should be removed:
INTERVIEWS WITH MASTER PHOTOGRAPHERS (written with James Danziger) 1977.
JOHN REGISTER: PERSISTENT OBSERVER, 1998
RICHARD DIEBENKORN, 2003
VALENTIN POPOV, 2008
I am the author of a dozen books of non-fiction, and have a new novel coming out in March 2012, so perhaps it would be a good idea to do a Wiki article on me to distinguish Dad's work from mine
Sincerely,
Barnaby Conrad III — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.57.58 ( talk) 20:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I used Google books and noted a number of books listed as by "Barnaby Conrad" with "Barnaby Conrad III" listed as author. The requests seem well-founded for sure. And it reminded me of Minor White whom I had met many aeons ago in college. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 02:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
First line of article has been messed up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.15.101 ( talk) 03:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I emailed Dr. Davis and received a reply as follows after reading your article on Dr. Roger J. Williams. He asked me to contact Wikipedia in order to clear up mistakes. I hope I am following the proper procedure. Thanks.
> Hi Dr. Davis, > > Is the formula referred to above (Vitamin and Mineral Insurance Formula) the one referenced in Wikipedia as being Dr. William's formula for alcoholism? Or is there some formulation you could recommend?
Dixie Floyd
Response from Dr. Davis:
No. For alcoholism he recommended a "fortified" version with about 10 times more of most vitamins, and modestly higher amounts of most minerals. I recommend that you read his book in which he suggested this version, along with another supplement, glutamine:
The Prevention of Alcoholism Through Nutrition, 1981 (pocketbook), Bantam Books (used copies are likely available at Amazon).
Bronson sells something close to Williams's recommendation, Fortified Vitamin & Mineral Insurance Formula http://www.bronsonvitamins.com/92A/fortified-vitamin-mineral-insurance-formula
However, the suggested 1 to 2 tablets per day does not meet Williams's doses, which require 6 tablets per day, at least initially.
Bronson's talk about "collaboration" on the "jointly developed" formula is nonsense. As for being an "exclusive" Bronson product, that is true, but misleading, as any company is free to use Williams's suggestions without payment, and that has been true from the very beginning (as stated in Wikipedia). At one time another company did offer a similar product.
The Wikipedia article needs some corrections and improvements. Perhaps you could help with this. Williams published 3 books on nutrition and alcoholism, only one of which did he withdraw as stated.
Best wishes,
Don Davis
Donald R. Davis, Ph.D.
Retired from: Biochemical Institute The University of Texas Austin, Texas
> Thanks,
>
> Dixie Floyd
>
> from Wikipedia:
>
> Common differences in nutritional needs formed the basis of a vitamin formula Williams developed to diminish the craving for alcohol in people biochemically susceptible to alcoholism. In a course he taught as a Professor Emeritus at The University of Texas at Austin, The Biochemical and Physiological Bases of Individual Human Differences, Williams recounted his experience after publishing a book on this research. Because he had written that alcoholic people who got their individual nutritional needs fully met could drink socially without bingeing, he was assailed by people associated with Alcoholics Anonymous. Always a humble person, Williams allowed himself to be convinced that the social side of alcoholism was also of major importance. He withdrew his book and destroyed the printing. Williams never attempted to profit from this research; he gave his vitamin formula away to a number of pharmaceutical companies. A version modified by one of his former
> colleagues, Dr. Donald R. Davis, is sold under the name Vitamin & Mineral Insurance Formula, by Bronson Laboratories. With the formula open-sourced by Williams, no company has completed pharmaceutical research to get US Food and Drug Administration approval for claiming it as a treatment for alcoholism. Williams himself testified before Congress in 1974 that "proposed regulations which would aptly apply to drugs would be inappropriate for nutrients and vice versa."[2] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.5.105.182 (
talk) 17:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Subject of article has removed documented criticism with citations.
Citations are two blogs with criticism of the subject. One blog is a documented article. One blog is a discussion of the subject.
I have returned the article to its pre-edited state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkzin ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Jack Harte (Irish writer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SubSection: Short Stories, paragraph three has been edited to contain unsourced, inaccurate and libellous allegations about Jack Harte and about Georgy Pryakhin. These are: 1. That Jack Harte brokered the publication of a book by Pryakhin in return for the publication of a Russian translation of his short stories. 2. That Pryakhin's works are considered anti-semitic and that he is associated with Russian neo-fascism. 3. By implication, that Harte is in some way sympathetic to or tolerant of anti-Semitism or fascism.
The only source given is an open source indymedia article, presumably written by the instigator of these edits himself.
These edits present a completely inaccurate, damaging and libellous portrayal of Jack Harte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasquale Paoli ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
BLP expertise, particularly in WP:BLPCAT subtleties, would be helpful at an RfC here. The issue is which criteria are used to include people in a list of ex-gay persons. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Complaining re disruptive behavior of User:Deepdish7, who keeps reinserting poorly sourced, potentially libelous information, containing accusations of the subject of various crimes, including murder and funding of terrorism. All attempts to reason with the editor have failed. Request intervention. There is a parallel complaint about me by User:Deepdish7 on WP:COIN, with my detailed response, which is relevant to this report. -- Kolokol1 ( talk) 23:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Locking the article for 2 weeks is a temporary measure. User:Deepdish7 will resume reverting it to the disputed version as soon as it is unblocked. He said that himself, and has done so on many occasions before. Going into mediation with him is pointless, and the discussion in the talk page has been going in circles for two months without any consensus. We are dealing with a person on a mission to create an attack article aimed at exposing the subject -- an opponent of Vladimir Putin -- as a criminal, and the British decision to grant him political asylum as an act of hostility to Russia. He declared these objectives himself in his talk posts. This is not a matter of conflicting opinions, but of reliability of sources and NPOV and of good faith in using WP tools, or lack thereof.
Although I am not the subject of this biography, I admit having an interest in a fair and balanced treatment of Mr. Berezovsky in accord with WP policies. Let them brand me with COI, this still does not justify dissimination of contentious, poorly sourced and potentially libelous material.
Presently, there are two versions of the article on the record, which speak for themselves:
Version 1, the original attack article created by Deepdish and his support team ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&oldid=439915507 )
Version 2, a collaborative effort of myself and other editors to clean it up in accord with WP policies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&oldid=450509807 )
The latest edit war, which resulted in the locking of the article, consisted in reinserting blocks of text from the first version into the second, and their removal.
Version 1 is a quintessential attack page; Version 2 is admittedly a work in progress, but it is pointless to continue improving the article in the situation of perpetual edit war declared by Deepdish7.
So I call on the administratiors to protect the article indefinitely, and assign a disinterested editor to vet all further additions, which could be drafted on the talk page, for adherence to WP policies.-- Kolokol1 ( talk) 13:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I have made a ban request at ANI.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Jochen Zeitz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
self-marketing of an business major? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.192.148 ( talk) 14:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Notable - and reduced to two specific reliable sources thereon. Feel free to add to it. Collect ( talk) 15:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
A $2 billion rogue trader story, just breaking, this is bound to attract questions of WP:BLP1E and recentism. His name is now being used by the BBC, WSJ, and FT but hasn't been officially released as far as I can tell. It personally looks ok to me, but it might help if somebody keeps an eye on it. Smallbones ( talk) 16:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Ali Sina (ex-Muslim) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In January, this article was created over a redirect to Faith Freedom International. [1] The article provides little biographical info, identifies the subject as "an apostate", and goes into excessive detail about this person's (an alias) anti-Muslim positions. Even the title is problematic; is "ex-Muslim" the best way to disambiguate this person? My feeling is that an Afd is in order, looking for other opinions. The Interior (Talk) 17:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
A person, by the name of Vilas Pendse, is trying to commit libel and slander against a living person Safwat Morsy. Wikipedia Article Website -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safwat_Morsy
Vilas Pendse goes by himself or sometimes as SFPeaceful. He has committed identity theft first by created a fake Facebook profile of Safwat Morsy and then created a couple fake Yelp profile to slander Safwat Morsy. Here is the San Francisco Police Report number (case number 110700524). More details -- http://www.alsabeel.org/component/content/article/40-nnouncements/136-urgent-message
I am open to constructive and true criticism of Safwat Morsy, but the blog article links have no sourced. Safwat Morsy never had any radical sermons and all sermons are video taped. Please let us know how we can provide links to all sermons that SFPeaceful is really lying about.
I hope wikipedia takes this seriously because a person is being slandered on Facebook, Yelp and now Wikipedia. Facebook and Yelp have taken action. Wikipedia is an interesting project and unfortunately someone is trying to use it for the purposes of slander.
I am requesting a Permanent Lock on Safwat Morsy article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.32.3 ( talk) 19:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Mary Apick ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IMBD is referenced as Mary being born in 1954. Somebody keeps changing her birth year to 1961 with no reference. Ericsean ( talk) 01:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The page at Elonka Dunin (which happens to be about, well, me) is somewhat out-of-date. I have attempted to follow wiki policies and not edit the article myself, and instead have been making suggestions at the article talkpage. However, it's been years now, and despite multiple requests (and multiple sources provided), it hasn't really been a priority for anyone (including me). So what I've done is create an updated draft at Elonka Dunin/Draft. It's not a comprehensive piece, but does handle cleanups and updates. It would be appreciated if someone else could either work from that to update the live article, or simply copy it in verbatim (you'd need to remove the template at the top, and uncomment the categories and commons link). Or, if no one else seems to mind, I'll go ahead and handle the updates myself. Thanks, -- El on ka 03:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
William Lane Craig ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recently there is one unique problem with the William Lane Craig article: three users have removed the majority of the content in the article and has repeatedly kept other users from adding more info. From more than 20kb in May 2010, the current article is less than half of that size.
Most notable is user User:Hrafn who began his involvement in this article since 26 May 2011, and has repeatedly deleted important information from the article with such reasons given as "Rm: WP:OR that is NOT IN THE CITED SOURCES!" despite not being familiar with the source in question; "UTTERLY worthless sources on UTTERLY unimportant website" despite the website being a part of William Lane Craig's ministry; and his arguments from the talk page contains things like "You "think you could be a member of an organization without believing in" the whole point for that organisation existing, whilst mouthing that organisation's claims on that subject? I don't think so. The world may not be "black and white" -- but religious conservatives' thinking generally is." (emphasis in original; last line clear indicative of inability to be objective concerning the article in light of its religious nature); "" whilst mouthing that organisation's claims on that subject" -- Craig is not a token evolutionist, and the DI is not Fox News. Think tanks (of any stripe) rarely, if ever, have "token people who disagree with it." And conservative Christians very much tend towards eliminationist groupthink -- see Rightwing authoritarianism for the details of the dynamics. Craig walks with, talks like and acts like a creationist -- so I see no reason whatsoever to pretend that he's not one when the subject comes up." (emphasis in original; also another indication of failure to be objective); and a whole list of anti-theistic views posted on the talk page clearly reveals that this user should be barred from making any further edits due to his inability to be objective about his edits.
The second user responsible for the vast reduction in information is User:PeterTheGreat (formerly Theowarner2, editing the article as User:Theowarner since 19 June 2010) who began on 18 May 2010. His responses on the talk page includes things like "Do a brutal edit and just eliminate everything that isn't covered by third-party sourcing. I'd love to see what that looks like." Mostly not notable edits, but he does make a large number of edits over the years which accumulated into this issue.
Lastly, there is User:Mann jess, who began editing the article on 5 June 2010. The problem with the user may not be bias or even objectivity, but rather a plain disregard of many sources with the false impression that primary sources must be avoided at any cost, and that even the Official Channel of the White House on YouTube cannot be considered as a reliable source.
An obvious problem with the way these three users handle editing on the William Lane Craig article can be seen in the way they removed a quote by prominent atheist Sam Harris about William Lane Craig, stating that he is "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists"; while one user has given a Fox News report as a source, Hrafn went much further when discussing about the Sam Harris quote by saying "It is indeed a lousy source. The publisher isn't exactly known for being "Fair & Balanced" (no matter what their slogan may say), the writer appears to be a featherweight & the story is just a piece of publicity-seeking fluff. Speaking for myself, I can't understand this Christian obsession with Dawkins. In this instance he's the wrong choice for a debating partner -- Craig would be better off seeking a raconteur like Stephen Fry -- who would most likely make for a far more interesting and memorable debate. But Dawkins seems to be their Moby Dick." Mann jess takes the opportunity to outright remove the quote from the article ("Per forming consensus here, I've removed the addition.") despite the "consensus" simply consisting of Mann jess, Theowarner and Hrafn. All this in spite of the video of the source of the quote, which is the second installment of "The God Debate" hosted in the University of Notre Dame, being made available on YouTube since April 12, 2011, and the full transcript of the debate made available as early as May 3, 2011. This indicates either lack of fact-checking or outright denial of facts, which, either way, would be indicative of their incompetency and thus the main reason why they should be barred from making any further edits on the page.
In addition to the above, more details concerning the trio's bad faith in their editing of the William Lane Craig article are explained in this video. Maiorem ( talk) 00:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This report is long on chat and short on examples. What is the specific BLP problem? Give a passage included or excluded wrongly. Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
A brief review of the "before" and "after" versions shows the "before" uses totally unreliable sources, like www.reasonablefaith.org, and www.closertotruth.com. The after version appears to use published books. I can understand why a hagiography might be your preference, but honestly, the baseline short version is far better than the unreliably sourced version. Propose specific incremental changes to the article that improve it and see what happens. Hipocrite ( talk) 19:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman Polanski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On the talk page of Roman Polanski I believe there are some slanderous comments about his victim. Here the relevant edits [2] and [3]. If every single source out there says she has stated from the beginning it was not consensual, should he be allowed to suggest she said "yes"? Dream Focus 02:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This is the comment I made in response to a claim that Polanski should be included in the Child molester category, and its vague and not slanderous in any way. User:Dream Focus wants to add polanski to the Rapist cat and is simply attempting to demean my position with rubbish libel claims. Off2riorob ( talk) 02:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Rapist suggests the person did not say yes, whereas in this case is was not a bit like that. Not a bit like her not saying yes? What? How is that not slanderous? And the rest of the conversation isn't relevant here, I'm here to discuss only that comment, and the discussion about it that followed. It says to link to the offensive bit, not to copy it here. Dream Focus 02:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
IMO, Off2riorob's comment is well within reasonable bounds if you consider the information contained in this New York Times article from 2009. The 1970s were rather extreme in one direction, and today's societies are rather extreme in the other. (From my personal experience: A friend of mine owns a sexual education book printed at the time with a respectable German mainstream publisher. I once read it and found it curious, in part misguided, but not particularly concerning overall. Later I learned that it has since been outlawed by the Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons.) It helps to remember that consensual sex between two children of approximately the same age and maturity is by far less of an issue (in fact, it should not be an issue at all, although some jurisdictions are broken) than asymmetric cases. The difference is of course entirely due to socially constructed reasons, and in 1970s' Bonobo culture these did not apply to the same degree.
Polanski's claim that the sex was consensual is not at all implausible, to the limited extent that sex with a 13-year-old can be consensual (sexually experienced or not). He wasn't convicted of more than that. And his probation officer said it was likely consensual. That's more than enough reason for the article not to claim or imply that it wasn't consensual. Hans Adler 19:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Hans Adler. That's more than enough reason for the article not to claim or imply that it wasn't consensual. Apolo91655 19:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
A flurry of edits over the last couple of days has given rise to headings like "Professional disgrace", and "Admissions and apologies", and other misuse of an article to push a point. Some of the excitement possibly follows from the text "using Wikipedia to make malicious attacks on others" which appears in the lead. I came across this article when reverting an attempt to highlight the event with an addition at Sockpuppet (Internet). Johnuniq ( talk) 07:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
For example, Hari took a quote (word-for-word) which interviewer Matthew Todd had got from rugby-player Gareth Thomas, in an interview published in Attitude. Copyright for that published article belonged to either Matthew Todd or to Attitude: Hari did not attribute the quote he took to either the writer or to the magazine, but simply republished it as if it had been said as part of Hari's interview with Gareth Thomas. There were other examples in other interviews: the specific example which began the professional crisis was of Hari having taken verbatim quotes from Negri on Negri: in conversation with Anne Dufourmentelle, first published in 2002 as Du retour : abécédaire biopolitique. Hari had used the English text from the 2003 translation by Malcolm DeBevoise but had presented the quotes from the work authored by Anne Dufourmentelle and Negri, translated by DeBevoise into English, as part of Hari's own interview with Negri, without crediting the authors or the translator. This is plagiarism, and has been rightly identified as such in every single source I have personally seen aside from Hari's own self-description of his actions. However, I have invited editors to contribute sources disputing that this is plagiarism on the Talk page of the article, since obviously if there is public dispute about whether this constitutes plagiarism, it should be recorded in the article. Yonmei ( talk) 19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Though this should resolve it: The Independent, Independent columnist apologises for plagiarism- "Independent Print Limited (IPL), the owner of The Independent, said that Hari had acknowledged embellishing quotations in articles and plagiarism following an examination of evidence by Andreas Whittam Smith, a former editor of the paper." Yonmei ( talk) 20:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I am literally in and out of the door but this needs eyes - some weird edit war going on - I have absolutely no time to get to the bottom of it. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 20:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
David Darst ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Came across this wiki bio and found it with many unverified links, written like an advertisement with little personal details and backstory (no perosnal life, no birthday, etc.) Most of it lists TV appearances and Books.
Not even sure if it should be listed as wiki bio, maybe should be removed. Can someone take a look at it and edit or make a decision on it. -- Cohen2011 ( talk) 23:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Political silly season is again upon us, and quite evident in this BLP where trivia is being added as though it were of major importance, including mention of a youthful prank which is not particularly notable, a large section reciting a letter to Hillary Clinton, a whole paragraph devoted to Paul Krugman's zealous denial of any economic credit in Texas to Perry, a tax section almost entirely devoted to criticism of Perry, and a large paragraph accusing him of "crony capitalism" just to hit a few highlights of the melange retending to be a biography. And this is not the only article being hit during this silly season ... I bring it up here because one editor says I must have an axe to grind if I remove "crony capitalism" etc. from the BLP <g>. Cheers. FWIW, I have absolutely zero connections to anyone's campaign for President entirely. Collect ( talk) 00:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
As a long-time Texan, I just have to say that while Rick Perry being elected President WOULD get him out of our state, it's just not worth what would happen to the country. I will refrain from posting the plethora of political cartoons I have collected. I just can't wait for journalists (or ANYBODY) to really take a look at all the old videos and sound bites - after laughing themselves silly, they will have enough material to fill every newspaper and blog in the country for several years... and they can "analyze" to their little pea-pickin' hearts' content! Sorry, just couldn't resist! Hulcys930 ( talk) 07:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
James Mattis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor has raised an issue with General James N. Mattis' DOB through email:
I replied and updated the citation and got another reply -
Can anyone assist me here? – Connormah ( talk) 22:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The evidence is all laid out for you at this link http://donnadiane.com/?p=502 Now it's documented on line and will be picked up by the search bots Samwest314 Samwest314 ( talk) 15:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Prolific Sci-Fi writer Orson Scott Card apparently disagrees with the LGBT movement on a number of levels. Needless to say that has been causing a flurry of editing on both sides of the aisle. Some extra eyes and rational voices would be helpful. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 00:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Joe McGinniss ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It appears someone has edited this page to attack him.
I just checked back and the attack language at the top of the article is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.175.53 ( talk) 01:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
born in or around 1967. Was on Bet from 2001-2005, prior to that completed and Masters then worked in Brunswich in the early 90's age is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugbit ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Michael Burry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
if someone has the time to de-puff and change tone, take a look at this investor bio. I was looking for some bio on him but didn't find much, seems more of a promo for his book.
Other than some notoriety around some investment calls a couple years ago he seems to be living a private life. Maybe someone can decide it it's necessary to have a bio on him. Thanks. -- Cohen2011 ( talk) 20:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
A case can be made for this guy's possible notability, but the current version combines the worst aspects of a smarmy jobseeker's resume, a political candidate's self-serving autobio and a would-be academic's desperately padded CV. I'm tempted to burn it to the ground and re-build from scratch, but it isn't really a total WP:CSD G11 candidate. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there is a jobseeker resume feel, so I removed the resume portion in the Law & Business section. Not sure he's a job seeker since he owns his own law office. The "would-be" part of the publications is questionable too, so I removed all "web" published articles from the Publications section. I also took out all words that seem to indicate bias. Chiu doesn't seem to be a political candidate, but his 2011 work for LGBT rights in San Jose during political redistricting and managing a city council campaign in southern California is current. He is also a current planning commissioner in Santa Clara County (aka Silicon Valley) which makes him at least somewhat notable, because of the importance of the area. -- Paulsanjose | Talk 21:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed a list of reading lists his work with anohter is on. Puff at best. Collect ( talk) 22:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I read the article on media bias - it's actually notable because it's the first to find a statistical link between media slant and talking head opinions, but he doesn't need to say its taught at Harvard. Talk 05:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed the article again. As revised, it doesn't seem to have arguable issues with WP:CSD G11 anymore. -- Paulsanjose | Talk 00:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
According to the Article, Relson is an 8th degree black belt.
On the IBJJF (International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation) website, he is not listed as an 8th rank black belt in neither the IBJJF, USBJJF, FPDJJB, nor CBDJJ official rankings.
the website is http://www.ibjjf.org/blackbelts.htm
The IBJJF is the governing body for international Jiu-Jitsu competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.76.81 ( talk) 03:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Michael Bishop (gridiron football) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I do not have a son at all. I would like to have this lie taken off asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeb71998 ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Shekhar Suman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Conflicting date of birth of the person within the same article.
In the beginning of the article, it says "Shekhar Suman (June 14, 1960,, Patna, India)"
whereas the panel on the right with the image shows "Born December 7, 1956 (age 54) "
Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.144.28.234 ( talk) 18:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Rob Crosby ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can someone take a look at Rob Crosby? There's some sort of slo-mo edit war where IPs keep sporadically removing his full birth name even though it's sourced to a reliable work. THis has been going on practically since the article was created 3+ years ago. I posted this before but nobody did anything. Ten Pound Hammer and company • ( Otters want attention) 20:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Iota Nu Delta ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This section of this article is blatant defamation over petty rivalry--broadly displaying the alleged misdemeanor of a non-notable person, his picture, his university, and an organization in which he is allegedly involved. Not all of these things belong in the public domain. It certainly does not belong on the Wikipedia page of a national organization. It is blatantly defamatory to the person and the organization and has no relevance to the article. The page has been protected due to edit warring but this defamatory section should be immediately removed. Thank you for your time. ( Winfinity ( talk) 06:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC))
Is this frat group notable? afd? merge, .. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
What can be done to permanently delete the gross and purely defamatory content in the page history? Specifically the stuff here and on some previous versions which lists the name, location, alleged misdemeanor, university, and student club in which he is involved. Not all of this belongs online and certainly not on wikipedia. The motivation for posting this was defamation. ( Winfinity ( talk) 23:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC))
Even though the article is deleted, this gross defamation remains online through the page history here and other revisions up until this one. None of this belongs on wikipedia and only some of it belongs on government websites. But information about the person's university, student, club, positions, and everything all in one place, is gross abuse. How can I proceed in having the versions permanently deleted? ( Winfinity ( talk) 17:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC))
Kamala Lopez ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article reads like a fan page, and seems to have been created and expanded by someone very close to the subject. Webberkenny ( talk) 17:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Andrea Kalin has a long history of COI edits by parties unknown, both named accounts and IPs. As a result, we have a long, lovingly-detailed promotional account of her film-making career, but no actual biographical information on the human being of this name. It's not quite a resume, but certainly not a real article about a living person: more a brochure for her production services. Can some fresh eyes have a look at it? -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Over at WP:ANI#Dispute over lawsuit sources at Porter Stansberry, we're having a discussion about BLPPRIMARY and its use as a citation for the allegations against Porter Stansberry. There's quite a revert war going on, and there definitely seem to be severe disagreements about whether BLPPRIMARY constitutes a blanket ban against using court filings as a source, or whether it merely prevents sourcing claims and assertions in BLPs. I just thought you guys would probably be able to shed some light on the subject. Van Isaac WS contribs 04:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This is all well and good, but most of this argument seems to ignore the actual BLPPRIMARY guidelines, which states that primary sources can be used to augment a secondary source covering the matter. BLPPRIMARY says absolutely nothing about court documents needing a legal opinion or references to them being OR, which makes me think that it has nothing to do with the matter at all. So, given that BLPPRIMARY says "it may be acceptable to rely on [a primary source] to augment the secondary source", under what circumstances is that the case? Second, how can we have better guidance on what constitutes an "assertion" under BLPPRIMARY, and what does not, seeing as that is the question that undermines this entire incident? Van Isaac WS contribs 07:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Please help to resolve edit war between anonymous user with multiple IP's.
Continuously inserting information which is not sourced in any way and false. User is linking to sources which do not verify claim. User is refusing to address these concerns even after the article was locked. I have laid out step by step why some portions of article need to be changed on talk page but other editor will not discuss any of them outside of two and will not compromise. Help resolve this PLEASE.
Rules state I am not allowed to list the unsourced and false material here. Where should I? Escytherdon ( talk) 19:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon Escytherdon ( talk) 19:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The three revert rule allows me to remove information of a bis and unsourced nature placed by sockpuppet or banned accounts. I will be doing that now and would LOVE for community involvement in rebuilding the page. Escytherdon ( talk) 19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Please consider the following:
Thoughts and THANK YOU 20:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon Escytherdon ( talk) 20:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Escytherdon ( talk) 17:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon Escytherdon ( talk) 17:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Escytherdon ( talk) 00:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at my changes and make sure that the page is now neutral and non-bias. If you see any evidence of bias and/or information requiring source material please let me know. Escytherdon ( talk) 14:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Adriana Ferreyr ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(RVT- WP:NOTNEWS Not a biographical issue at the moment, and using primary court documents is WP:OR) Please check the Revision history of George Soros in order to find this justification. copied from Loonymonkey
Copied from User talk:Karthikndr -
This pesron user William de Berg continues to commit vandalism on wickepedia and it is compromising its integrity to true factual unbiased information. He is citing references that do not prove the accuracy of his stamentes-- they are misleading and not factual. He is trying to gain an ufair advantage for George Soros by portrying Ms. Mr. Ferreyr in a bad light. Please read the refences to see that they do not prove his claims. This is a person working for Mr. Soros that is trying to misrepresent Ms. Ferryer in order to gain an advantage for him. Is there any way to prevent his behaviour which falls under the category of slander and defamation. This in in regards to the page Adriana Ferreyr Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
-- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 16:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear sirs / mes dames, With regard to my contribution to the article of Ms Ferreyr. I have quoted what she herself has submitted to the New York Supreme Court in her own testimony. You will understand that this is neither slander or defamatory. It is how Ms Ferreyr describes herself. The secondary quote comes from Reuter's news agency.
The above user is also wrong to imply that I am in anyway connected to or representing Mr Soros. I have never seen,communicated with, spoken to or met Mr Soros, nor anyone representing him. I am merely adding to a biography to give a balanced view of the subject. Unfortunately no one is perfect. William de Berg ( talk) 16:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
To add to my concerns about this biography.
As has previously been noted this biography is little more than an advertisement. The article is full of hyperbole and superlative commentary.
As regards the referencing within the article. Most references are to web pages which have merely referenced elsewhere for their facts. Unfortunately these sites have either referenced IMDB or Linkedin. Let us critique those sources now. Linkedin. Linkedin is self written. Or in this case it has been written in the third person. None of the linkedin claims are verifiable. This wiki quotes verbatim from the linkedin profile. IMDB. Again the facts contained here are not verifiable. The biography written on IMDB is written by a Lucas Almeida. Yet again, nothing is verifiable.
There are very close similarities between all 3 biographies.
I will add further to this in an attempt to have this biography removed.
William de Berg ( talk) 17:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
William insists on reinserting the material. I have reverted it, posted a warning on his Talk page, and edited the article to improve the tone and wording.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
OK I have removed myself. Now please tell why...
A court submission is inadmissible when it is th actual person's testimony. They are obviously relying on it in court. They will obviously swear it to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So why is it not permitted in a wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William de Berg ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Ferreyr ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
George Soros ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(RVT- WP:NOTNEWS Not a biographical issue at the moment, and using primary court documents is WP:OR) Please check the Revision history of George Soros in order to find this justification. copied from Loonymonkey
His ex-girlfriend is Brazilian Actress and entrepreneurAdriana Ferreyr.[18] [19]. He is currently being sued for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery among other claims. (New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 109256/2011)[20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
In Sorus's life it is as yet of limited note - there are press reports that would support a single comment.. but it is much more notable in her life that his. - Off2riorob ( talk) 20:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Raoul Peck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wiki editor User:Dayewalker repeatedly reverts factually incorrect information about this entry and then blocks out/deletes relevant links on the discussion page. Why is this?
Briefly:
Article currently states:
"Raoul Peck served as a Haitian Minister of Culture under President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, but later became disillusioned of Haitian leftist politics and frequently criticized the former Haitian leader. [4] [5]"
This is factually incorrect on two counts. Peck served as Minister of Culture in the Haitian government of René Préval from March, 1996 until October, 1997. This is attested to by both this article from Haiti Democracy Project Director James R. Morrell - http://www.haitipolicy.org/archives/Publications%26Commentary/peck.htm - this article from Haiti Libre http://www.haitilibre.com/en/news-1178-haiti-social-raoul-peck-is-pessimistic-for-the-future.html and and by Peck's own autobiographer, Monsieur Le Ministre.
Aristide's first term of office ended on 7 February 1996. The so-called reliable sources Dayewalker cites nowhere claim Peck was Minister for Aristide! Did he even bother to read them before restoring the inaccurate entry? He must now admit that he did not.
Why does Dayewalker repeatedly insert factually incorrect material as saying that Peck was a Minister in Aristide's government and then blocks/deletes the links that prove otherwise. Does he care to explain himself here?
Also, the statement that " became disillusioned of Haitian leftist politics" is completely untrue as Peck himself is more or less a Marxist (see his film Profit and Nothing But!). HaitiObserver ( talk) 18:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I am disturbed that User:Dayewalker does not address the fact that he has repeatedly inserted factually incorrect information into this entry without bothering to check it and refuses to acknowledge his mistake. The links are all above. I thought it was important that Wiki editors verify the accuracy of the information that they include in an entry. The links that User:Dayewalker say confirm that Peck was an Aristide minister do nothing of the sort, so either he did not read them or is for some mysterious reason not being fully upfront here. HaitiObserver ( talk) 19:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
But what is your explanation for including - and then defending - factually incorrect information into a biography of a living person? Wouldn't it be a good idea to check the links first, as they don't prove what you say the do? It is easily provable - as has now been done - that the claim that Peck was an Aristide minister is false. Why quibble when the evidence is plainly there? I am confused. HaitiObserver ( talk) 19:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Federico Peña ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone continues to insert in Mr. Pena's biography that he owned land near and/or around the new airport and therefore profited from its construction. This assertion is false and libelous and must be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.14.82 ( talk) 19:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Dustin Diamond ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Why is there no edit option for this page? Also previous information regarding himself releasing a sex tape which was reported by numerous news outlets has been removed from the page? This is still relevant in the sense that information concering Tom Sizemore's sex tape is on his own page? Im not sure why the mention of the sex tape was removed from this article, when it had already been stated by Dustin himself including and an article featured on E! television about this prank with a dirty sanchez? It is referenced here : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?entry_id=9287 and http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2006/10/screech-sex-tape-guest-stars-revealed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasow187 ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Jerry Costello ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I wanted to alert the powers that be to the page of sitting U.S. Rep. Jerry Costello. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello) I have just added and cited a "Controvery" section to Rep. Costello's page that acknowledges a trial that was widely reported in the 1990s.
The history of Rep. Costello's page indicates that the controvery has apparently been added and stripped from the Wikipedia page in the past. That seems inappropriate. The event led to formal ethics complaints. The congressman himself has responded publicly.
I am not a resident of his district, nor am I a regular Wikipedia contributor, so I am not likely to stick around to monitor this situation. I will probably check back over the coming days, but wanted to alert somebody better situated than I am. For what it is worth, I came across the controvery while reading my Criminal Law textbook, and was sufficiently alarmed by the blank Wiki profile that I researched and added the Controversy element myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musskel ( talk • contribs) 03:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The standard for you which advocate is unworkable. It would, for instance, prohibit Wikipedia from documenting the Chandra Levy saga. After all, there was no indictment against the involved congressman, and a different suspect has in fact confessed. Musskel ( talk) 17:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
In 1996 reports in the press alleged Costello was involved as a silent partner in a casino deal for which, after a federal investigation a man was sentenced to six years in jail. Costello testified before a grand jury in regard to the matter but was not indited or charged in the case and denied any involvement. The Congressional Accountability Project wrote an ethics complaint requesting investigation of Costello which resulted in no action.[1} Off2riorob ( talk) 19:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Palani G Periyasamy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is about my father and I just wanted to note that his name is spelled incorrectly. It is spelled PALANI G. PERIASAMY. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.13.122 ( talk) 15:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
As per your report and http://web.archive.org/web/20090303203657/http://india-today.com/btoday/07051998/cf2.html - and others , I have moved the article to Palani G. Periasamy. - Off2riorob ( talk) 16:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
i submitted the article regarding the footballer berty cockbill i am very new to this and the peice has been deleted iam not sure hat i have done wrong and as i am not too good at this technology could anyone please explain slowly how to submit this again i am trying to update all former stratford town players who played professionally thank you so much and please be gentle ha ha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratfordvillain ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Karmella Tsepkolenko ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It's an Wiki article with low verifiability. Looks like a self-promote SEO webpage. All sources provided in this article is not so reliable as needed (just a personal homepages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.140.4.23 ( talk) 17:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Is this article at all subject to WP:BLP? One editor at [19] and [20] has asserted:
and
Whilst I consider that any article which makes such claims directly impacting a living person is absolutely subject to WP:BLP and that these claims would absolutely disallowed in, say "Kennedy Administration" etc. I further suggest that the ArbCom decision of just a week or so back, and in which Will was active, makes such Wikilawyering actionable. I further suggest that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy requiring, among other things, that all biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy. is clear. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision. is also clear. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
As a sub-issue, I'd like to understand more about the two sections you neglect to mention - in this edit, you removed not only the Frankhouser allegation, but also the Pauline Girvin death threat and the Nebraska sex abuse phone hoax. I've provided sections where you can explain how those are BLP issues below. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
General Comment The problem described here is one that comes up with some frequency across the encyclopedia. Here's how it works. An individual makes a claim about another individual that would never, in a million years, pass BLP on its own, attributed to the source even. This claim then gets reported by the NYT, mentioned in a book, recorded in congressional testimony, or whatever and all of a sudden people here start arguing that it passes BLP because a reliable source has repeated the claim with attribution. The reliable source is only on the hook for the fact that the individual made the claim and nothing else. The nature of the claim remains the same. If the claim was a BLP no-no prior to being mentioned in an RS as having been made then it remains one now. We don't backdoor contentious claims by attributing them, simply because other sources have reported on those claims. We have our own standards of inclusion and they do not mirror the sources we use. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 12:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
This article could really do with some experienced BLP editors going over it. It is being edited by (probably) the subject, and some administrators. For the last year it has flipped between a bit of whitewashing, and restoration of the referenced 'controversies'. The referencing is poor (in places non-existent) and mainly to local papers, and the controversy section is over-dominant in the article. The details in the "hammer attack" section are out of proportion, and possibly misleading because of it. The "benefit fraud" section relates to dates in a span of three months, not two years, and it's "when applying", not "while claiming" which implies more continuity. The most recent diff looks like this. If some experienced editors could take a look, I am convinced it could be improved. The bloke is upset and complaining and saying some things are untrue. He would probably prefer some things never happened, and probably pushing too far the other way. But if he's suggesting the article is unbalanced I think he's probably got a point. It could do with some editors who can really reflect what the sources are saying, in good proportion. 199.167.132.119 ( talk) 18:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Xenia Tchoumitcheva ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This is a BLP of a young European model/actress. It would seem to be established on the talk page, using various sources, that there are two competing birth dates. The earlier date seem to be backed by sufficiently reliable sources. The later date is backed by the models agency and agency controlled releases. The later date was apparently asserted in an OTRS email from the subject or a representive (see top of talk page). The conjectured explanation is that the agency has fabicated and pushed a later date to increase the marketability of the model. There is a foreign language source reporting the model being questioned about it, and I think she claims ignorance about some mistake and a need to check with her agents (see here). There is now a long history of slow edits whereby associated SPAs or IPs were inserting the later date into the article. Following substantiated challenge, IPs now resort to removing the earlier birthdate, leaving birthdate unmentioned. Other editors would like to keep the earlier, more reliable, date in the article. The options would seem to be:
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Presumption of guilt on the part of one of the two subjects (only one has been convicted), and an excessively detailed series of descriptions of grisly crimes, which also presumes guilt on the part of the defendant in an ongoing criminal trial. The "Home Invasion" section in particular is unencyclopedic and will need to be stubbed. causa sui ( talk) 22:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Judging by what ran recently in The New York Times, this is an overreaction: "Another defense lawyer, Walter C. Bansley III, began by conceding many of the facts but blaming Mr. Hayes for turning the crime into a homicide. 'Joshua Komisarjevsky never intended to kill anyone,' he said." [33] The essential description of events isn't contested, just a dispute between the two admitted perpetrators as to their relative culpability. The section needs careful review to eliminate certain unproven aspects of the description, but most of the contents were adequately sourced and apparently accurate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
LaRouche movement ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please review [35]. Is the removed text a BLP violation? Why or why not? Thanks! Hipocrite ( talk) 23:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
In fact, this material seems to fall very clearly under the section of WP:BLP which states: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. MastCell Talk 23:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Jessica Biel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Here is the text from her BLP Person section -
"Biel dated actor Adam LaVorgna from 1998 to 2001. They were co-stars in the film I'll Be Home for Christmas and on 7th Heaven.[33][34] She dated actor Chris Evans from 2001 to June 2006, and appeared opposite him in the films Cellular and London. She has also been romantically linked to actor Ryan Reynolds,[12] and baseball player Derek Jeter.[12][35][36] [37] She started dating singer Justin Timberlake in 2007, they broke up in March 2011.[38][39]"
This reads more like a magazine article. Should this text be kept? -- BweeB ( talk) 19:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
After getting what I thought was consensus for removal, here and on the article talk page, I removed the section. It was restored. I started a Request for Comments on the talk page: Talk:Jessica Biel#RfC: Relationships. Opinions welcome. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The article 'Lathika Srinivasan' is a sarcastic article created for the purpose of mocking. It has no reliable citations nor is the person well known. I suggest deleting the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castroby ( talk • contribs) 07:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Just happened to be researching titles of Chet Atkins songs and the list that came up on Wikipedia is mostly a list of Beatles (McCartney/Lennon) songs - when I clicked on the song titles, it forwarded me to your article on that song and that it was indeed written by either McCartney or Lennon. Just thought I should mention it - maybe someone should take the time to look at the page more closely for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.167.102 ( talk) 12:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Dawn Black is not the leader of the Opposition in the B.C. Legislature. Adrian Dix holds that position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.150.35 ( talk) 17:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Julian Kirzner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
he never played for western jets, only cental dragons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.50.20 ( talk) 09:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Gary McHale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Entry does not conform to NPOV Contributor(s) appear to have close connection with subject Attempts to provide alternative views are quickly deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.226.118 ( talk) 15:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Tamil Tigress ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This was already brought up at NORN, which is how I found it, but that doesn't seem to have solved the problem: a user is repeatedly reinserting personal analysis of interviews with the author of this book in an attempt to prove that she is lying, as well as unreliable sources such as blogs which criticize her. As per the instructions for this board, I won't copy/paste any of the quotes in question, but here is the most recent diff. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello.
Just reading the Wiki page for Andy Nicholson, former bass player for Arctic Monkeys.
The beginning of the article contains a description of Andy which is perhaps inappropriate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Nicholson
I thought it best to bring it to your attention as whether he is or isn't either of these things it's probably best to edit!
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.225.3 ( talk) 08:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Jeff Frederick ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Last week I discovered that the Jeff Frederick article contains many statements supported only by citations from partisan political websites. The use of these citations would appear to violate the rule against bias.
I quote from Wikipedia policy: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately...
After I deleted the biased references and the poorly-sourced material, the article was repeatedly reverted by unregistered editor(s). Next, on the advice of another editor I requested semi-protection for the article, since all the reversions had been done by unregistered editors. This was granted, but the article was then reverted by VaBio1.
It is claimed by editor VaBio1 that the citations are OK because he claims they contain quotes from the subject. However, the context of the citations is contrary to this, rather they are used to support assertions about the political career of the subject and to build his prestige. For example, it is claimed that one of his opponents is "powerful". Therefore these citations should be regarded as poorly sourced and contentious.
VaBio1 counters ( Talk:Jeff Frederick), "Zeamays has yet to provide any evidence or even argument as to why information is unreliable." I counter it is self-evident that any statement supported only from a biased source is not worthy of Wikipedia. Also note that on the Talk:Jeff Frederick page VaBio1 has responded to my earlier posts interpolated before my later posts, which may give an unwitting reader the idea that he responded prior to my later posts, which was not the case. VaBio1 also makes the point that more valid references may be identified by reading the citations on the partisan political website. However, that requires original research, which is not permitted as the basis for Wikipedia material or citations. -- Zeamays ( talk) 13:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
If using the word "powerful" was the only issue, we would have no problem. However, you omitted many relevant facts, none of which has been argued to be "contentious material", and in fact the material has been posted on this page for nearly two years without anyone suggesting that the material is contentious. Vabio1 ( talk) 17:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I see that two other registered editors have since agreed with me and edited the article. Vabio1 should do the work to seek find suitable authoritative citations if his opinions are supported. The fact that he does not shows that his position is weak. -- Zeamays ( talk) 19:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Once again, Vabio1 has reverted to include references to the partisan politican website votejeff. He needs to be barred. -- Zeamays ( talk) 23:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Once again, Zeamays refuses to provide specifics regarding his objections and simply wants his version of edits to stand with no or blanket justification, and we'd argue he is maliced and partisan due to his refusal to be specific and engage in a dialogue to resolve differences. We have asked for mediation on this. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/14_September_2011/Jeff_Frederick. We seem to be the only ones who want to discuss this to find consensus to get things resolved. Vabio1 ( talk) 16:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Barnaby Conrad ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
I'm writing to correct some minor errors in the article on my father, BARNABY CONRAD (born 1922).
The article on this author is more or less accurate except that his list of nonfiction books includes several books actually written by ME---BARNABY CONRAD III (born 1952).
These books should be removed:
INTERVIEWS WITH MASTER PHOTOGRAPHERS (written with James Danziger) 1977.
JOHN REGISTER: PERSISTENT OBSERVER, 1998
RICHARD DIEBENKORN, 2003
VALENTIN POPOV, 2008
I am the author of a dozen books of non-fiction, and have a new novel coming out in March 2012, so perhaps it would be a good idea to do a Wiki article on me to distinguish Dad's work from mine
Sincerely,
Barnaby Conrad III — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.57.58 ( talk) 20:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I used Google books and noted a number of books listed as by "Barnaby Conrad" with "Barnaby Conrad III" listed as author. The requests seem well-founded for sure. And it reminded me of Minor White whom I had met many aeons ago in college. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 02:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
First line of article has been messed up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.15.101 ( talk) 03:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I emailed Dr. Davis and received a reply as follows after reading your article on Dr. Roger J. Williams. He asked me to contact Wikipedia in order to clear up mistakes. I hope I am following the proper procedure. Thanks.
> Hi Dr. Davis, > > Is the formula referred to above (Vitamin and Mineral Insurance Formula) the one referenced in Wikipedia as being Dr. William's formula for alcoholism? Or is there some formulation you could recommend?
Dixie Floyd
Response from Dr. Davis:
No. For alcoholism he recommended a "fortified" version with about 10 times more of most vitamins, and modestly higher amounts of most minerals. I recommend that you read his book in which he suggested this version, along with another supplement, glutamine:
The Prevention of Alcoholism Through Nutrition, 1981 (pocketbook), Bantam Books (used copies are likely available at Amazon).
Bronson sells something close to Williams's recommendation, Fortified Vitamin & Mineral Insurance Formula http://www.bronsonvitamins.com/92A/fortified-vitamin-mineral-insurance-formula
However, the suggested 1 to 2 tablets per day does not meet Williams's doses, which require 6 tablets per day, at least initially.
Bronson's talk about "collaboration" on the "jointly developed" formula is nonsense. As for being an "exclusive" Bronson product, that is true, but misleading, as any company is free to use Williams's suggestions without payment, and that has been true from the very beginning (as stated in Wikipedia). At one time another company did offer a similar product.
The Wikipedia article needs some corrections and improvements. Perhaps you could help with this. Williams published 3 books on nutrition and alcoholism, only one of which did he withdraw as stated.
Best wishes,
Don Davis
Donald R. Davis, Ph.D.
Retired from: Biochemical Institute The University of Texas Austin, Texas
> Thanks,
>
> Dixie Floyd
>
> from Wikipedia:
>
> Common differences in nutritional needs formed the basis of a vitamin formula Williams developed to diminish the craving for alcohol in people biochemically susceptible to alcoholism. In a course he taught as a Professor Emeritus at The University of Texas at Austin, The Biochemical and Physiological Bases of Individual Human Differences, Williams recounted his experience after publishing a book on this research. Because he had written that alcoholic people who got their individual nutritional needs fully met could drink socially without bingeing, he was assailed by people associated with Alcoholics Anonymous. Always a humble person, Williams allowed himself to be convinced that the social side of alcoholism was also of major importance. He withdrew his book and destroyed the printing. Williams never attempted to profit from this research; he gave his vitamin formula away to a number of pharmaceutical companies. A version modified by one of his former
> colleagues, Dr. Donald R. Davis, is sold under the name Vitamin & Mineral Insurance Formula, by Bronson Laboratories. With the formula open-sourced by Williams, no company has completed pharmaceutical research to get US Food and Drug Administration approval for claiming it as a treatment for alcoholism. Williams himself testified before Congress in 1974 that "proposed regulations which would aptly apply to drugs would be inappropriate for nutrients and vice versa."[2] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.5.105.182 (
talk) 17:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Subject of article has removed documented criticism with citations.
Citations are two blogs with criticism of the subject. One blog is a documented article. One blog is a discussion of the subject.
I have returned the article to its pre-edited state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkzin ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Jack Harte (Irish writer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SubSection: Short Stories, paragraph three has been edited to contain unsourced, inaccurate and libellous allegations about Jack Harte and about Georgy Pryakhin. These are: 1. That Jack Harte brokered the publication of a book by Pryakhin in return for the publication of a Russian translation of his short stories. 2. That Pryakhin's works are considered anti-semitic and that he is associated with Russian neo-fascism. 3. By implication, that Harte is in some way sympathetic to or tolerant of anti-Semitism or fascism.
The only source given is an open source indymedia article, presumably written by the instigator of these edits himself.
These edits present a completely inaccurate, damaging and libellous portrayal of Jack Harte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasquale Paoli ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
BLP expertise, particularly in WP:BLPCAT subtleties, would be helpful at an RfC here. The issue is which criteria are used to include people in a list of ex-gay persons. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Complaining re disruptive behavior of User:Deepdish7, who keeps reinserting poorly sourced, potentially libelous information, containing accusations of the subject of various crimes, including murder and funding of terrorism. All attempts to reason with the editor have failed. Request intervention. There is a parallel complaint about me by User:Deepdish7 on WP:COIN, with my detailed response, which is relevant to this report. -- Kolokol1 ( talk) 23:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Locking the article for 2 weeks is a temporary measure. User:Deepdish7 will resume reverting it to the disputed version as soon as it is unblocked. He said that himself, and has done so on many occasions before. Going into mediation with him is pointless, and the discussion in the talk page has been going in circles for two months without any consensus. We are dealing with a person on a mission to create an attack article aimed at exposing the subject -- an opponent of Vladimir Putin -- as a criminal, and the British decision to grant him political asylum as an act of hostility to Russia. He declared these objectives himself in his talk posts. This is not a matter of conflicting opinions, but of reliability of sources and NPOV and of good faith in using WP tools, or lack thereof.
Although I am not the subject of this biography, I admit having an interest in a fair and balanced treatment of Mr. Berezovsky in accord with WP policies. Let them brand me with COI, this still does not justify dissimination of contentious, poorly sourced and potentially libelous material.
Presently, there are two versions of the article on the record, which speak for themselves:
Version 1, the original attack article created by Deepdish and his support team ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&oldid=439915507 )
Version 2, a collaborative effort of myself and other editors to clean it up in accord with WP policies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&oldid=450509807 )
The latest edit war, which resulted in the locking of the article, consisted in reinserting blocks of text from the first version into the second, and their removal.
Version 1 is a quintessential attack page; Version 2 is admittedly a work in progress, but it is pointless to continue improving the article in the situation of perpetual edit war declared by Deepdish7.
So I call on the administratiors to protect the article indefinitely, and assign a disinterested editor to vet all further additions, which could be drafted on the talk page, for adherence to WP policies.-- Kolokol1 ( talk) 13:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I have made a ban request at ANI.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Jochen Zeitz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
self-marketing of an business major? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.192.148 ( talk) 14:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Notable - and reduced to two specific reliable sources thereon. Feel free to add to it. Collect ( talk) 15:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
A $2 billion rogue trader story, just breaking, this is bound to attract questions of WP:BLP1E and recentism. His name is now being used by the BBC, WSJ, and FT but hasn't been officially released as far as I can tell. It personally looks ok to me, but it might help if somebody keeps an eye on it. Smallbones ( talk) 16:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Ali Sina (ex-Muslim) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In January, this article was created over a redirect to Faith Freedom International. [1] The article provides little biographical info, identifies the subject as "an apostate", and goes into excessive detail about this person's (an alias) anti-Muslim positions. Even the title is problematic; is "ex-Muslim" the best way to disambiguate this person? My feeling is that an Afd is in order, looking for other opinions. The Interior (Talk) 17:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
A person, by the name of Vilas Pendse, is trying to commit libel and slander against a living person Safwat Morsy. Wikipedia Article Website -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safwat_Morsy
Vilas Pendse goes by himself or sometimes as SFPeaceful. He has committed identity theft first by created a fake Facebook profile of Safwat Morsy and then created a couple fake Yelp profile to slander Safwat Morsy. Here is the San Francisco Police Report number (case number 110700524). More details -- http://www.alsabeel.org/component/content/article/40-nnouncements/136-urgent-message
I am open to constructive and true criticism of Safwat Morsy, but the blog article links have no sourced. Safwat Morsy never had any radical sermons and all sermons are video taped. Please let us know how we can provide links to all sermons that SFPeaceful is really lying about.
I hope wikipedia takes this seriously because a person is being slandered on Facebook, Yelp and now Wikipedia. Facebook and Yelp have taken action. Wikipedia is an interesting project and unfortunately someone is trying to use it for the purposes of slander.
I am requesting a Permanent Lock on Safwat Morsy article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.32.3 ( talk) 19:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Mary Apick ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IMBD is referenced as Mary being born in 1954. Somebody keeps changing her birth year to 1961 with no reference. Ericsean ( talk) 01:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The page at Elonka Dunin (which happens to be about, well, me) is somewhat out-of-date. I have attempted to follow wiki policies and not edit the article myself, and instead have been making suggestions at the article talkpage. However, it's been years now, and despite multiple requests (and multiple sources provided), it hasn't really been a priority for anyone (including me). So what I've done is create an updated draft at Elonka Dunin/Draft. It's not a comprehensive piece, but does handle cleanups and updates. It would be appreciated if someone else could either work from that to update the live article, or simply copy it in verbatim (you'd need to remove the template at the top, and uncomment the categories and commons link). Or, if no one else seems to mind, I'll go ahead and handle the updates myself. Thanks, -- El on ka 03:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
William Lane Craig ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recently there is one unique problem with the William Lane Craig article: three users have removed the majority of the content in the article and has repeatedly kept other users from adding more info. From more than 20kb in May 2010, the current article is less than half of that size.
Most notable is user User:Hrafn who began his involvement in this article since 26 May 2011, and has repeatedly deleted important information from the article with such reasons given as "Rm: WP:OR that is NOT IN THE CITED SOURCES!" despite not being familiar with the source in question; "UTTERLY worthless sources on UTTERLY unimportant website" despite the website being a part of William Lane Craig's ministry; and his arguments from the talk page contains things like "You "think you could be a member of an organization without believing in" the whole point for that organisation existing, whilst mouthing that organisation's claims on that subject? I don't think so. The world may not be "black and white" -- but religious conservatives' thinking generally is." (emphasis in original; last line clear indicative of inability to be objective concerning the article in light of its religious nature); "" whilst mouthing that organisation's claims on that subject" -- Craig is not a token evolutionist, and the DI is not Fox News. Think tanks (of any stripe) rarely, if ever, have "token people who disagree with it." And conservative Christians very much tend towards eliminationist groupthink -- see Rightwing authoritarianism for the details of the dynamics. Craig walks with, talks like and acts like a creationist -- so I see no reason whatsoever to pretend that he's not one when the subject comes up." (emphasis in original; also another indication of failure to be objective); and a whole list of anti-theistic views posted on the talk page clearly reveals that this user should be barred from making any further edits due to his inability to be objective about his edits.
The second user responsible for the vast reduction in information is User:PeterTheGreat (formerly Theowarner2, editing the article as User:Theowarner since 19 June 2010) who began on 18 May 2010. His responses on the talk page includes things like "Do a brutal edit and just eliminate everything that isn't covered by third-party sourcing. I'd love to see what that looks like." Mostly not notable edits, but he does make a large number of edits over the years which accumulated into this issue.
Lastly, there is User:Mann jess, who began editing the article on 5 June 2010. The problem with the user may not be bias or even objectivity, but rather a plain disregard of many sources with the false impression that primary sources must be avoided at any cost, and that even the Official Channel of the White House on YouTube cannot be considered as a reliable source.
An obvious problem with the way these three users handle editing on the William Lane Craig article can be seen in the way they removed a quote by prominent atheist Sam Harris about William Lane Craig, stating that he is "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists"; while one user has given a Fox News report as a source, Hrafn went much further when discussing about the Sam Harris quote by saying "It is indeed a lousy source. The publisher isn't exactly known for being "Fair & Balanced" (no matter what their slogan may say), the writer appears to be a featherweight & the story is just a piece of publicity-seeking fluff. Speaking for myself, I can't understand this Christian obsession with Dawkins. In this instance he's the wrong choice for a debating partner -- Craig would be better off seeking a raconteur like Stephen Fry -- who would most likely make for a far more interesting and memorable debate. But Dawkins seems to be their Moby Dick." Mann jess takes the opportunity to outright remove the quote from the article ("Per forming consensus here, I've removed the addition.") despite the "consensus" simply consisting of Mann jess, Theowarner and Hrafn. All this in spite of the video of the source of the quote, which is the second installment of "The God Debate" hosted in the University of Notre Dame, being made available on YouTube since April 12, 2011, and the full transcript of the debate made available as early as May 3, 2011. This indicates either lack of fact-checking or outright denial of facts, which, either way, would be indicative of their incompetency and thus the main reason why they should be barred from making any further edits on the page.
In addition to the above, more details concerning the trio's bad faith in their editing of the William Lane Craig article are explained in this video. Maiorem ( talk) 00:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This report is long on chat and short on examples. What is the specific BLP problem? Give a passage included or excluded wrongly. Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
A brief review of the "before" and "after" versions shows the "before" uses totally unreliable sources, like www.reasonablefaith.org, and www.closertotruth.com. The after version appears to use published books. I can understand why a hagiography might be your preference, but honestly, the baseline short version is far better than the unreliably sourced version. Propose specific incremental changes to the article that improve it and see what happens. Hipocrite ( talk) 19:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman Polanski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On the talk page of Roman Polanski I believe there are some slanderous comments about his victim. Here the relevant edits [2] and [3]. If every single source out there says she has stated from the beginning it was not consensual, should he be allowed to suggest she said "yes"? Dream Focus 02:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This is the comment I made in response to a claim that Polanski should be included in the Child molester category, and its vague and not slanderous in any way. User:Dream Focus wants to add polanski to the Rapist cat and is simply attempting to demean my position with rubbish libel claims. Off2riorob ( talk) 02:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Rapist suggests the person did not say yes, whereas in this case is was not a bit like that. Not a bit like her not saying yes? What? How is that not slanderous? And the rest of the conversation isn't relevant here, I'm here to discuss only that comment, and the discussion about it that followed. It says to link to the offensive bit, not to copy it here. Dream Focus 02:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
IMO, Off2riorob's comment is well within reasonable bounds if you consider the information contained in this New York Times article from 2009. The 1970s were rather extreme in one direction, and today's societies are rather extreme in the other. (From my personal experience: A friend of mine owns a sexual education book printed at the time with a respectable German mainstream publisher. I once read it and found it curious, in part misguided, but not particularly concerning overall. Later I learned that it has since been outlawed by the Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons.) It helps to remember that consensual sex between two children of approximately the same age and maturity is by far less of an issue (in fact, it should not be an issue at all, although some jurisdictions are broken) than asymmetric cases. The difference is of course entirely due to socially constructed reasons, and in 1970s' Bonobo culture these did not apply to the same degree.
Polanski's claim that the sex was consensual is not at all implausible, to the limited extent that sex with a 13-year-old can be consensual (sexually experienced or not). He wasn't convicted of more than that. And his probation officer said it was likely consensual. That's more than enough reason for the article not to claim or imply that it wasn't consensual. Hans Adler 19:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Hans Adler. That's more than enough reason for the article not to claim or imply that it wasn't consensual. Apolo91655 19:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
A flurry of edits over the last couple of days has given rise to headings like "Professional disgrace", and "Admissions and apologies", and other misuse of an article to push a point. Some of the excitement possibly follows from the text "using Wikipedia to make malicious attacks on others" which appears in the lead. I came across this article when reverting an attempt to highlight the event with an addition at Sockpuppet (Internet). Johnuniq ( talk) 07:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
For example, Hari took a quote (word-for-word) which interviewer Matthew Todd had got from rugby-player Gareth Thomas, in an interview published in Attitude. Copyright for that published article belonged to either Matthew Todd or to Attitude: Hari did not attribute the quote he took to either the writer or to the magazine, but simply republished it as if it had been said as part of Hari's interview with Gareth Thomas. There were other examples in other interviews: the specific example which began the professional crisis was of Hari having taken verbatim quotes from Negri on Negri: in conversation with Anne Dufourmentelle, first published in 2002 as Du retour : abécédaire biopolitique. Hari had used the English text from the 2003 translation by Malcolm DeBevoise but had presented the quotes from the work authored by Anne Dufourmentelle and Negri, translated by DeBevoise into English, as part of Hari's own interview with Negri, without crediting the authors or the translator. This is plagiarism, and has been rightly identified as such in every single source I have personally seen aside from Hari's own self-description of his actions. However, I have invited editors to contribute sources disputing that this is plagiarism on the Talk page of the article, since obviously if there is public dispute about whether this constitutes plagiarism, it should be recorded in the article. Yonmei ( talk) 19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Though this should resolve it: The Independent, Independent columnist apologises for plagiarism- "Independent Print Limited (IPL), the owner of The Independent, said that Hari had acknowledged embellishing quotations in articles and plagiarism following an examination of evidence by Andreas Whittam Smith, a former editor of the paper." Yonmei ( talk) 20:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I am literally in and out of the door but this needs eyes - some weird edit war going on - I have absolutely no time to get to the bottom of it. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 20:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
David Darst ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Came across this wiki bio and found it with many unverified links, written like an advertisement with little personal details and backstory (no perosnal life, no birthday, etc.) Most of it lists TV appearances and Books.
Not even sure if it should be listed as wiki bio, maybe should be removed. Can someone take a look at it and edit or make a decision on it. -- Cohen2011 ( talk) 23:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Political silly season is again upon us, and quite evident in this BLP where trivia is being added as though it were of major importance, including mention of a youthful prank which is not particularly notable, a large section reciting a letter to Hillary Clinton, a whole paragraph devoted to Paul Krugman's zealous denial of any economic credit in Texas to Perry, a tax section almost entirely devoted to criticism of Perry, and a large paragraph accusing him of "crony capitalism" just to hit a few highlights of the melange retending to be a biography. And this is not the only article being hit during this silly season ... I bring it up here because one editor says I must have an axe to grind if I remove "crony capitalism" etc. from the BLP <g>. Cheers. FWIW, I have absolutely zero connections to anyone's campaign for President entirely. Collect ( talk) 00:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
As a long-time Texan, I just have to say that while Rick Perry being elected President WOULD get him out of our state, it's just not worth what would happen to the country. I will refrain from posting the plethora of political cartoons I have collected. I just can't wait for journalists (or ANYBODY) to really take a look at all the old videos and sound bites - after laughing themselves silly, they will have enough material to fill every newspaper and blog in the country for several years... and they can "analyze" to their little pea-pickin' hearts' content! Sorry, just couldn't resist! Hulcys930 ( talk) 07:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
James Mattis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor has raised an issue with General James N. Mattis' DOB through email:
I replied and updated the citation and got another reply -
Can anyone assist me here? – Connormah ( talk) 22:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The evidence is all laid out for you at this link http://donnadiane.com/?p=502 Now it's documented on line and will be picked up by the search bots Samwest314 Samwest314 ( talk) 15:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Prolific Sci-Fi writer Orson Scott Card apparently disagrees with the LGBT movement on a number of levels. Needless to say that has been causing a flurry of editing on both sides of the aisle. Some extra eyes and rational voices would be helpful. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 00:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Joe McGinniss ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It appears someone has edited this page to attack him.
I just checked back and the attack language at the top of the article is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.175.53 ( talk) 01:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
born in or around 1967. Was on Bet from 2001-2005, prior to that completed and Masters then worked in Brunswich in the early 90's age is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugbit ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Michael Burry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
if someone has the time to de-puff and change tone, take a look at this investor bio. I was looking for some bio on him but didn't find much, seems more of a promo for his book.
Other than some notoriety around some investment calls a couple years ago he seems to be living a private life. Maybe someone can decide it it's necessary to have a bio on him. Thanks. -- Cohen2011 ( talk) 20:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
A case can be made for this guy's possible notability, but the current version combines the worst aspects of a smarmy jobseeker's resume, a political candidate's self-serving autobio and a would-be academic's desperately padded CV. I'm tempted to burn it to the ground and re-build from scratch, but it isn't really a total WP:CSD G11 candidate. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there is a jobseeker resume feel, so I removed the resume portion in the Law & Business section. Not sure he's a job seeker since he owns his own law office. The "would-be" part of the publications is questionable too, so I removed all "web" published articles from the Publications section. I also took out all words that seem to indicate bias. Chiu doesn't seem to be a political candidate, but his 2011 work for LGBT rights in San Jose during political redistricting and managing a city council campaign in southern California is current. He is also a current planning commissioner in Santa Clara County (aka Silicon Valley) which makes him at least somewhat notable, because of the importance of the area. -- Paulsanjose | Talk 21:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed a list of reading lists his work with anohter is on. Puff at best. Collect ( talk) 22:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I read the article on media bias - it's actually notable because it's the first to find a statistical link between media slant and talking head opinions, but he doesn't need to say its taught at Harvard. Talk 05:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed the article again. As revised, it doesn't seem to have arguable issues with WP:CSD G11 anymore. -- Paulsanjose | Talk 00:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
According to the Article, Relson is an 8th degree black belt.
On the IBJJF (International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation) website, he is not listed as an 8th rank black belt in neither the IBJJF, USBJJF, FPDJJB, nor CBDJJ official rankings.
the website is http://www.ibjjf.org/blackbelts.htm
The IBJJF is the governing body for international Jiu-Jitsu competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.76.81 ( talk) 03:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Michael Bishop (gridiron football) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I do not have a son at all. I would like to have this lie taken off asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeb71998 ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Shekhar Suman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Conflicting date of birth of the person within the same article.
In the beginning of the article, it says "Shekhar Suman (June 14, 1960,, Patna, India)"
whereas the panel on the right with the image shows "Born December 7, 1956 (age 54) "
Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.144.28.234 ( talk) 18:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Rob Crosby ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can someone take a look at Rob Crosby? There's some sort of slo-mo edit war where IPs keep sporadically removing his full birth name even though it's sourced to a reliable work. THis has been going on practically since the article was created 3+ years ago. I posted this before but nobody did anything. Ten Pound Hammer and company • ( Otters want attention) 20:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Iota Nu Delta ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This section of this article is blatant defamation over petty rivalry--broadly displaying the alleged misdemeanor of a non-notable person, his picture, his university, and an organization in which he is allegedly involved. Not all of these things belong in the public domain. It certainly does not belong on the Wikipedia page of a national organization. It is blatantly defamatory to the person and the organization and has no relevance to the article. The page has been protected due to edit warring but this defamatory section should be immediately removed. Thank you for your time. ( Winfinity ( talk) 06:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC))
Is this frat group notable? afd? merge, .. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
What can be done to permanently delete the gross and purely defamatory content in the page history? Specifically the stuff here and on some previous versions which lists the name, location, alleged misdemeanor, university, and student club in which he is involved. Not all of this belongs online and certainly not on wikipedia. The motivation for posting this was defamation. ( Winfinity ( talk) 23:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC))
Even though the article is deleted, this gross defamation remains online through the page history here and other revisions up until this one. None of this belongs on wikipedia and only some of it belongs on government websites. But information about the person's university, student, club, positions, and everything all in one place, is gross abuse. How can I proceed in having the versions permanently deleted? ( Winfinity ( talk) 17:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC))
Kamala Lopez ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article reads like a fan page, and seems to have been created and expanded by someone very close to the subject. Webberkenny ( talk) 17:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Andrea Kalin has a long history of COI edits by parties unknown, both named accounts and IPs. As a result, we have a long, lovingly-detailed promotional account of her film-making career, but no actual biographical information on the human being of this name. It's not quite a resume, but certainly not a real article about a living person: more a brochure for her production services. Can some fresh eyes have a look at it? -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Over at WP:ANI#Dispute over lawsuit sources at Porter Stansberry, we're having a discussion about BLPPRIMARY and its use as a citation for the allegations against Porter Stansberry. There's quite a revert war going on, and there definitely seem to be severe disagreements about whether BLPPRIMARY constitutes a blanket ban against using court filings as a source, or whether it merely prevents sourcing claims and assertions in BLPs. I just thought you guys would probably be able to shed some light on the subject. Van Isaac WS contribs 04:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This is all well and good, but most of this argument seems to ignore the actual BLPPRIMARY guidelines, which states that primary sources can be used to augment a secondary source covering the matter. BLPPRIMARY says absolutely nothing about court documents needing a legal opinion or references to them being OR, which makes me think that it has nothing to do with the matter at all. So, given that BLPPRIMARY says "it may be acceptable to rely on [a primary source] to augment the secondary source", under what circumstances is that the case? Second, how can we have better guidance on what constitutes an "assertion" under BLPPRIMARY, and what does not, seeing as that is the question that undermines this entire incident? Van Isaac WS contribs 07:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Please help to resolve edit war between anonymous user with multiple IP's.
Continuously inserting information which is not sourced in any way and false. User is linking to sources which do not verify claim. User is refusing to address these concerns even after the article was locked. I have laid out step by step why some portions of article need to be changed on talk page but other editor will not discuss any of them outside of two and will not compromise. Help resolve this PLEASE.
Rules state I am not allowed to list the unsourced and false material here. Where should I? Escytherdon ( talk) 19:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon Escytherdon ( talk) 19:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The three revert rule allows me to remove information of a bis and unsourced nature placed by sockpuppet or banned accounts. I will be doing that now and would LOVE for community involvement in rebuilding the page. Escytherdon ( talk) 19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Please consider the following:
Thoughts and THANK YOU 20:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon Escytherdon ( talk) 20:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Escytherdon ( talk) 17:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon Escytherdon ( talk) 17:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Escytherdon ( talk) 00:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at my changes and make sure that the page is now neutral and non-bias. If you see any evidence of bias and/or information requiring source material please let me know. Escytherdon ( talk) 14:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Adriana Ferreyr ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(RVT- WP:NOTNEWS Not a biographical issue at the moment, and using primary court documents is WP:OR) Please check the Revision history of George Soros in order to find this justification. copied from Loonymonkey
Copied from User talk:Karthikndr -
This pesron user William de Berg continues to commit vandalism on wickepedia and it is compromising its integrity to true factual unbiased information. He is citing references that do not prove the accuracy of his stamentes-- they are misleading and not factual. He is trying to gain an ufair advantage for George Soros by portrying Ms. Mr. Ferreyr in a bad light. Please read the refences to see that they do not prove his claims. This is a person working for Mr. Soros that is trying to misrepresent Ms. Ferryer in order to gain an advantage for him. Is there any way to prevent his behaviour which falls under the category of slander and defamation. This in in regards to the page Adriana Ferreyr Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
-- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 16:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear sirs / mes dames, With regard to my contribution to the article of Ms Ferreyr. I have quoted what she herself has submitted to the New York Supreme Court in her own testimony. You will understand that this is neither slander or defamatory. It is how Ms Ferreyr describes herself. The secondary quote comes from Reuter's news agency.
The above user is also wrong to imply that I am in anyway connected to or representing Mr Soros. I have never seen,communicated with, spoken to or met Mr Soros, nor anyone representing him. I am merely adding to a biography to give a balanced view of the subject. Unfortunately no one is perfect. William de Berg ( talk) 16:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
To add to my concerns about this biography.
As has previously been noted this biography is little more than an advertisement. The article is full of hyperbole and superlative commentary.
As regards the referencing within the article. Most references are to web pages which have merely referenced elsewhere for their facts. Unfortunately these sites have either referenced IMDB or Linkedin. Let us critique those sources now. Linkedin. Linkedin is self written. Or in this case it has been written in the third person. None of the linkedin claims are verifiable. This wiki quotes verbatim from the linkedin profile. IMDB. Again the facts contained here are not verifiable. The biography written on IMDB is written by a Lucas Almeida. Yet again, nothing is verifiable.
There are very close similarities between all 3 biographies.
I will add further to this in an attempt to have this biography removed.
William de Berg ( talk) 17:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
William insists on reinserting the material. I have reverted it, posted a warning on his Talk page, and edited the article to improve the tone and wording.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
OK I have removed myself. Now please tell why...
A court submission is inadmissible when it is th actual person's testimony. They are obviously relying on it in court. They will obviously swear it to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So why is it not permitted in a wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William de Berg ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Ferreyr ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
George Soros ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(RVT- WP:NOTNEWS Not a biographical issue at the moment, and using primary court documents is WP:OR) Please check the Revision history of George Soros in order to find this justification. copied from Loonymonkey
His ex-girlfriend is Brazilian Actress and entrepreneurAdriana Ferreyr.[18] [19]. He is currently being sued for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery among other claims. (New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 109256/2011)[20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
In Sorus's life it is as yet of limited note - there are press reports that would support a single comment.. but it is much more notable in her life that his. - Off2riorob ( talk) 20:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Raoul Peck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wiki editor User:Dayewalker repeatedly reverts factually incorrect information about this entry and then blocks out/deletes relevant links on the discussion page. Why is this?
Briefly:
Article currently states:
"Raoul Peck served as a Haitian Minister of Culture under President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, but later became disillusioned of Haitian leftist politics and frequently criticized the former Haitian leader. [4] [5]"
This is factually incorrect on two counts. Peck served as Minister of Culture in the Haitian government of René Préval from March, 1996 until October, 1997. This is attested to by both this article from Haiti Democracy Project Director James R. Morrell - http://www.haitipolicy.org/archives/Publications%26Commentary/peck.htm - this article from Haiti Libre http://www.haitilibre.com/en/news-1178-haiti-social-raoul-peck-is-pessimistic-for-the-future.html and and by Peck's own autobiographer, Monsieur Le Ministre.
Aristide's first term of office ended on 7 February 1996. The so-called reliable sources Dayewalker cites nowhere claim Peck was Minister for Aristide! Did he even bother to read them before restoring the inaccurate entry? He must now admit that he did not.
Why does Dayewalker repeatedly insert factually incorrect material as saying that Peck was a Minister in Aristide's government and then blocks/deletes the links that prove otherwise. Does he care to explain himself here?
Also, the statement that " became disillusioned of Haitian leftist politics" is completely untrue as Peck himself is more or less a Marxist (see his film Profit and Nothing But!). HaitiObserver ( talk) 18:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I am disturbed that User:Dayewalker does not address the fact that he has repeatedly inserted factually incorrect information into this entry without bothering to check it and refuses to acknowledge his mistake. The links are all above. I thought it was important that Wiki editors verify the accuracy of the information that they include in an entry. The links that User:Dayewalker say confirm that Peck was an Aristide minister do nothing of the sort, so either he did not read them or is for some mysterious reason not being fully upfront here. HaitiObserver ( talk) 19:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
But what is your explanation for including - and then defending - factually incorrect information into a biography of a living person? Wouldn't it be a good idea to check the links first, as they don't prove what you say the do? It is easily provable - as has now been done - that the claim that Peck was an Aristide minister is false. Why quibble when the evidence is plainly there? I am confused. HaitiObserver ( talk) 19:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Federico Peña ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone continues to insert in Mr. Pena's biography that he owned land near and/or around the new airport and therefore profited from its construction. This assertion is false and libelous and must be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.14.82 ( talk) 19:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Dustin Diamond ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Why is there no edit option for this page? Also previous information regarding himself releasing a sex tape which was reported by numerous news outlets has been removed from the page? This is still relevant in the sense that information concering Tom Sizemore's sex tape is on his own page? Im not sure why the mention of the sex tape was removed from this article, when it had already been stated by Dustin himself including and an article featured on E! television about this prank with a dirty sanchez? It is referenced here : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?entry_id=9287 and http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2006/10/screech-sex-tape-guest-stars-revealed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasow187 ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Jerry Costello ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I wanted to alert the powers that be to the page of sitting U.S. Rep. Jerry Costello. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello) I have just added and cited a "Controvery" section to Rep. Costello's page that acknowledges a trial that was widely reported in the 1990s.
The history of Rep. Costello's page indicates that the controvery has apparently been added and stripped from the Wikipedia page in the past. That seems inappropriate. The event led to formal ethics complaints. The congressman himself has responded publicly.
I am not a resident of his district, nor am I a regular Wikipedia contributor, so I am not likely to stick around to monitor this situation. I will probably check back over the coming days, but wanted to alert somebody better situated than I am. For what it is worth, I came across the controvery while reading my Criminal Law textbook, and was sufficiently alarmed by the blank Wiki profile that I researched and added the Controversy element myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musskel ( talk • contribs) 03:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The standard for you which advocate is unworkable. It would, for instance, prohibit Wikipedia from documenting the Chandra Levy saga. After all, there was no indictment against the involved congressman, and a different suspect has in fact confessed. Musskel ( talk) 17:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
In 1996 reports in the press alleged Costello was involved as a silent partner in a casino deal for which, after a federal investigation a man was sentenced to six years in jail. Costello testified before a grand jury in regard to the matter but was not indited or charged in the case and denied any involvement. The Congressional Accountability Project wrote an ethics complaint requesting investigation of Costello which resulted in no action.[1} Off2riorob ( talk) 19:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Palani G Periyasamy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is about my father and I just wanted to note that his name is spelled incorrectly. It is spelled PALANI G. PERIASAMY. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.13.122 ( talk) 15:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
As per your report and http://web.archive.org/web/20090303203657/http://india-today.com/btoday/07051998/cf2.html - and others , I have moved the article to Palani G. Periasamy. - Off2riorob ( talk) 16:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
i submitted the article regarding the footballer berty cockbill i am very new to this and the peice has been deleted iam not sure hat i have done wrong and as i am not too good at this technology could anyone please explain slowly how to submit this again i am trying to update all former stratford town players who played professionally thank you so much and please be gentle ha ha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratfordvillain ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Karmella Tsepkolenko ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It's an Wiki article with low verifiability. Looks like a self-promote SEO webpage. All sources provided in this article is not so reliable as needed (just a personal homepages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.140.4.23 ( talk) 17:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Is this article at all subject to WP:BLP? One editor at [19] and [20] has asserted:
and
Whilst I consider that any article which makes such claims directly impacting a living person is absolutely subject to WP:BLP and that these claims would absolutely disallowed in, say "Kennedy Administration" etc. I further suggest that the ArbCom decision of just a week or so back, and in which Will was active, makes such Wikilawyering actionable. I further suggest that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy requiring, among other things, that all biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy. is clear. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision. is also clear. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
As a sub-issue, I'd like to understand more about the two sections you neglect to mention - in this edit, you removed not only the Frankhouser allegation, but also the Pauline Girvin death threat and the Nebraska sex abuse phone hoax. I've provided sections where you can explain how those are BLP issues below. Hipocrite ( talk) 15:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
General Comment The problem described here is one that comes up with some frequency across the encyclopedia. Here's how it works. An individual makes a claim about another individual that would never, in a million years, pass BLP on its own, attributed to the source even. This claim then gets reported by the NYT, mentioned in a book, recorded in congressional testimony, or whatever and all of a sudden people here start arguing that it passes BLP because a reliable source has repeated the claim with attribution. The reliable source is only on the hook for the fact that the individual made the claim and nothing else. The nature of the claim remains the same. If the claim was a BLP no-no prior to being mentioned in an RS as having been made then it remains one now. We don't backdoor contentious claims by attributing them, simply because other sources have reported on those claims. We have our own standards of inclusion and they do not mirror the sources we use. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 12:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
This article could really do with some experienced BLP editors going over it. It is being edited by (probably) the subject, and some administrators. For the last year it has flipped between a bit of whitewashing, and restoration of the referenced 'controversies'. The referencing is poor (in places non-existent) and mainly to local papers, and the controversy section is over-dominant in the article. The details in the "hammer attack" section are out of proportion, and possibly misleading because of it. The "benefit fraud" section relates to dates in a span of three months, not two years, and it's "when applying", not "while claiming" which implies more continuity. The most recent diff looks like this. If some experienced editors could take a look, I am convinced it could be improved. The bloke is upset and complaining and saying some things are untrue. He would probably prefer some things never happened, and probably pushing too far the other way. But if he's suggesting the article is unbalanced I think he's probably got a point. It could do with some editors who can really reflect what the sources are saying, in good proportion. 199.167.132.119 ( talk) 18:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Xenia Tchoumitcheva ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This is a BLP of a young European model/actress. It would seem to be established on the talk page, using various sources, that there are two competing birth dates. The earlier date seem to be backed by sufficiently reliable sources. The later date is backed by the models agency and agency controlled releases. The later date was apparently asserted in an OTRS email from the subject or a representive (see top of talk page). The conjectured explanation is that the agency has fabicated and pushed a later date to increase the marketability of the model. There is a foreign language source reporting the model being questioned about it, and I think she claims ignorance about some mistake and a need to check with her agents (see here). There is now a long history of slow edits whereby associated SPAs or IPs were inserting the later date into the article. Following substantiated challenge, IPs now resort to removing the earlier birthdate, leaving birthdate unmentioned. Other editors would like to keep the earlier, more reliable, date in the article. The options would seem to be:
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Presumption of guilt on the part of one of the two subjects (only one has been convicted), and an excessively detailed series of descriptions of grisly crimes, which also presumes guilt on the part of the defendant in an ongoing criminal trial. The "Home Invasion" section in particular is unencyclopedic and will need to be stubbed. causa sui ( talk) 22:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Judging by what ran recently in The New York Times, this is an overreaction: "Another defense lawyer, Walter C. Bansley III, began by conceding many of the facts but blaming Mr. Hayes for turning the crime into a homicide. 'Joshua Komisarjevsky never intended to kill anyone,' he said." [33] The essential description of events isn't contested, just a dispute between the two admitted perpetrators as to their relative culpability. The section needs careful review to eliminate certain unproven aspects of the description, but most of the contents were adequately sourced and apparently accurate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
LaRouche movement ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please review [35]. Is the removed text a BLP violation? Why or why not? Thanks! Hipocrite ( talk) 23:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
In fact, this material seems to fall very clearly under the section of WP:BLP which states: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. MastCell Talk 23:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)