This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Uki Goñi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the other works section, there is a piece poorly added which is libellous grafitti and even if it wasn't, does not adhere to grammatical standards. I'm too unfamiliar with wikipedia to use the diff system for highlighting errors without recopying them but its quite obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.60.243 ( talk) 17:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Farhat Hashmi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'll be very grateful for a neutral set of eyes to look at the Farhat Hashmi article, its recent edits and its talk page. I think that in places this articles strays away from the subject, a person (Farhat Hashmi), and wanders into only tangentially related wider discussions about Wahhabism, extremism, veiled women, etc. The inclusion of information on loosely related topics impacts negatively on the proportionality / balance / focus of the article. I don't mean its neutrality. That seems ok. I mean its emphasis. Despite the comment of one editor, thing has nothing to do with any "personal like/dislikes". I am merely trying to keep the article tight, focused and sticking only to the person it is about. GorgeCustersSabre ( talk) 17:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Marcus D. Wiley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marcus D. Wiley attended and graduated from Willowridge High School. I was his Science instructor. He did not attend Missouri City High. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.112.15 ( talk) 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Imre Kertész ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Earlier versions of this page made reference to Kertész having criticized film director Steven Spielberg. The reference may appear on Wikipedia pages devoted to Spielberg.
The reference is important as Kertész is understood as having made comments that were never libellous, sladerous or defamatory concerning what might be termed "commercialization of the Nazi Holocaust" -- an important point for those who appreciate Kertész´s comments concerning Spielberg (and other directors, producers, and actors) and the subject of the Nazi Holocaust.
Inclusion of the comment (cross-referenced, cited, and linked) would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.41.88 ( talk) 09:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Jennifer McCreight ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editors at Talk:Jennifer McCreight disagree about whether or not the page satisfies WP:BLP1E. It would be very helpful to have advice on this question from uninvolved editors familiar with BLP policy. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Eric Joyce ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've removed some rather tabloid-esque breaking news about this British member of parliament. This will probably go back in once it's got some stronger sourcing and the details of the alleged incident are clearer; extra eyes on the article would be helpful. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 02:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
This article needs to be analyzed. It has IMDB references, which are totally unreliable. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The Heartland Institute ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John C. McGinley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just read the Bio for actor John McGinley... I found that one of his movies was missing from the list. In the 1993 movie "The Last Outlaw" he played the part of Wills. Mickey Rourke and Dermot Mulroney also stared in the film. 24.0.220.51 ( talk) 19:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Amy Paulin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The third paragraph was added on 2/22 and is unsourced, biased, and innacurate in clear violation of BLP policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.97.104.30 ( talk) 22:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
In the initial summary Meg Ryan is referred to as a "disgusting actress." It's clearly libelous and callous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.234.205 ( talk) 03:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ken McKenna (attorney) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page has been nominated for deletion and subjected to numerous edits to make it less like an advertisement. To this day, this page reads like a cleaned up version of the subject's website and really only asserts notability related to the Judas Priest trial. On the talk page, someone indicated they believed the subject was notable because of the assertions of media appearances. There is no sourced information to support those statements however, and no evidence of any media appearances seems to exist online. If someone could take a look at this to remove the unsourced items, I think it would make the notability concerns that much easier to deal with. The section related to the political career also does not provide for notability under Wikipedia's notability guidelines (local politics does not provide notability).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.249.98 ( talk • contribs)
The wikipedia entry for Fred Singer needs to be updated. A prize-winning, highly acclaimed book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway called MERCHANTS OF DOUBT (2010 Bloomsbury Press) contains a lot of information on Singer. In particular, the same techniques that Singer used to contest the consensus opinion on secondhand smoke have also been implemented with regard to climate science. The book by Oreskes and Conway should be included in the bibliography/references section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.220.192 ( talk) 08:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
J.J. Milan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a section in J.J.'s article titled World of Warcraft that doesn't fit with the rest of the biography and hardly seems within wikipedia's scope or policies. Kyletheobald ( talk) 09:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Marco Rubio ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lots of stuff as to when and by whom he was baptized etc. making up a very large part of his "personal life." Is it reasonable to make a big deal of what churches he attended before the age of 13 etc.? Or is it of insufficient value in what is a biography of a person and not just about his life before he was a teenager? I can see some material - but this BLP has had huge amounts of energy spent in discussion his religion and not all that much about his actual life experiences. Or is it important to stress his Mormon connection from when his family lived in Nevada? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Noreen Renier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This bio came up here a few days ago: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Editor_assistance_needed_for_Noreen_Renier_entry. The article as it stands needs either deletion or much better sourcing. At the moment, it is basically an attack page. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Justin Edl ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Home on the Range is now regarded as 5.13-. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelineguiles ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Fred Singer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi. I came across this BLP violation/edit-war. At issue is this edit
Leaked documents reveal that Singer is paid $5,000 a month by the conservative Heartland Institute, though there is no independent verification as to whether these payments were actually made.<ref>{{cite news|last=Goldenberg|first=Suzanne|title=Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate|accessdate=15 February 2012|newspaper=The Guardian|date=15 February 2012}}</ref>
I find it a BLP violation as a clear rumour and also self-contradictory; on one hand it asserts that Leaked documents reveal that Singer is paid $5,000 a month by the conservative Heartland Institute on the other it states: though there is no independent verification as to whether these payments were actually made which begs the question how can in the first sentence be asserted that he gets paid when there is no confirmation that the payment was actually made. In any case I leave it up to the interested editors here to comment. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Akonjignal ( talk · contribs)
User is making rafts of unsourced additions to articles, connecting Akon to numerous other artists, many of which don't appear to be associated. 99.136.255.180 ( talk) 12:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute here over how to present Khader Adnan's affiliation with Islamic Jihad in Palestine. See this diff - at issue is the third paragraph of the lead. Both versions presented in the diff are attempts to summarize the sources cited in the article, some of which state his membership and leadership in the group as a matter of fact, some as speculation, some as a past affiliation. His wife, who has served as his spokesman while he is detention, says he used to be a spokesman for the group but has not had any contact with them for more than four years (See the talk page discussion here). Note that a couple of the sources saying he is a spokesman or leader for the group date back to 2005. See the subsections Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine and Previous arrests and detentions in the article for the sources. If people want them relisted here for clarity, please let me know. Tiamut talk 17:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Please note that the core problem, as I see it, is that the current version of the article states his leadership in the organization, considered a terrorist goup by Israel, as undisputed fact. Given that this is disputed by some sources and that he is currently being held in administrative detention without charge, this seems prejuidicial and in my opinion constitutes a BLP violation. I'm not going to revert it on it site though, because its arguable and I don't want to be sanctioned for edit warring (these articles are subject to 1RR restrictions barring clear BLP violations). So the situation is little urgent, particularly since this article is nominated for DYK and could appear on the main page shortly. Thanks for your patience and diligence in advance. Tiamut talk 20:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Yve-Alain Bois ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article states that Yve-Alain Bois has written books on American postwar art INCLUDING Wladyslaw Strzeminski and Katarzyna Kobro, who were both Polish, not American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.113.145.67 ( talk) 19:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Alan Shearer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The goals to games ratio listed in the introduction states this is 0.67. when at the bottom of the article where the actual games and goals scores are listed it confirms that the ration is actually 0.51. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.179.152 ( talk) 23:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No policy violation yet, but there appears to be a move to make one. Shortly after word that Dawkins tried to tell Christians they aren't really Christian if they have any secular attitudes started spreading around via both Christians of all politics and conservatives of all religions as an Internet meme (it's the featured main page article at Conservapedia, for example), a questionable "let's label Dawkins not-really-an-atheist" RfC "coincidentally" shows up at Talk:Richard Dawkins#RfC: Atheist or agnostic?. This should be closely watched for signs of meatpuppetry. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, all. There has been a recent edit to Paul Gottfried's page with the following comment:
"Gottfried is also a known anti-feminist, Paul Gottfried maintains that the change of women's rights "has been a social disaster that continues to take its toll on the family" and contributed to a "descent by increasingly disconnected individuals into social chaos". [2][3]"
The links referenced in the article do not contain the quotes listed in the paragraph. It appears this was a sloppy cut and paste from the "Antifeminism" page, which includes information about Gottfried. The link included on that page is " http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried9.html". The full quote from that article is:
"Serious conservative scholars like Allan Carlson and F. Carolyn Graglia have maintained that the change of women's role, from being primarily mothers to self-defined professionals, has been a social disaster that continues to take its toll on the family. Rather than being the culminating point of Western Christian gentility, the movement of women into commerce and politics may be seen as exactly the opposite, the descent by increasingly disconnected individuals into social chaos."
Clearly, Gottfried here is describing the opinions of others, rather than making these statements himself.
I believe that the recent edit to Gottfried's page should be removed, and perhaps the Antifeminism page should be updated as well. Please let me know if I've provided enough information. I'd really appreciate any assistance you can provide! I'm not Gottfried, but he's asked me to see if I can follow up on this on his behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherwood robert ( talk • contribs) 07:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Piyush Trivedi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Piyush Trivedi is a mess with a huge amount of detail and trivia about an obviously notable academic, with the only thing approaching a reliable source his biography on his university's website. It's being edited by someone who seems to be related, Devanshtrivedi ( talk · contribs). I could have taken to to COIN but this board seems more relevant. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The article gives credit to Darrell Scott writing Folsom Prison, which was covered by Johnny Cash. Cash was already performing this song, which he mostly wrote, 6 years before Darrell Scot was born. That's not to take away from the many amazing songs that Darrell did write. But such a glaring error should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdror ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
John Calipari ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I was drawn to this article for another reason, but while there, I noticed the Controversies section. I severely edited the first subsection, but I'm not sure if any of this belongs in the article. I haven't reviewed it in any detail, but what I've looked at strikes me as WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE. Ironically, I and another editor have just been battling with an IP who removed subsections without explanation. I reverted on principle, but I'm not sure that the IP isn't right to remove them. There's a discussion about the subsections on the Talk page, and one editor has recommended a disposition of each. More eyes might be helpful.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Andrea James ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a quite complex case here at the NPOVN, in which a group of editors are adding additional critical content to the BLP of a wikipedian (who they quite clearly dislike for various complicated reasons), after she posted a request to include information from reliable sources to balance a perceived imbalance towards a too critical coverage. It seems some editors are trying to make a point rather than follow policy. More eyes on both the Andrea James biography and the BPOVN thread would be great. I don't think its in great style to respond to a BLP concern by piling on. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 03:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This article has a "Legal troubles" section. However, I wonder if this is necessary to leave it as is or remove it as "unverifiable". -- George Ho ( talk) 03:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
What about this source: the cocaine news? the flu virus? shoplifting? 1991 drug abuse? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE: There were additions: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Adam_Rich&action=historysubmit&diff=479436595&oldid=479332061 -- George Ho ( talk) 08:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Martina Navratilova ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
wikipedias discussion on the virus toxoplasmosis says she retired in 1982 from it. She did not retire and her bio says nothing about toxoplasmosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.111.128.81 ( talk) 03:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Alec Monopoly ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:LTufo1125 is continuously vandalizing and adding innapropriate materal that is false about alec monopoly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.25.211.193 ( talk) 05:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Content regarding this individual's personal life, specifically an alleged affair continues to be added to the article. [5], [6], [7], [8]. None of the references provided state that Mr. Flynn even confirmed that the alleged indiscretion involved the person mentioned in the article. Instead, he is quoted as saying: "I have done my wife and family a great wrong, and I profoundly regret the hurt I have inflicted on them and others affected by my conduct." It should also be noted that there is an active OTRS ticket open on this matter asking that the material be taken down. Tiptoety talk 07:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Vikas Pota ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As with the Brian Solis report, this is an example of blatant self-promotion and again, I would delete it were I more confident about the policy aspects of doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.144.231 ( talk) 08:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first paragraph of Meryl Streep s bio has libelous info and contentious wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.164.128 ( talk) 19:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Ian Baraclough ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Baraclough has just been appointed manager of LOI side Sligo Rovers and his profile appears to have been hijacked as a result — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.29.168 ( talk) 22:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Ergun Caner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mythbuster09 has been making massive deletions to the Ergun Caner wiki. The deletions are properly sourced and come from a number of sources. 1. I cited his brother's book about their conversion. 2. I cited the book Ergun Caner co-authored with Emir Caner, Unveiling Islam. 3. I cited two unedited videos of speeches Ergun Caner gave to the USMC in North Carolina. 4. I cited two articles written by David McGee about events that Caner spoke at in Bristol, VA. 5. I cited once, the blog of the man who acquired the videos by the Freedom of Information Act. He said the content in these articles show a clear bias and this is not a place to recount every speech Ergun Caner has ever made. However, he himself attempted to recount the controversy in summary, but deletes the material from the local reporters. I do not wish to start an edit war so I am taking this to the talk page. I have tried talking to Mythbuster09. He has only responded by editing the page. MosesModel 01:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MosesModel ( talk • contribs)
Also note that "anonymous" makes for a bad source for any claim in any BLP. Collect ( talk) 13:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Good Evening. I am posting my response here as well as the TALK page. Please forgive me if I have misunderstood a Wikipedia policy, as I am still pretty new to this site and learning the ropes. I am baffled that Mosesmodel's edits have been allowed to continue on Ergun Caner's page, as he has failed to demonstrate his ability to maintain verifiable sources and is clearly not writing from a neutral and disinterested point of view. I have edited Ergun Caner's page to fall within the guidelines of Wikipedia's BLP policy and would ask that this page be reverted to my previous form and protected from further editing by Mosesmodel. I will address Mosesmodel's complaints and explain my reasoning below.
Mosesmodel Complaints: 1. I have still cited each book mentioned by Mosesmodel as a source, perhaps not in the same structure, but certainly referencing the same material. 2. Through reading the talk page, it is my understanding that the videos that Mosesmodel has attempted to post have already been debated and determined to be primary sources, of which there is no place for in a BLP. 3. I had no problem with the sourcing of the McGee article, however, again as I read through the "Talk" page associated with Ergun Caner's article, I found the determination, by an editor, that stated this page was not a place to recount every speaking engagement this man has ever made. 4. Mosesmodel cited a blog from which one of these videos was taken. To only cite specific videos that purport one side of the story is neither neutral, nor disinterested. Mosesmodel thus is not using his editing abilities to present a neutral, encyclopedic entry. 5. Yes, I have tried to recount the controversy, in summary, and give the average reader a neutral overview of the controversy. I have not deleted every reference to the controversy, nor did I intend to. I merely, as stated in the BLP policy, paired back the information so that it remained neutral and within BLP guidelines.
Mythbuster09 Concerns: 1. I have done everything in my power to correct the bias writing and create a page that is encyclopedic, not a tabloid page. 2. In so doing, I have edited out specific references to one or two speeches that Ergun Caner presented, as they are not reflective of his entire speaking career. I have several hundred videos and transcripts available from his career where he negates the information Mosesmodel wishes to use in his videos. Instead of flood this page with hundreds of cited speaking engagements, I merely deleted the select few that Mosesmodel used, and did not add any, in order to maintain a neutral tone in this article. 3. If you look further back in the page history, you will see that Mosesmodel has attempted to give disproportionate space to this "controversy" time and time again. This, to my understanding, is yet another violation of the BLP policy. Both criticism and praise should be presented responsibly, which I have tried to do. I have addressed the controversy, I have cited articles that detail the controversy, and I have moved on. Mosesmodel attempts to make this entire article about the controversy, which again, is against BLP policy. 4. All in all, the policy of Wikipedia seems to be that, when in doubt, pair back the article to comply with the BLP policy. I think if you read my article in its most complete form, that you will find I have presented Ergun Caner's history, career, and the controversy in a fair and neutral way. 5. It appears that this is not the first time Mosesmodel has tried to dispute other users. A quick search on the internet pulled up a Twitter account and a YouTube page of his where a majority of his energy is spent trying to "expose Ergun Caner." This is hardly then a user who can be trusted to write from a neutral or disinterested tone. I would ask again that you would protect this page from his edits and allow my neutral article to presented in full. Thank you for your quick response to this situation. I hope that this can be resolved fairly.--Mythbuster09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythbuster09 ( talk • contribs) 01:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Edit warring by Breadbasket ( talk · contribs), née Aaemn784 ( talk · contribs)
This UK peer has had a "colourful" life. Multiple convictions for fraud in multiple countries and a bigamous marriage are just part of it. These accusations are far from complimentary, but they're supported by clear refs from multiple UK broadsheet newspapers. user:Breadbasket disagrees and has removed this content five times over the last week, leaving the article as a completely anodyne (and effectively unreferenced) statement of nothing. It now even manages to contain the overlapping statements "[marriage #1] were divorced in 1996" and "In 1993, married [#2]", yet without using the term "bigamy" so that the crucial point here isn't obvious to the reader. This is whitewashing - removing the conclusion, yet not having the confidence to claim that the cause isn't itself correct.
The editor has an interesting history too. A relatively low mileage editor, they have been focussed on this article for some months, with attempts to speedy delete it last year, lots of traffic in the WP: namespace, sundry warnings to and from others and a block for edit-warring [9]. They're also in the habit of blanking their talk: with the usual message "We do in general not wish to receive messages here.". Fuller versions are [10], [11]. From this behaviour I'd have a strong suspicion of a COI with the 13th Duke, except that the editor's behaviour on other nobility-related articles suggests it might just be a personal foible.
This is edit warring. However I'm raising it here first to gain consensus that the detailed version of this article is considered appropriate, otherwise it would be summarily rejected at WP:3RR if this hadn't already been done. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: some really useless verbiage is now removed - including stuff about how he should be "styled" which is found in no other Wikipedia articles that I could find. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Alex Standish ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is the person mentioned in this news story the same person described in this biography? An editor is making this claim, which seems plausible, but given the nature of the crime involved I have reverted because it is not entirely clear to me. Another editor has previously reverted for the same reason. Additional opinions are sought. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated for deletion based on notability concerns. JFHJr ( ㊟) 22:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: The name "Alexander Standish" is relatively common, as it is the name of Myles Standish's son, and was reused by many over the years. Any connections should require the utmost care. Collect ( talk) 22:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Bill Clinton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not to rain on any Republican's parade, but Bill Clinton was most definitely not, as the article states, "found dead on his room. No further informations (sic) known." Impossible, because he did not die on February 08, 2012, as the "Death" section of his Wikipedia page states. The big clue here is that, he is alive, yet, has a "Death" section.
As incorrect statements go, this is probably one of the biggies. Might wanna give it the ol' change-a-roo.
But don't worry. I already screen-capped it and posted it on my Facebook because it was hilarious.
~ Chris
The information in the 'Military' section is incorrect regarding statements made by Ted Nugent in the interview which is archived here:
Specifically, 2S Vietnam draft classification versus 1Y as stated by Nugent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makalu7 ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Anastasia Klose ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The second link "2. Anna klose art info..." links to a porn website, there should be a process to easily report such issues, luckily I was was over 18, children should not be exposed to such things, you should be able to easily report such issues, I still can not find who I should be sending the information to, and I do not know what the link should be, do not wish to edit it myself. It should be noted this is an article about a living person. Plus know hoping I have not down loaded a virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.172.119 ( talk) 23:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Nancy Seaman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Listed for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Seaman Needs more comments so a consensus can be reached.
I think it violates WP:BLP1E because the event(crime) is bigger then the person and sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. I think it violates WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME because I am not sure if it confers notability or if sources provided meets the guidelines regarding reliable sources at-least 1 is WP:BLPPRIMARY. Theworm777 ( talk) 11:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Needs more comments so a consensus can be reached.
The same editor is back trying to reinsert the material that violates WP:BLPCRIME. His last reversion edit summary says "If this is so bad, why leave-in the other refs to Black?". I believe he is referring to other articles that also violate the same policy.
First, the material can't remain in the Fabb article because it is a BLP violation against Robert Black (not a wonderful person to defend, but even bad people have rights). Second, violations of the same policy that exist in other articles can be dealt with, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping a BLP violation in an article. Finally, one of the reasons I didn't fight as hard to keep out the Black material in the other articles was because of some confusion about BLP policy/guidelines on this issue. That confusion has since been resolved.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There appears to be a consensus reached on a new version for the Tate article (drafted by Ian). As I believe both Ian and David agree (from reading their conversations), the stuff about Black in the Fabb article is more attenuated than the material in the Tate article. So, I have two questions. First, do Ian and David believe the Fabb article can remain without the Black material? Second, if not, does Ian want to take a stab at drafting a new version as he did with the Tate article? I'm not saying that I will approve of the version (that's not meant to be condescending), but he did a very good job with the redraft of the Tate article, so ...-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Is this person dead or alive? HWWilson said that he has access to the same-sex porn magazine Stallion to confirm that his real name is Thomas Earl Hagen. The "Thomas Earl Hagen" guy in the Salt Lake City obituary is dead, and HWWilson believes that Thomas guy is the same Kip Noll, a porn actor/model. In other words, Kip is supposedly dead. I couldn't find sources that Kip is dead as "Thomas"; in fact, the obituary did not mention "Kip Noll" or that Thomas is Kip. Nevertheless, HWWilson keeps adding it after I deleted that entry over and over. Also, there were talks about his "death" in the talk page prior. Should this be reported to WP:COIN, or what else? -- George Ho ( talk) 20:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Geoff Thompson (writer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have just amended the Geoff Thompson (writer) article as someone had inserted comments saying theat Geoff Thompson was (Redacted). I need to know who made the changes so I can take legal action
(cur | prev) 00:07, 19 February 2012 81.141.179.62 (talk) (5,726 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 00:07, 19 February 2012 81.141.179.62 (talk) (5,726 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 00:04, 19 February 2012 81.141.179.62 (talk) (5,592 bytes) (undo)
Please can you provide me with the information so I can pass it on to our lawyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisthompson1989 ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't realise that it was against wikipedia rules. surely you must understand that it is frustrating that such damaging comments can be placed on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisthompson1989 ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
After reviewing the edits in question, I suppressed them so they are no longer available to read in the history of the article. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Brian Solis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page is pure self-serving advertising for a commercial venture. It cheapens Wikipedia and should be removed at once. This content was uploaded by the subject in order to give the impression of importance to his business. Ignore this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realsouthwest ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Shakthi Scott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is written in such a way to promote the subject and his works. The author has written it in a style of expressing his/her own thoughts. Moreover, the article doesn't seem to connect with anyother article. 59.163.114.169 ( talk) 09:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Marek Halter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am currently reading a book written by Marek Halter in 2010 - The Kabbalist from Prague. The last book listed in his article is written in 2008. How can I contact the editor of his article? I don't want to make changes myself. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.132.148 ( talk) 18:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Morton Deutsch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bender235 keeps reverting Morton Deutsch's page to a shortened, incomplete version. Morton Deutsch is a 93 year old accomplished individual who deserves to have a complete entry on wikipedia. Please let me know what I can do to stop Bender 235.
Joe
(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.82.59 ( talk) 21:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
A complete,accurate biography of Morton Deutsch has been prepared by a Professor[ a former student of Morton Deutsch],with the approval of Morton Deutsch.This biography is constantly being replaced by a very abbreviated statement,which contains errors,and does not provide a useful summary of Deutsch's career and accomplishments nor of his many distinguished awards.This inadequate statement should not be allowed to constantly replace the fuller accurate biography of Morton Deutsch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.82.205 ( talk) 20:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The full,accurate,error-free biography of Morton Deutsch in Wikipedia is constantly being replaced by avery brief,inadequte statement,which contains errors, that does not contain any description of Deutsch's career,his many professional contributions,nor his many distinguihed awards.This very inadequate statement should not be allowed to constantly displace the fine biography of Morton Deutsch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ida Prager ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Rush Limbaugh ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I just deleted a section containing one entry from Talk:Rush_Limbaugh. I deleted the section title also due to its tone. Normally I would leave a note, but that was challenging since the title went, too. I'm not requesting any action, but I wanted you to know in case an explanatory note on the page is necessary. All the best, Overjive ( talk) 05:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Óscar Uzcátegui ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I just came across this article while patrolling new Venezuelan articles, and I'm unaware of the latest thinking of how to handle uncited BLPSs. The article was translated from the Romanian version, where it is also uncited. It's a mess. Is it OK to reduce it to a stub? If not, I don't have time to sort through the long translated mess. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I nominated for deletion. Link above. JFHJr ( ㊟) 04:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
One editor proposes using [15] as a source for stating that a named person made a large donation to a "super PAC" not officially connected to the campaign. Several questions arise:
I think this covers "ringing the changes" on the obvious issues there. Collect ( talk) 22:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
1.) It's USA Today, so it's a reliable source
2.) Nope, a campaign isn't a living person (it's comprised of living people, true, but it's not a living person)
3.) Not a contentious claim, again, the source is reliable, but it would have to be presented as - is, not as part of someone's OR
4.) same as 3
5.) It's connected, per the article.
That being said, if it was used to advance and original idea or a claim not backed up by the sources, it would be wrong to add it in. @- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons► Moon Base Alpha-@ 17:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Police officers charged criminally in Canada ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gross WP:BLP violations: lists non-notable individuals acquitted of charges, or yet to go to trial. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
L.P. (singer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a Laura Pergolizzi fan who has been removing her name from her Wikipedia profile. Just as Cherlyn Sarkisian is known and indexed as Cher and Stefani Germanotta is known as and indexed as Lady Gaga I can see indexing Laura Pergolizzi as LP. However another editor who is a Laura Pergolizzi fan has been removing her name reference from the San Francisco Chronicle and presumably information on her parents. This turns Wikipedia into part of a blatant marketing campaign which seeks to generate mystique for the performer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardBond ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Christina Petrowska-Quilico ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
What seems to be the issue with neutrality of this article? As far as I can see, pertinent facts are all corroborated by the Canadian Encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halibutron ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Dominique Hourani ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The lead simply says "Dominique is a Lebanese Pop Star, former top model, Beauty Queen and an Actress who is considered one of the sexiest beauty and elegance idols in the arab world." The article goes downhill from there. It has no references at all. Dougweller ( talk) 16:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
H. A. Hellyer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
HA Hellyer has clearly authored his own biography quite extensively without any kind of independent verification. Listed are such personal stories such as "Hellyer’s PhD was examined, and passed with minor corrections." Mr. Hellyer has placed a very optimistic version of his resume on wikipedia as a form of self-promotion to aid in his job hunt. Is this the purpose of wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryKissinger01 ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Fazlur Rehman Khalil ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear Admin,
Please correct this page name " Fazlur Rehman Khalil " because the real name is " Moulana Fazal ur Rehman Khalil ".
kind Regard's Sami — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiullah313313 ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Jacques Roy (physician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would appreciate some guidance on this article. Apparently this is a story that just broke. AT this point, the subject is accused, but certainly not convicted of anything. It would appear to me that
WP:BLP1E applies and, given the severity of the accusation (apparently the only thing that are supposed to make this person notable), this seems a BLP issue to me. Thanks. --
Guillaume2303 (
talk) 23:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Yumi Stynes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has been changed to state that this womans children are dead, they are not. She has been involved in making a comment on a television show the "circle", and the internet has gone crazy with people venting their anger at her. They have made death threats and things like what has been done to her wiki page (see controversy). Can you remove the offensive comment and disable her page until this dies down. Her children are very much alive and well.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphina1973 ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Ronnie Lees ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anyone want to clean what appears to be an autobiography? Dougweller ( talk) 11:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Is this normal? I find this too wierd and it caused me some confusion when I tried to read the Fazlur Rehman Khalil arrticle, mostly Arabic names contain ur ou ak interjections, couldn't understand the and. Why is there not a bio, and a section, or two bios? Without reading more, I assume that this is not Laurel and Hardy, Rod Hull and Emu or even Peaches and cream. So why the double act? CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Ariel Levy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Last edit by User:Arielvlevy may be a conflict of interest or just a vandal. It might even be OK. Hybrid2712 ( talk) 17:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Kevin, to the point that I have respectfully removed the COI notice/warning on the new user's talkpage and replaced it with a standard new user welcome message. The ethos of improved sensitivity to the legitimate concerns of BLP subjects suggests that it is not, under any conceivable standard, a "conflict of interest" for someone to correct his or her own birthdate. The issue of the references can be addressed with the editor, if at all, by a tailored message addressing the specific issue, not a boilerplate notice strongly implying that the new user has done something wrong. While I appreciate Bbb23's concerns for the COI guideline and for the integrity of the encyclopedia, these concerns should be expressed and acted on in a way that doesn't necessary offend BLP subjects and potentially drive off new editors (who may of course in some instances be the same people).
Although I would feel this way regardless of who the subject and the (suspected) new editor might be, I find it even less likely that we are dealing with a bad-faith COI situation given who the subject is, namely, a writer for a well-known publication. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Cindy Hyde-Smith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The current biography says both that she is "currently running for Ag. and Commerce... and that she "was elected for Ag. and Commerce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.237.174 ( talk) 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Criss Angel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An edit-war is going on about adding some graphic language about Criss Angel describing someone using profane terms. The edit is linked here. In my opinion this addition is a clear WP:BLP violation. Your opinion on including the linked edit is welcome. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 05:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This is not an edit war, and I have serious concerns about Dr.K failing to assume good faith on my part. Please see my comments in the discussion page here. DenJansen ( talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Boris Ivanishvili ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm not familiar with the rules for BLP. We have a jingoistic dispute over which name to use for Russo-Georgian millionaire Boris/Bidzina Ivanishvili. "Boris" seems more common in English: Forbes uses it, as do 17 of 18 confirmed hits at GBooks (4 with 'Boris' in 2010, one with 'Bidzina' in 2011). However, some newspapers use "Bidzina" (supposedly the Guardian and the Telegraph; I haven't confirmed). His website uses "Bidzina". [17] This might be a case where he went with "Boris" at first, either because he was doing business in Russia or because it was a more familiar name abroad, and then switched to "Bidzina" when he went home to Georgia (the Economist used 'Boris' in 2008 but 'Bidzina' in 2011), though that's just speculation. If his name has changed, 'Bidzina' is more recent, but 'Boris' was used when he was better known / more widely reported in the West.
(Regular Ghits are 483k Boris Ivanishvili, 94k Bidzina Ivanishvili, but if restricted to updates in the last year, 14k Boris Ivanishvili and 76k Bidzina Ivanishvili (phrase search). But they seem a bit screwy: if you restrict Bidzina hits to ones which do not include 'Boris', the number jumps to 1.65M, so I don't know if any of the numbers mean anything.)
Normally, I'd just go with "Boris" per COMMONNAME, unless we could show sources really have switched over, but are there BLP issues that would override that? Do we take personal preferences into account? (I'm not linking this discussion to the bio talk page, because the squabbling there is unlikely to illuminate anything.) — kwami ( talk) 22:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
A new SPA editor (SudburyTaxRelief, contribs) is persistently adding SOAPBOX material to Jay R. Kaufman, declining to engage in Talk page discussion about its problems; please advise. AV3000 ( talk) 20:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Frank Huguelet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IP address 12.73.205.149/136 is repeatedly trying to insert undocumented and libellous information into the article Frank Huguelet. This is a man in Missouri named (Redacted) who has a personal issue with Frank Huguelet and is trying to sully his name through Wikipedia. (Redacted) has been stalking Huguelet online for over five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.126.22 ( talk) 21:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Brandon Cruz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
a user called Sector001 is always re writing the page that is actually about me. yes, i am the subject of the page. i rewrite it, he undoes it. i have not been very nice to him, sorry, but he has NO RIGHT to think he knows of my life. what is the policy of the actual subject writing the truth on their related page, and then having a self appointed internet wiki cop telling them that they cannot change their own story? he says that he can't verify that i am who i say i am. is there a place i can reply to him, or an admin, to verify that i am indeed who i say i am? thank you, brandon cruz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itismesoleavemypagealone ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
John Searle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Hibrido Mutante has repeatedly added a large section to John Searle dealing with the article subject's quarrel with the late Jacques Derrida, most recently here. I have numerous problems with this material. For example, it seems to be written like a POV essay rather than something appropriate to a biography (although Hibrido Mutante has made some changes to that material in response to my criticism of it). My main problem with it, however, is that it is grossly undue and largely repeats the content of another article, Limited Inc. I have tried to explain to Hibrido Mutante that there is no point in simply pasting the contents of one article into another article, but he has ignored me. I have nothing against the article discussing Searle's disagreement with Derrida, but this undue material gives the dispute vastly more space than it deserves, and isn't appropriate for a biography. User:Maunus has helped by removing some of that material, but what remains is a lop-sided (and poorly written) section that discusses Derrida's criticism of Searle and says nothing about what Searle said in response.
I should add that Hibrido Mutante has worsened the situation by behaving in an inflammatory way on the talk page, accusing me of "intellectual terrorism" while logged out as an IP, eg here. The comments the user has made on the talk page while logged in makes it clear that this is the same person. I find it impossible to engage in any discussion with him under these circumstances, and believe he should be blocked for violation of WP:CIVIL. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 01:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Rush Limbaugh ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
See edit [18] which very substantially adds material to the "Sandra Fluke affair" to this BLP. I suggest that the added material and language violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP as being excess weight, excess POV, excess repetitive opinions of various people, etc. In short -- a section which already pushes the envelope is not well past that point in my opinion. I realize this is political silly season, but that does not mean WP:BLP goes out the window I trust. Collect ( talk) 02:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Remy Ong ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The subject of the article hit a dog on the road and ran away from the scene. Apparently, this caused an "uproar" in the Southeast Asian nation of Singapore. Are we now in the business of documenting each and every minor incident that happens in an individual's life? The section has also been suggestively labelled "Hit-and-run case", as if he hit a human being and ran away from the scene. Should WP:NPF apply here? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
After hearing the debate here and on the talk page, I still support the inclusion of the incident BUT only if there is any penalty handed out. For now it's only the news articles and mention of the police investigating, but should there be any punitive punishment handed down later on, it's appropriate to have the section reinstated. FYI Nick, the local law that applies to Singaporean Remy Ong also states that a "hit and run" can and will apply to certain animals like ass, dogs and horse.Lets have more debate by editors familiar with Asian cultures and laws. Nick seems kinda biased on one side, we need someone on the other end :) 182.55.242.227 ( talk) 07:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Dana Loesch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a biography of a person who is, shall we say, known for making controversial comments. Naturally there have been disputes over what should make it into the article. In particular, there's been a recent dispute over a comment she made regarding a Virginia bill that would have mandated trans-vaginal ultrasounds before abortions. The comment is sourced, but the only sources available seem to be partisan blogs and websites (either pro- or anti-Loesch), e.g. [20]. Is this sufficient for inclusion in a BLP? I'm inclined to think so, but other editors disagree. In any case, more neutral eyes on this article would generally be a good idea, because it's one of those that inevitably attracts people trying to push a political agenda from both sides. Robofish ( talk) 00:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
There's some text that has been replaced regarding the subject's commentary on actual news. I was the editor that removed it per my comments above. I'm not inclined to edit war about it, but could someone else please weigh in? JFHJr ( ㊟) 22:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
This BLP is seeing the same content restored, plus some more of the same. To me, it still looks like WP:COAT, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. It could use some input from others. JFHJr ( ㊟) 20:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Robin Ficker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is an ongoing dispute over the description of Robin Ficker as a sports "heckler," with "fan" and "spectator" being substituted. I favor the former term as clearly and accurately reflecting the many cited sources. Objection has been raised that "heckler" is an outdated term as he no longer engages in the activity, but I don't think that is relevant to notability given the many sources from the time in question. This has been discussed most recently on the Talk page and previously through comments in the Revision history. -- Pemilligan ( talk) 06:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there something more I was supposed to do to get some help here? --
Pemilligan (
talk) 05:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Bad Girls Club is about a reality tv program. It lists the cast members and labels them in various ways, including 'porn actress' and 'stripper'. Some of the sources are fine, some look very dubious, eg Poptower.com. TMZ is considered reliable but only on a case by case basis [22]. The program itself is used as a reference as well, which I find dubious for something like this. We've had at least one OTRS ticket from someone who was listed here as a porn star with a dubious reference - the complaint was that the listing was stopping her from getting work. Obviously we don't take the word of someone for such a complaint, but these women deserve to have reliable sources just as much as anyone else. Dougweller ( talk) 18:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Jose Antonio Vargas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Last summer there was a big brouhaha about whether Vargas should be described as an "undocumented immigrant" or an "illegal immigrant". Vargas uses the undocumented label, but others believe the illegal label is, I don't know, better? more accurate? something else? There was a discussion on the article Talk page and a discussion here, and the label "undocumented immigrant" was kept. Anyway, the article remained fairly stable for quite some time, although occasionally, editors who had not participated in the discussion (usually IPs) would come along and try to change it. I'd revert it, and there weren't any major disruptions.
Now, we have another editor who has altered the article in a curious way. He hasn't changed the term "undocumented immigrant" in the body of the article, although in one instance he wikilinked this entire phrase: undocumented people brought to America as innocent children. What he's done is highlight the issue by changing the infobox so that Vargas is now "known for" being a winner of the Pulitzer prize and being an "illegal immigrant" (there was no "known for" previously in the infobox). He also stuck in parameters about Vargas's citizenship (Filipino) (not actually sourced except he was born there) and residence (US), both of which I wish didn't exist, but I digress.
I removed "illegal immigrant" from the infobox. I also made other less important changes per the documentation in {{ infobox person}} and per WP:OVERLINK. The other editor reverted and opened a discussion on the Talk page. I'm hoping other editors will contribute here rather than there (last time discussions occurred in both places) and I'll point them here.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
In a recent reversion another editor removed well sourced verified content on grounds that added content violates UNDUE even though it meets VER via use of multiple reliable sources. This maybe related to the discussion above, where other editors have not sought to compromise per WP:CON. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say.
This is a biography, not an article about immigration law - it is not a question of differing viewpoints. There is no consensus for the changes this editor keeps adding, in fact there is not a single editor in agreement with him. Yet he keeps doing it, with the effect that the three editors who oppose the changes are getting tired of going over the same ground.Enough is enough - this has moved into the area of tendentious editing. Tvoz/ talk 04:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.
Prem Rawat ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prem Rawat has a brother Satpal who is mentioned four times in Prem Rawat's article, the last being in 1974 when he was also known as Bal Bhagwan Ji. At some point Satpal started using the title Satpal Maharaj, the first reference I can find for the title Satpal Maharaj is from an India news report in 1997. Question - should he be referred to as Satpal Maharaj in the article when he wasn't using that title at the time? I believe that he should be referred to by his name "Satpal" and once as "Satpal (also known as Bal Bhagwan Ji)", the title he was using at the time of the mention. Thanks. Momento ( talk) 21:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Kim Dalton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is autobiographical. As someone who holds a reasonably high profile position in the Australian media I feel it is reasonable to post a short biography on Wikipedia. The short synopsis of my career I feel is not particularly self promoting and it does not comment on or advocate in regard to areas of my work and actions I have taken which may be contested. Unfortunately an anonymous person posting under the name duckquackquackquack keeps inserting material relating to a particular debate around the issue of outsourcing ABC production. I have no problem if this person wishes to set up their own page to advocate their position. However, I think it is unreasonable that they advocate their position anonymously and effectively mount a criticism of me. I would appreciate it if you were able to take some action on this matter.
The text in question is below.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Kim Dalton.
'Privatising the Australian Broadcasting Corporation
On 10 August 2011, in a letter by the CPSU (Community and Public Sector Union) on behalf of ABC Staff, [1] the Section Secretary Graeme Thomson responded to ABC Managing Director Mark Scott's 'all staff email' [2], which defended Kim Dalton's axing of TV programs: The New Inventors, Collectors and Art Nation. Mr Thomson confirms that ABC staff has called for an audit of what has become known as the 'Dalton Model', a style of management that diverts public funding to the private sector, resulting in the termination of in-house productions, mass redundancies and skill shortages.
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon passed a motion in the upper house on 17 August 2011 with the support of Labor and The Greens for an inquiry into 'Recent ABC (TV) programming decisions'. [3] The report which came out in October 2011 [4] is critical of Kim Dalton's management, quoting him in Perth, where he announced to ABC production staff 'that only program ideas pitched from outside the ABC would be considered for production' 3.37.
With regard to the 'Dalton Model', the Australian Senate recommended this:
'The committee recommends that the ABC ensure that it maintains an effective capacity to internally produce quality programming across the regions in addition to news, sport and current affairs. The committee notes that the increasing use of external producers has the capacity to diminish the ABC’s independence and skill base. 3.50'
On 24 February 2012, the ABC appointed Katrina Sedgwick to a newly formed position of ABC TV Head of Arts. [5] In this role; created to 'provide stronger focus on the ABC's arts programming', [6] she answers directly to ABC Head of Television, Kim Dalton. Ironically, it was Dalton who 6 months earlier axed the internally produced program Art Nation. [7] Dalton revealed to the media that 'As a result of changes to our arts production and line up last year (2011) we have increased the resources committed to primetime arts programming to be commissioned from the independent production sector.' [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim7159 ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Is Kim Dalton insisting on controlling his own biography? 'The short synopsis of my career'? The revision by Bbb23, although simplifying the article has resulted in the loss of content. If it is to be revised, I suggest leaving the course of events involving the Australian Senate. It is also important that the article contain information relevant to an obvious effort by Dalton to funnel public money into the private sector. The senate has made comment on this and Dalton himself recently mentioned it in the media. The additions I have made over time are well referenced and I would be the first to amend any inaccuracies. With regard to the confusion over the Senate Report, the dates are correct and available on http://www.aph.gov.au. -- Duckquackquack ( talk) 05:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
A real need here is for solid background to balance high-profile the subject currently has. this is a good source, and I'm sure that those who actually know what his job involves can find more. Stuartyeates ( talk) 05:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Point taken that it was hard to follow but I now have a major issue with the article, the Senate report into ABC TV programming decisions, which specifically mentions Dalton came out in October 2011, here is the official link http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=ec_ctte/abc/report/index.htm. I would like to quote Recommendation 1. 3.50 'The committee recommends that the ABC ensure that it maintains an effective capacity to internally produce quality programming across the regions in addition to news, sport and current affairs. The committee notes that the increasing use of external producers has the capacity to diminish the ABC’s independence and skill base.' This is at odds with the way Dalton is currently running ABC TV and should be juxtaposed with the recent article ( http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2012/02/24/abc-tv-appoints-head-of-arts/) about the new head of arts and dalton's comment that he has 'increased the resources committed to primetime arts programming to be commissioned from the independent production sector. Given that Dalton is a public figure and answers to the government I believe that 'increasing programming from the private sector' and the Senate's recommendation that 'increasing use of external producers has the capacity to diminish the ABC’s independence and skill base' is relevant and should be added to this biography. Please respond before I make the changes. -- Duckquackquack ( talk) 02:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not looking for support, I'm pointing out to the group that this article is obsolete. The Senate report that it mentions has been available since the 13th of October 2011. Check the link. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=ec_ctte/abc/report/index.htm -- Duckquackquack ( talk) 14:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
You have reverted the new information, fine. But you have left the article incorrect. THE SENATE REPORT HAS BEEN RELEASED (not due in October 2012). If you do not want to correct this I will. -- Duckquackquack ( talk) 00:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Viktor Yanukovych ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Your attention is urgently needed on this article. An edit-war has erupted over including the details of the personal life and business activities not of Victor but Oleksandr, his son, in a transparent attempt to embarrass Victor Yanukovych by implication and weasel means. There has also been a message left on my talk with charged analogies. Help is needed. The edit in question is: diff. Further, a more general look is needed into the other sections of this article. There is a blunders section which reads like a polemic suitably titled: Yanukovych's famous public speaking errors (blunders). This needs to be removed also. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 23:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks all! Just to be clear I will not oppose Bbb23 as I see now what is standard in Wikipedia but I have made a start with an article about this son, Oleksandr Yanukovych, (will take a new look at it after the week-end) and I did write in there "Various Ukrainian press have sugested people close to Oleksandr have landed some of Ukraine’s most important position". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Grant Cardone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editor “ Henry Sewell” and others have been making changes to the Grant Cardone page since at least June 2011. Combined with attempts to restore prior versions of the article, this engagement may qualify as an “ edit war,” which indicates the matter should be raised to the Noticeboard for discussion and resolution.
The “Henry Sewell” version of the page removes relevant or noteworthy information from earlier versions of the page (e.g., acknowledging the birth of Mr. Cardone’s second daughter, Scarlett; descriptions of Mr. Cardone’s businesses under the “Entrepreneur” section; citation to his fourth book, The 10X Rule).
Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, “Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.” Mr. Cardone is a motivational speaker and author, and his religious beliefs are not relevant to his public life or notability as a motivational speaker and author.
Wikipedia’s editorial standards for Biographies of living persons (BLPs) expressly state that editors must “Be very firm about the use of high quality sources.” See Wikipedia:Biolgraphies of living persons. The claim that Mr. Cardone is a “high-level Scientologist” is not supported in the text of the article found in footnote 2 of “Henry Sewell’s” edit of the Cardone article. Footnote 3 of the current Cardone article, a citation to truthaboutscientology.com, does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sources. When a reliable source is required, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Likewise, the Village Voice article cited as Footnote 4 of the current Cardone article does not state that Mr. Cardone conducts “Fair Game” activities in the body of the article.
Even if Mr. Cardone’s religious beliefs were relevant to his public life or notability, the overall treatment of Mr. Cardone’s adherence to Scientology is not given neutral treatment, from the description in the opening paragraph to the “ Attack on Milton Katselas” section. This runs contrary to Wikipedia’s presumption in favor of privacy in BLPs, the importance of a neutral point of view (one of Wikipedia’s core principles), and is inconsistent with the balanced and proportionate treatment found in discussion of Scientology on pages of other public figures who are adherents to the Church of Scientology (see, for example, the relatively modest discussion of Scientology on pages for John Travolta, Jenna Elfman, Anne Archer, and others).
"Henry Sewell’s" comments on the Grant Cardone Talk page suggest a personal agenda to antagonize Mr. Cardone, rather than bona fide efforts to edit the article in a neutral manner in keeping with Wikipedia’s BLP standards. On October 1, 2011, “Henry Sewell” posted the following message to the Talk:Grant Cardone page: “Having some fun and games with someone attempting to remove the mention of Cardone's involvement with Scientology's Fair Game practises in relation to the mass email sent to Scientologists linked to its Los Angeles Celebrity Centre. If it persists, I shall add additional data concerning the email, and a letter Cardone sent directly to Katselas.”
The “ Attack on Milton Katselas” section is problematic in a few ways: When the subject of a BLP is a public figure, allegations must be supported by multiple sources ( Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: “If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.”). Here, the Milton Katselas section is supported by citation to just a single source, the Village Voice article.
Second, BLPs must be balanced: “Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints…[c]are must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.” The section heading, “Attack on Milton Katselas” is not neutral. The section itself comprises an entire printed page of a three-page article (excluding references), and is therefore “disproportionate” relative to the overall article. Again, compare both the quality and quantity of content to that found in BLPs of other notable Scientologists.
The inclusion of Mr. Cardone’s involvement in “Freedom Motorsports Group, Inc.” appears to be made for no other purpose than to further establish a connection between Mr. Cardone and the Church of Scientology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.107.157 ( talk) 00:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
More eyes on this article would be appreciated. Despite being an apparent copyright violation and representing significant BLP concerns, my initial edit was reverted.
Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (
talk) 15:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted the removal of the information concerning Cardone's attack on Milton Katselas. I'm not sure how else his activities in this regard could be described, especially in light of Wikipedia's own article on the subject of Fair Game. Also, the claim in regard copyrght can be ignored in that there has been no complaint made in this regard and, even then, what has been quoted amounts to "Fair Use". If there is a consensus that the email material be removed, there is no consequential need to remove the section dealing with this aspect Cardone's biography. Henry Sewell ( talk) 21:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a some disagreement about Sheldon Souray and Angelica Bridges being divorced. When either page is modified to say they are divorced, the changes are reverted. I've found multiple sources saying the 2 are divorced. I can add them all to the statement saying they are divorced, but it will likely be reverted again. I'm not sure why this a divorce that happened in 2007 is being removed. AuroraHcky ( talk) 02:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
To whom it may concern.
Although I attended the same drama school as Alex Sweet the information and any references to me he has supplied are incorrect, please remove from the page.
Kind regards Arthur Byrne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9teeskid ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Richard F. Cebull ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has received a fair amount of attention since the e-mail he forwarded was (apparently) forwarded to the media. There is currently a battle going on about whether we should include an interpretation of what the e-mail means by a journalist. One editor insists on putting it in (the usual "it's a fact and it's reliably sourced" argument), and two editors (me included) believe it doesn't belong. The inclusion editor refuses to address some of the issues raised on the article Talk page.
At one point, the e-mail was quoted in the article. It was removed by yet another editor who felt it was WP:UNDUE, although that's not precisely what she said in her edit summary. That editor hasn't contributed to the current discussion.
The Talk page discussion isn't long, so you can fairly easily follow the issues. In a nutshell, my view is we shouldn't be including interpretations of the e-mail, even if reliably sourced. The interpretation currently included is just one interpretation. There are others. So, do we have to cite to all of them? If we do, I think that's clearly too much WP:WEIGHT. If we don't, we are cherrypicking. As for putting back in the text of the e-mail, I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, I like it because then, as lawyers say, the document speaks for itself. On the other hand, I can see Jokestress's point, that it's more information than is needed. I suppose I favor just restoring the article back to before the interpretation and without quoting the e-mail. It's a reasonable digest of what happened. It's unlikely there will be any further news on this issue until the Ninth Circuit issues a ruling on the judicial misconduct issue.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Iain Duncan Smith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can I ask for more eyes on this article? A single purpose IP is continuing to add sections like these which are stuffed full of synthesis, original research and attacks on the article's subject. Myself and another editor have already removed them, but they keep adding them back. Valenciano ( talk) 23:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Robin van Persie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor has been removing a referenced but controversial action by a famous footballer. This is one such edit. The section is worded:
With the Daily Mail as the reference. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2055547/Robin-van-Persie-denies-Nazi-salute-Chelsea.html "I'm no Nazi! Van Persie slams internet rumours over 'salute' celebration against Chelsea". For some reason this has become controversial today, four months after it was added. Discussion at Talk:Robin van Persie#Nazi salute. Need some additional comments here or there. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Sally Boazman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am the person accused of this `stalking` incident. My name is Hilary Reeves(nee French).
I have recently deleted this article about me, as i thought after 9 years it was inappropriate to my circumstances at the present, as i am in a legal tangle regarding this issue, which has excluded my main reason for being arrested. My concern over subliminal messaging at the place of her work. I have also noted, that as the Leveson Enquiry is including many famous people for the alleged hacking of their phones, and i have reason to believe this is being done to my e-mails, i have been omitted from that.
The article also suggests the name of Jamie Pyatt, who was included in this process, and was arrested over illegally purchasing information from the police. This article has also not been removed from other sources i have enquired about, although i have instinctively suggested i am not the cause of this harrassment, and i have further written proof to verify this.
This could then become a two way attack on each parties concerned as ha(d) is a sic note. I have legal implications applying to this post, and wish it to be removed immediately.
This is an attack that is permanently ongoing, with no appeal being made on my behalf, due to abuse of process. Something very fishy going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.206.117 ( talk) 22:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
@80.4.206.117, I am having trouble following you, but the information you removed from the article (which has since been restored) satisfies Wikipedia's standards of relevance and reliability. If you feel strongly about the issue, you might want to e-mail the Wikimedia foundation at info-en-q@wikimedia.org. See WP:FEFS.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Sons of Guns ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm in the awkward position of being the lone WP:BLP reverter at Sons of Guns and don't want an edit war sanction to come down on me. I believe I come under the WP:BLP exception, but I don't want to press that. The article is about a TV show that centers around Red Jacket Firearms (RJF) and its BLP principal Will Hayden. The issue is including the description of a lawsuit, Radford v RJF and Hayden. There's no doubt the lawsuit exists; it is available on the federal court information system (PACER). I believe WP:WELLKNOWN is not met. WP:BLPPRIMARY WP:BLPREMOVE
The description of the lawsuit in the article
[25] is based on the complaint and does not have an opposing view. The proponents claim that it is well sourced, but the offered references are
an internet copy of the complaint and
Justia's docket report that merely reflects the existence of the lawsuit. There are no reliable independent reports about the lawsuit and that suggest that it is notable.
Glrx (
talk) 01:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Brenda Vaccaro ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I wonder if the references are reliable to verify data. -- George Ho ( talk) 13:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Cardinal O'Brien's recent statement on gay marriage is being used in the article and on the talk page to label him in ways not in the sources. Anyone think I should rev/del? Dougweller ( talk) 18:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Just checking. Is the following addition to Julius West Middle School OK? I moved the reference from the bottom of the page to a more appropriate place. diff Wanted to make sure that the reporting of the arrest is appropriate. Thanks Jim1138 ( talk) 01:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Uki Goñi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the other works section, there is a piece poorly added which is libellous grafitti and even if it wasn't, does not adhere to grammatical standards. I'm too unfamiliar with wikipedia to use the diff system for highlighting errors without recopying them but its quite obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.60.243 ( talk) 17:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Farhat Hashmi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'll be very grateful for a neutral set of eyes to look at the Farhat Hashmi article, its recent edits and its talk page. I think that in places this articles strays away from the subject, a person (Farhat Hashmi), and wanders into only tangentially related wider discussions about Wahhabism, extremism, veiled women, etc. The inclusion of information on loosely related topics impacts negatively on the proportionality / balance / focus of the article. I don't mean its neutrality. That seems ok. I mean its emphasis. Despite the comment of one editor, thing has nothing to do with any "personal like/dislikes". I am merely trying to keep the article tight, focused and sticking only to the person it is about. GorgeCustersSabre ( talk) 17:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Marcus D. Wiley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marcus D. Wiley attended and graduated from Willowridge High School. I was his Science instructor. He did not attend Missouri City High. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.112.15 ( talk) 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Imre Kertész ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Earlier versions of this page made reference to Kertész having criticized film director Steven Spielberg. The reference may appear on Wikipedia pages devoted to Spielberg.
The reference is important as Kertész is understood as having made comments that were never libellous, sladerous or defamatory concerning what might be termed "commercialization of the Nazi Holocaust" -- an important point for those who appreciate Kertész´s comments concerning Spielberg (and other directors, producers, and actors) and the subject of the Nazi Holocaust.
Inclusion of the comment (cross-referenced, cited, and linked) would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.41.88 ( talk) 09:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Jennifer McCreight ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editors at Talk:Jennifer McCreight disagree about whether or not the page satisfies WP:BLP1E. It would be very helpful to have advice on this question from uninvolved editors familiar with BLP policy. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Eric Joyce ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've removed some rather tabloid-esque breaking news about this British member of parliament. This will probably go back in once it's got some stronger sourcing and the details of the alleged incident are clearer; extra eyes on the article would be helpful. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 02:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
This article needs to be analyzed. It has IMDB references, which are totally unreliable. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The Heartland Institute ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John C. McGinley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just read the Bio for actor John McGinley... I found that one of his movies was missing from the list. In the 1993 movie "The Last Outlaw" he played the part of Wills. Mickey Rourke and Dermot Mulroney also stared in the film. 24.0.220.51 ( talk) 19:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Amy Paulin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The third paragraph was added on 2/22 and is unsourced, biased, and innacurate in clear violation of BLP policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.97.104.30 ( talk) 22:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
In the initial summary Meg Ryan is referred to as a "disgusting actress." It's clearly libelous and callous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.234.205 ( talk) 03:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ken McKenna (attorney) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page has been nominated for deletion and subjected to numerous edits to make it less like an advertisement. To this day, this page reads like a cleaned up version of the subject's website and really only asserts notability related to the Judas Priest trial. On the talk page, someone indicated they believed the subject was notable because of the assertions of media appearances. There is no sourced information to support those statements however, and no evidence of any media appearances seems to exist online. If someone could take a look at this to remove the unsourced items, I think it would make the notability concerns that much easier to deal with. The section related to the political career also does not provide for notability under Wikipedia's notability guidelines (local politics does not provide notability).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.249.98 ( talk • contribs)
The wikipedia entry for Fred Singer needs to be updated. A prize-winning, highly acclaimed book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway called MERCHANTS OF DOUBT (2010 Bloomsbury Press) contains a lot of information on Singer. In particular, the same techniques that Singer used to contest the consensus opinion on secondhand smoke have also been implemented with regard to climate science. The book by Oreskes and Conway should be included in the bibliography/references section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.220.192 ( talk) 08:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
J.J. Milan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a section in J.J.'s article titled World of Warcraft that doesn't fit with the rest of the biography and hardly seems within wikipedia's scope or policies. Kyletheobald ( talk) 09:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Marco Rubio ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lots of stuff as to when and by whom he was baptized etc. making up a very large part of his "personal life." Is it reasonable to make a big deal of what churches he attended before the age of 13 etc.? Or is it of insufficient value in what is a biography of a person and not just about his life before he was a teenager? I can see some material - but this BLP has had huge amounts of energy spent in discussion his religion and not all that much about his actual life experiences. Or is it important to stress his Mormon connection from when his family lived in Nevada? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Noreen Renier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This bio came up here a few days ago: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Editor_assistance_needed_for_Noreen_Renier_entry. The article as it stands needs either deletion or much better sourcing. At the moment, it is basically an attack page. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Justin Edl ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Home on the Range is now regarded as 5.13-. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelineguiles ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Fred Singer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi. I came across this BLP violation/edit-war. At issue is this edit
Leaked documents reveal that Singer is paid $5,000 a month by the conservative Heartland Institute, though there is no independent verification as to whether these payments were actually made.<ref>{{cite news|last=Goldenberg|first=Suzanne|title=Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate|accessdate=15 February 2012|newspaper=The Guardian|date=15 February 2012}}</ref>
I find it a BLP violation as a clear rumour and also self-contradictory; on one hand it asserts that Leaked documents reveal that Singer is paid $5,000 a month by the conservative Heartland Institute on the other it states: though there is no independent verification as to whether these payments were actually made which begs the question how can in the first sentence be asserted that he gets paid when there is no confirmation that the payment was actually made. In any case I leave it up to the interested editors here to comment. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Akonjignal ( talk · contribs)
User is making rafts of unsourced additions to articles, connecting Akon to numerous other artists, many of which don't appear to be associated. 99.136.255.180 ( talk) 12:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute here over how to present Khader Adnan's affiliation with Islamic Jihad in Palestine. See this diff - at issue is the third paragraph of the lead. Both versions presented in the diff are attempts to summarize the sources cited in the article, some of which state his membership and leadership in the group as a matter of fact, some as speculation, some as a past affiliation. His wife, who has served as his spokesman while he is detention, says he used to be a spokesman for the group but has not had any contact with them for more than four years (See the talk page discussion here). Note that a couple of the sources saying he is a spokesman or leader for the group date back to 2005. See the subsections Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine and Previous arrests and detentions in the article for the sources. If people want them relisted here for clarity, please let me know. Tiamut talk 17:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Please note that the core problem, as I see it, is that the current version of the article states his leadership in the organization, considered a terrorist goup by Israel, as undisputed fact. Given that this is disputed by some sources and that he is currently being held in administrative detention without charge, this seems prejuidicial and in my opinion constitutes a BLP violation. I'm not going to revert it on it site though, because its arguable and I don't want to be sanctioned for edit warring (these articles are subject to 1RR restrictions barring clear BLP violations). So the situation is little urgent, particularly since this article is nominated for DYK and could appear on the main page shortly. Thanks for your patience and diligence in advance. Tiamut talk 20:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Yve-Alain Bois ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article states that Yve-Alain Bois has written books on American postwar art INCLUDING Wladyslaw Strzeminski and Katarzyna Kobro, who were both Polish, not American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.113.145.67 ( talk) 19:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Alan Shearer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The goals to games ratio listed in the introduction states this is 0.67. when at the bottom of the article where the actual games and goals scores are listed it confirms that the ration is actually 0.51. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.179.152 ( talk) 23:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No policy violation yet, but there appears to be a move to make one. Shortly after word that Dawkins tried to tell Christians they aren't really Christian if they have any secular attitudes started spreading around via both Christians of all politics and conservatives of all religions as an Internet meme (it's the featured main page article at Conservapedia, for example), a questionable "let's label Dawkins not-really-an-atheist" RfC "coincidentally" shows up at Talk:Richard Dawkins#RfC: Atheist or agnostic?. This should be closely watched for signs of meatpuppetry. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, all. There has been a recent edit to Paul Gottfried's page with the following comment:
"Gottfried is also a known anti-feminist, Paul Gottfried maintains that the change of women's rights "has been a social disaster that continues to take its toll on the family" and contributed to a "descent by increasingly disconnected individuals into social chaos". [2][3]"
The links referenced in the article do not contain the quotes listed in the paragraph. It appears this was a sloppy cut and paste from the "Antifeminism" page, which includes information about Gottfried. The link included on that page is " http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried9.html". The full quote from that article is:
"Serious conservative scholars like Allan Carlson and F. Carolyn Graglia have maintained that the change of women's role, from being primarily mothers to self-defined professionals, has been a social disaster that continues to take its toll on the family. Rather than being the culminating point of Western Christian gentility, the movement of women into commerce and politics may be seen as exactly the opposite, the descent by increasingly disconnected individuals into social chaos."
Clearly, Gottfried here is describing the opinions of others, rather than making these statements himself.
I believe that the recent edit to Gottfried's page should be removed, and perhaps the Antifeminism page should be updated as well. Please let me know if I've provided enough information. I'd really appreciate any assistance you can provide! I'm not Gottfried, but he's asked me to see if I can follow up on this on his behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherwood robert ( talk • contribs) 07:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Piyush Trivedi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Piyush Trivedi is a mess with a huge amount of detail and trivia about an obviously notable academic, with the only thing approaching a reliable source his biography on his university's website. It's being edited by someone who seems to be related, Devanshtrivedi ( talk · contribs). I could have taken to to COIN but this board seems more relevant. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The article gives credit to Darrell Scott writing Folsom Prison, which was covered by Johnny Cash. Cash was already performing this song, which he mostly wrote, 6 years before Darrell Scot was born. That's not to take away from the many amazing songs that Darrell did write. But such a glaring error should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdror ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
John Calipari ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I was drawn to this article for another reason, but while there, I noticed the Controversies section. I severely edited the first subsection, but I'm not sure if any of this belongs in the article. I haven't reviewed it in any detail, but what I've looked at strikes me as WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE. Ironically, I and another editor have just been battling with an IP who removed subsections without explanation. I reverted on principle, but I'm not sure that the IP isn't right to remove them. There's a discussion about the subsections on the Talk page, and one editor has recommended a disposition of each. More eyes might be helpful.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Andrea James ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a quite complex case here at the NPOVN, in which a group of editors are adding additional critical content to the BLP of a wikipedian (who they quite clearly dislike for various complicated reasons), after she posted a request to include information from reliable sources to balance a perceived imbalance towards a too critical coverage. It seems some editors are trying to make a point rather than follow policy. More eyes on both the Andrea James biography and the BPOVN thread would be great. I don't think its in great style to respond to a BLP concern by piling on. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 03:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This article has a "Legal troubles" section. However, I wonder if this is necessary to leave it as is or remove it as "unverifiable". -- George Ho ( talk) 03:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
What about this source: the cocaine news? the flu virus? shoplifting? 1991 drug abuse? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE: There were additions: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Adam_Rich&action=historysubmit&diff=479436595&oldid=479332061 -- George Ho ( talk) 08:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Martina Navratilova ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
wikipedias discussion on the virus toxoplasmosis says she retired in 1982 from it. She did not retire and her bio says nothing about toxoplasmosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.111.128.81 ( talk) 03:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Alec Monopoly ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:LTufo1125 is continuously vandalizing and adding innapropriate materal that is false about alec monopoly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.25.211.193 ( talk) 05:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Content regarding this individual's personal life, specifically an alleged affair continues to be added to the article. [5], [6], [7], [8]. None of the references provided state that Mr. Flynn even confirmed that the alleged indiscretion involved the person mentioned in the article. Instead, he is quoted as saying: "I have done my wife and family a great wrong, and I profoundly regret the hurt I have inflicted on them and others affected by my conduct." It should also be noted that there is an active OTRS ticket open on this matter asking that the material be taken down. Tiptoety talk 07:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Vikas Pota ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As with the Brian Solis report, this is an example of blatant self-promotion and again, I would delete it were I more confident about the policy aspects of doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.144.231 ( talk) 08:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first paragraph of Meryl Streep s bio has libelous info and contentious wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.164.128 ( talk) 19:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Ian Baraclough ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Baraclough has just been appointed manager of LOI side Sligo Rovers and his profile appears to have been hijacked as a result — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.29.168 ( talk) 22:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Ergun Caner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mythbuster09 has been making massive deletions to the Ergun Caner wiki. The deletions are properly sourced and come from a number of sources. 1. I cited his brother's book about their conversion. 2. I cited the book Ergun Caner co-authored with Emir Caner, Unveiling Islam. 3. I cited two unedited videos of speeches Ergun Caner gave to the USMC in North Carolina. 4. I cited two articles written by David McGee about events that Caner spoke at in Bristol, VA. 5. I cited once, the blog of the man who acquired the videos by the Freedom of Information Act. He said the content in these articles show a clear bias and this is not a place to recount every speech Ergun Caner has ever made. However, he himself attempted to recount the controversy in summary, but deletes the material from the local reporters. I do not wish to start an edit war so I am taking this to the talk page. I have tried talking to Mythbuster09. He has only responded by editing the page. MosesModel 01:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MosesModel ( talk • contribs)
Also note that "anonymous" makes for a bad source for any claim in any BLP. Collect ( talk) 13:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Good Evening. I am posting my response here as well as the TALK page. Please forgive me if I have misunderstood a Wikipedia policy, as I am still pretty new to this site and learning the ropes. I am baffled that Mosesmodel's edits have been allowed to continue on Ergun Caner's page, as he has failed to demonstrate his ability to maintain verifiable sources and is clearly not writing from a neutral and disinterested point of view. I have edited Ergun Caner's page to fall within the guidelines of Wikipedia's BLP policy and would ask that this page be reverted to my previous form and protected from further editing by Mosesmodel. I will address Mosesmodel's complaints and explain my reasoning below.
Mosesmodel Complaints: 1. I have still cited each book mentioned by Mosesmodel as a source, perhaps not in the same structure, but certainly referencing the same material. 2. Through reading the talk page, it is my understanding that the videos that Mosesmodel has attempted to post have already been debated and determined to be primary sources, of which there is no place for in a BLP. 3. I had no problem with the sourcing of the McGee article, however, again as I read through the "Talk" page associated with Ergun Caner's article, I found the determination, by an editor, that stated this page was not a place to recount every speaking engagement this man has ever made. 4. Mosesmodel cited a blog from which one of these videos was taken. To only cite specific videos that purport one side of the story is neither neutral, nor disinterested. Mosesmodel thus is not using his editing abilities to present a neutral, encyclopedic entry. 5. Yes, I have tried to recount the controversy, in summary, and give the average reader a neutral overview of the controversy. I have not deleted every reference to the controversy, nor did I intend to. I merely, as stated in the BLP policy, paired back the information so that it remained neutral and within BLP guidelines.
Mythbuster09 Concerns: 1. I have done everything in my power to correct the bias writing and create a page that is encyclopedic, not a tabloid page. 2. In so doing, I have edited out specific references to one or two speeches that Ergun Caner presented, as they are not reflective of his entire speaking career. I have several hundred videos and transcripts available from his career where he negates the information Mosesmodel wishes to use in his videos. Instead of flood this page with hundreds of cited speaking engagements, I merely deleted the select few that Mosesmodel used, and did not add any, in order to maintain a neutral tone in this article. 3. If you look further back in the page history, you will see that Mosesmodel has attempted to give disproportionate space to this "controversy" time and time again. This, to my understanding, is yet another violation of the BLP policy. Both criticism and praise should be presented responsibly, which I have tried to do. I have addressed the controversy, I have cited articles that detail the controversy, and I have moved on. Mosesmodel attempts to make this entire article about the controversy, which again, is against BLP policy. 4. All in all, the policy of Wikipedia seems to be that, when in doubt, pair back the article to comply with the BLP policy. I think if you read my article in its most complete form, that you will find I have presented Ergun Caner's history, career, and the controversy in a fair and neutral way. 5. It appears that this is not the first time Mosesmodel has tried to dispute other users. A quick search on the internet pulled up a Twitter account and a YouTube page of his where a majority of his energy is spent trying to "expose Ergun Caner." This is hardly then a user who can be trusted to write from a neutral or disinterested tone. I would ask again that you would protect this page from his edits and allow my neutral article to presented in full. Thank you for your quick response to this situation. I hope that this can be resolved fairly.--Mythbuster09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythbuster09 ( talk • contribs) 01:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Edit warring by Breadbasket ( talk · contribs), née Aaemn784 ( talk · contribs)
This UK peer has had a "colourful" life. Multiple convictions for fraud in multiple countries and a bigamous marriage are just part of it. These accusations are far from complimentary, but they're supported by clear refs from multiple UK broadsheet newspapers. user:Breadbasket disagrees and has removed this content five times over the last week, leaving the article as a completely anodyne (and effectively unreferenced) statement of nothing. It now even manages to contain the overlapping statements "[marriage #1] were divorced in 1996" and "In 1993, married [#2]", yet without using the term "bigamy" so that the crucial point here isn't obvious to the reader. This is whitewashing - removing the conclusion, yet not having the confidence to claim that the cause isn't itself correct.
The editor has an interesting history too. A relatively low mileage editor, they have been focussed on this article for some months, with attempts to speedy delete it last year, lots of traffic in the WP: namespace, sundry warnings to and from others and a block for edit-warring [9]. They're also in the habit of blanking their talk: with the usual message "We do in general not wish to receive messages here.". Fuller versions are [10], [11]. From this behaviour I'd have a strong suspicion of a COI with the 13th Duke, except that the editor's behaviour on other nobility-related articles suggests it might just be a personal foible.
This is edit warring. However I'm raising it here first to gain consensus that the detailed version of this article is considered appropriate, otherwise it would be summarily rejected at WP:3RR if this hadn't already been done. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: some really useless verbiage is now removed - including stuff about how he should be "styled" which is found in no other Wikipedia articles that I could find. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Alex Standish ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is the person mentioned in this news story the same person described in this biography? An editor is making this claim, which seems plausible, but given the nature of the crime involved I have reverted because it is not entirely clear to me. Another editor has previously reverted for the same reason. Additional opinions are sought. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated for deletion based on notability concerns. JFHJr ( ㊟) 22:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: The name "Alexander Standish" is relatively common, as it is the name of Myles Standish's son, and was reused by many over the years. Any connections should require the utmost care. Collect ( talk) 22:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Bill Clinton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not to rain on any Republican's parade, but Bill Clinton was most definitely not, as the article states, "found dead on his room. No further informations (sic) known." Impossible, because he did not die on February 08, 2012, as the "Death" section of his Wikipedia page states. The big clue here is that, he is alive, yet, has a "Death" section.
As incorrect statements go, this is probably one of the biggies. Might wanna give it the ol' change-a-roo.
But don't worry. I already screen-capped it and posted it on my Facebook because it was hilarious.
~ Chris
The information in the 'Military' section is incorrect regarding statements made by Ted Nugent in the interview which is archived here:
Specifically, 2S Vietnam draft classification versus 1Y as stated by Nugent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makalu7 ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Anastasia Klose ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The second link "2. Anna klose art info..." links to a porn website, there should be a process to easily report such issues, luckily I was was over 18, children should not be exposed to such things, you should be able to easily report such issues, I still can not find who I should be sending the information to, and I do not know what the link should be, do not wish to edit it myself. It should be noted this is an article about a living person. Plus know hoping I have not down loaded a virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.172.119 ( talk) 23:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Nancy Seaman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Listed for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Seaman Needs more comments so a consensus can be reached.
I think it violates WP:BLP1E because the event(crime) is bigger then the person and sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. I think it violates WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME because I am not sure if it confers notability or if sources provided meets the guidelines regarding reliable sources at-least 1 is WP:BLPPRIMARY. Theworm777 ( talk) 11:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Needs more comments so a consensus can be reached.
The same editor is back trying to reinsert the material that violates WP:BLPCRIME. His last reversion edit summary says "If this is so bad, why leave-in the other refs to Black?". I believe he is referring to other articles that also violate the same policy.
First, the material can't remain in the Fabb article because it is a BLP violation against Robert Black (not a wonderful person to defend, but even bad people have rights). Second, violations of the same policy that exist in other articles can be dealt with, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping a BLP violation in an article. Finally, one of the reasons I didn't fight as hard to keep out the Black material in the other articles was because of some confusion about BLP policy/guidelines on this issue. That confusion has since been resolved.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There appears to be a consensus reached on a new version for the Tate article (drafted by Ian). As I believe both Ian and David agree (from reading their conversations), the stuff about Black in the Fabb article is more attenuated than the material in the Tate article. So, I have two questions. First, do Ian and David believe the Fabb article can remain without the Black material? Second, if not, does Ian want to take a stab at drafting a new version as he did with the Tate article? I'm not saying that I will approve of the version (that's not meant to be condescending), but he did a very good job with the redraft of the Tate article, so ...-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Is this person dead or alive? HWWilson said that he has access to the same-sex porn magazine Stallion to confirm that his real name is Thomas Earl Hagen. The "Thomas Earl Hagen" guy in the Salt Lake City obituary is dead, and HWWilson believes that Thomas guy is the same Kip Noll, a porn actor/model. In other words, Kip is supposedly dead. I couldn't find sources that Kip is dead as "Thomas"; in fact, the obituary did not mention "Kip Noll" or that Thomas is Kip. Nevertheless, HWWilson keeps adding it after I deleted that entry over and over. Also, there were talks about his "death" in the talk page prior. Should this be reported to WP:COIN, or what else? -- George Ho ( talk) 20:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Geoff Thompson (writer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have just amended the Geoff Thompson (writer) article as someone had inserted comments saying theat Geoff Thompson was (Redacted). I need to know who made the changes so I can take legal action
(cur | prev) 00:07, 19 February 2012 81.141.179.62 (talk) (5,726 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 00:07, 19 February 2012 81.141.179.62 (talk) (5,726 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 00:04, 19 February 2012 81.141.179.62 (talk) (5,592 bytes) (undo)
Please can you provide me with the information so I can pass it on to our lawyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisthompson1989 ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't realise that it was against wikipedia rules. surely you must understand that it is frustrating that such damaging comments can be placed on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisthompson1989 ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
After reviewing the edits in question, I suppressed them so they are no longer available to read in the history of the article. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Brian Solis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page is pure self-serving advertising for a commercial venture. It cheapens Wikipedia and should be removed at once. This content was uploaded by the subject in order to give the impression of importance to his business. Ignore this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realsouthwest ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Shakthi Scott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is written in such a way to promote the subject and his works. The author has written it in a style of expressing his/her own thoughts. Moreover, the article doesn't seem to connect with anyother article. 59.163.114.169 ( talk) 09:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Marek Halter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am currently reading a book written by Marek Halter in 2010 - The Kabbalist from Prague. The last book listed in his article is written in 2008. How can I contact the editor of his article? I don't want to make changes myself. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.132.148 ( talk) 18:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Morton Deutsch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bender235 keeps reverting Morton Deutsch's page to a shortened, incomplete version. Morton Deutsch is a 93 year old accomplished individual who deserves to have a complete entry on wikipedia. Please let me know what I can do to stop Bender 235.
Joe
(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.82.59 ( talk) 21:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
A complete,accurate biography of Morton Deutsch has been prepared by a Professor[ a former student of Morton Deutsch],with the approval of Morton Deutsch.This biography is constantly being replaced by a very abbreviated statement,which contains errors,and does not provide a useful summary of Deutsch's career and accomplishments nor of his many distinguished awards.This inadequate statement should not be allowed to constantly replace the fuller accurate biography of Morton Deutsch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.82.205 ( talk) 20:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The full,accurate,error-free biography of Morton Deutsch in Wikipedia is constantly being replaced by avery brief,inadequte statement,which contains errors, that does not contain any description of Deutsch's career,his many professional contributions,nor his many distinguihed awards.This very inadequate statement should not be allowed to constantly displace the fine biography of Morton Deutsch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ida Prager ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Rush Limbaugh ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I just deleted a section containing one entry from Talk:Rush_Limbaugh. I deleted the section title also due to its tone. Normally I would leave a note, but that was challenging since the title went, too. I'm not requesting any action, but I wanted you to know in case an explanatory note on the page is necessary. All the best, Overjive ( talk) 05:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Óscar Uzcátegui ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I just came across this article while patrolling new Venezuelan articles, and I'm unaware of the latest thinking of how to handle uncited BLPSs. The article was translated from the Romanian version, where it is also uncited. It's a mess. Is it OK to reduce it to a stub? If not, I don't have time to sort through the long translated mess. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I nominated for deletion. Link above. JFHJr ( ㊟) 04:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
One editor proposes using [15] as a source for stating that a named person made a large donation to a "super PAC" not officially connected to the campaign. Several questions arise:
I think this covers "ringing the changes" on the obvious issues there. Collect ( talk) 22:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
1.) It's USA Today, so it's a reliable source
2.) Nope, a campaign isn't a living person (it's comprised of living people, true, but it's not a living person)
3.) Not a contentious claim, again, the source is reliable, but it would have to be presented as - is, not as part of someone's OR
4.) same as 3
5.) It's connected, per the article.
That being said, if it was used to advance and original idea or a claim not backed up by the sources, it would be wrong to add it in. @- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons► Moon Base Alpha-@ 17:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Police officers charged criminally in Canada ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gross WP:BLP violations: lists non-notable individuals acquitted of charges, or yet to go to trial. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
L.P. (singer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a Laura Pergolizzi fan who has been removing her name from her Wikipedia profile. Just as Cherlyn Sarkisian is known and indexed as Cher and Stefani Germanotta is known as and indexed as Lady Gaga I can see indexing Laura Pergolizzi as LP. However another editor who is a Laura Pergolizzi fan has been removing her name reference from the San Francisco Chronicle and presumably information on her parents. This turns Wikipedia into part of a blatant marketing campaign which seeks to generate mystique for the performer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardBond ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Christina Petrowska-Quilico ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
What seems to be the issue with neutrality of this article? As far as I can see, pertinent facts are all corroborated by the Canadian Encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halibutron ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Dominique Hourani ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The lead simply says "Dominique is a Lebanese Pop Star, former top model, Beauty Queen and an Actress who is considered one of the sexiest beauty and elegance idols in the arab world." The article goes downhill from there. It has no references at all. Dougweller ( talk) 16:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
H. A. Hellyer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
HA Hellyer has clearly authored his own biography quite extensively without any kind of independent verification. Listed are such personal stories such as "Hellyer’s PhD was examined, and passed with minor corrections." Mr. Hellyer has placed a very optimistic version of his resume on wikipedia as a form of self-promotion to aid in his job hunt. Is this the purpose of wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryKissinger01 ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Fazlur Rehman Khalil ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear Admin,
Please correct this page name " Fazlur Rehman Khalil " because the real name is " Moulana Fazal ur Rehman Khalil ".
kind Regard's Sami — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiullah313313 ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Jacques Roy (physician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would appreciate some guidance on this article. Apparently this is a story that just broke. AT this point, the subject is accused, but certainly not convicted of anything. It would appear to me that
WP:BLP1E applies and, given the severity of the accusation (apparently the only thing that are supposed to make this person notable), this seems a BLP issue to me. Thanks. --
Guillaume2303 (
talk) 23:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Yumi Stynes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has been changed to state that this womans children are dead, they are not. She has been involved in making a comment on a television show the "circle", and the internet has gone crazy with people venting their anger at her. They have made death threats and things like what has been done to her wiki page (see controversy). Can you remove the offensive comment and disable her page until this dies down. Her children are very much alive and well.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphina1973 ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Ronnie Lees ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anyone want to clean what appears to be an autobiography? Dougweller ( talk) 11:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Is this normal? I find this too wierd and it caused me some confusion when I tried to read the Fazlur Rehman Khalil arrticle, mostly Arabic names contain ur ou ak interjections, couldn't understand the and. Why is there not a bio, and a section, or two bios? Without reading more, I assume that this is not Laurel and Hardy, Rod Hull and Emu or even Peaches and cream. So why the double act? CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Ariel Levy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Last edit by User:Arielvlevy may be a conflict of interest or just a vandal. It might even be OK. Hybrid2712 ( talk) 17:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Kevin, to the point that I have respectfully removed the COI notice/warning on the new user's talkpage and replaced it with a standard new user welcome message. The ethos of improved sensitivity to the legitimate concerns of BLP subjects suggests that it is not, under any conceivable standard, a "conflict of interest" for someone to correct his or her own birthdate. The issue of the references can be addressed with the editor, if at all, by a tailored message addressing the specific issue, not a boilerplate notice strongly implying that the new user has done something wrong. While I appreciate Bbb23's concerns for the COI guideline and for the integrity of the encyclopedia, these concerns should be expressed and acted on in a way that doesn't necessary offend BLP subjects and potentially drive off new editors (who may of course in some instances be the same people).
Although I would feel this way regardless of who the subject and the (suspected) new editor might be, I find it even less likely that we are dealing with a bad-faith COI situation given who the subject is, namely, a writer for a well-known publication. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Cindy Hyde-Smith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The current biography says both that she is "currently running for Ag. and Commerce... and that she "was elected for Ag. and Commerce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.237.174 ( talk) 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Criss Angel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An edit-war is going on about adding some graphic language about Criss Angel describing someone using profane terms. The edit is linked here. In my opinion this addition is a clear WP:BLP violation. Your opinion on including the linked edit is welcome. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 05:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This is not an edit war, and I have serious concerns about Dr.K failing to assume good faith on my part. Please see my comments in the discussion page here. DenJansen ( talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Boris Ivanishvili ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm not familiar with the rules for BLP. We have a jingoistic dispute over which name to use for Russo-Georgian millionaire Boris/Bidzina Ivanishvili. "Boris" seems more common in English: Forbes uses it, as do 17 of 18 confirmed hits at GBooks (4 with 'Boris' in 2010, one with 'Bidzina' in 2011). However, some newspapers use "Bidzina" (supposedly the Guardian and the Telegraph; I haven't confirmed). His website uses "Bidzina". [17] This might be a case where he went with "Boris" at first, either because he was doing business in Russia or because it was a more familiar name abroad, and then switched to "Bidzina" when he went home to Georgia (the Economist used 'Boris' in 2008 but 'Bidzina' in 2011), though that's just speculation. If his name has changed, 'Bidzina' is more recent, but 'Boris' was used when he was better known / more widely reported in the West.
(Regular Ghits are 483k Boris Ivanishvili, 94k Bidzina Ivanishvili, but if restricted to updates in the last year, 14k Boris Ivanishvili and 76k Bidzina Ivanishvili (phrase search). But they seem a bit screwy: if you restrict Bidzina hits to ones which do not include 'Boris', the number jumps to 1.65M, so I don't know if any of the numbers mean anything.)
Normally, I'd just go with "Boris" per COMMONNAME, unless we could show sources really have switched over, but are there BLP issues that would override that? Do we take personal preferences into account? (I'm not linking this discussion to the bio talk page, because the squabbling there is unlikely to illuminate anything.) — kwami ( talk) 22:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
A new SPA editor (SudburyTaxRelief, contribs) is persistently adding SOAPBOX material to Jay R. Kaufman, declining to engage in Talk page discussion about its problems; please advise. AV3000 ( talk) 20:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Frank Huguelet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IP address 12.73.205.149/136 is repeatedly trying to insert undocumented and libellous information into the article Frank Huguelet. This is a man in Missouri named (Redacted) who has a personal issue with Frank Huguelet and is trying to sully his name through Wikipedia. (Redacted) has been stalking Huguelet online for over five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.126.22 ( talk) 21:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Brandon Cruz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
a user called Sector001 is always re writing the page that is actually about me. yes, i am the subject of the page. i rewrite it, he undoes it. i have not been very nice to him, sorry, but he has NO RIGHT to think he knows of my life. what is the policy of the actual subject writing the truth on their related page, and then having a self appointed internet wiki cop telling them that they cannot change their own story? he says that he can't verify that i am who i say i am. is there a place i can reply to him, or an admin, to verify that i am indeed who i say i am? thank you, brandon cruz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itismesoleavemypagealone ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
John Searle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Hibrido Mutante has repeatedly added a large section to John Searle dealing with the article subject's quarrel with the late Jacques Derrida, most recently here. I have numerous problems with this material. For example, it seems to be written like a POV essay rather than something appropriate to a biography (although Hibrido Mutante has made some changes to that material in response to my criticism of it). My main problem with it, however, is that it is grossly undue and largely repeats the content of another article, Limited Inc. I have tried to explain to Hibrido Mutante that there is no point in simply pasting the contents of one article into another article, but he has ignored me. I have nothing against the article discussing Searle's disagreement with Derrida, but this undue material gives the dispute vastly more space than it deserves, and isn't appropriate for a biography. User:Maunus has helped by removing some of that material, but what remains is a lop-sided (and poorly written) section that discusses Derrida's criticism of Searle and says nothing about what Searle said in response.
I should add that Hibrido Mutante has worsened the situation by behaving in an inflammatory way on the talk page, accusing me of "intellectual terrorism" while logged out as an IP, eg here. The comments the user has made on the talk page while logged in makes it clear that this is the same person. I find it impossible to engage in any discussion with him under these circumstances, and believe he should be blocked for violation of WP:CIVIL. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 01:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Rush Limbaugh ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
See edit [18] which very substantially adds material to the "Sandra Fluke affair" to this BLP. I suggest that the added material and language violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP as being excess weight, excess POV, excess repetitive opinions of various people, etc. In short -- a section which already pushes the envelope is not well past that point in my opinion. I realize this is political silly season, but that does not mean WP:BLP goes out the window I trust. Collect ( talk) 02:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Remy Ong ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The subject of the article hit a dog on the road and ran away from the scene. Apparently, this caused an "uproar" in the Southeast Asian nation of Singapore. Are we now in the business of documenting each and every minor incident that happens in an individual's life? The section has also been suggestively labelled "Hit-and-run case", as if he hit a human being and ran away from the scene. Should WP:NPF apply here? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
After hearing the debate here and on the talk page, I still support the inclusion of the incident BUT only if there is any penalty handed out. For now it's only the news articles and mention of the police investigating, but should there be any punitive punishment handed down later on, it's appropriate to have the section reinstated. FYI Nick, the local law that applies to Singaporean Remy Ong also states that a "hit and run" can and will apply to certain animals like ass, dogs and horse.Lets have more debate by editors familiar with Asian cultures and laws. Nick seems kinda biased on one side, we need someone on the other end :) 182.55.242.227 ( talk) 07:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Dana Loesch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a biography of a person who is, shall we say, known for making controversial comments. Naturally there have been disputes over what should make it into the article. In particular, there's been a recent dispute over a comment she made regarding a Virginia bill that would have mandated trans-vaginal ultrasounds before abortions. The comment is sourced, but the only sources available seem to be partisan blogs and websites (either pro- or anti-Loesch), e.g. [20]. Is this sufficient for inclusion in a BLP? I'm inclined to think so, but other editors disagree. In any case, more neutral eyes on this article would generally be a good idea, because it's one of those that inevitably attracts people trying to push a political agenda from both sides. Robofish ( talk) 00:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
There's some text that has been replaced regarding the subject's commentary on actual news. I was the editor that removed it per my comments above. I'm not inclined to edit war about it, but could someone else please weigh in? JFHJr ( ㊟) 22:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
This BLP is seeing the same content restored, plus some more of the same. To me, it still looks like WP:COAT, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. It could use some input from others. JFHJr ( ㊟) 20:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Robin Ficker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is an ongoing dispute over the description of Robin Ficker as a sports "heckler," with "fan" and "spectator" being substituted. I favor the former term as clearly and accurately reflecting the many cited sources. Objection has been raised that "heckler" is an outdated term as he no longer engages in the activity, but I don't think that is relevant to notability given the many sources from the time in question. This has been discussed most recently on the Talk page and previously through comments in the Revision history. -- Pemilligan ( talk) 06:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there something more I was supposed to do to get some help here? --
Pemilligan (
talk) 05:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Bad Girls Club is about a reality tv program. It lists the cast members and labels them in various ways, including 'porn actress' and 'stripper'. Some of the sources are fine, some look very dubious, eg Poptower.com. TMZ is considered reliable but only on a case by case basis [22]. The program itself is used as a reference as well, which I find dubious for something like this. We've had at least one OTRS ticket from someone who was listed here as a porn star with a dubious reference - the complaint was that the listing was stopping her from getting work. Obviously we don't take the word of someone for such a complaint, but these women deserve to have reliable sources just as much as anyone else. Dougweller ( talk) 18:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Jose Antonio Vargas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Last summer there was a big brouhaha about whether Vargas should be described as an "undocumented immigrant" or an "illegal immigrant". Vargas uses the undocumented label, but others believe the illegal label is, I don't know, better? more accurate? something else? There was a discussion on the article Talk page and a discussion here, and the label "undocumented immigrant" was kept. Anyway, the article remained fairly stable for quite some time, although occasionally, editors who had not participated in the discussion (usually IPs) would come along and try to change it. I'd revert it, and there weren't any major disruptions.
Now, we have another editor who has altered the article in a curious way. He hasn't changed the term "undocumented immigrant" in the body of the article, although in one instance he wikilinked this entire phrase: undocumented people brought to America as innocent children. What he's done is highlight the issue by changing the infobox so that Vargas is now "known for" being a winner of the Pulitzer prize and being an "illegal immigrant" (there was no "known for" previously in the infobox). He also stuck in parameters about Vargas's citizenship (Filipino) (not actually sourced except he was born there) and residence (US), both of which I wish didn't exist, but I digress.
I removed "illegal immigrant" from the infobox. I also made other less important changes per the documentation in {{ infobox person}} and per WP:OVERLINK. The other editor reverted and opened a discussion on the Talk page. I'm hoping other editors will contribute here rather than there (last time discussions occurred in both places) and I'll point them here.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
In a recent reversion another editor removed well sourced verified content on grounds that added content violates UNDUE even though it meets VER via use of multiple reliable sources. This maybe related to the discussion above, where other editors have not sought to compromise per WP:CON. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say.
This is a biography, not an article about immigration law - it is not a question of differing viewpoints. There is no consensus for the changes this editor keeps adding, in fact there is not a single editor in agreement with him. Yet he keeps doing it, with the effect that the three editors who oppose the changes are getting tired of going over the same ground.Enough is enough - this has moved into the area of tendentious editing. Tvoz/ talk 04:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.
Prem Rawat ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prem Rawat has a brother Satpal who is mentioned four times in Prem Rawat's article, the last being in 1974 when he was also known as Bal Bhagwan Ji. At some point Satpal started using the title Satpal Maharaj, the first reference I can find for the title Satpal Maharaj is from an India news report in 1997. Question - should he be referred to as Satpal Maharaj in the article when he wasn't using that title at the time? I believe that he should be referred to by his name "Satpal" and once as "Satpal (also known as Bal Bhagwan Ji)", the title he was using at the time of the mention. Thanks. Momento ( talk) 21:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Kim Dalton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is autobiographical. As someone who holds a reasonably high profile position in the Australian media I feel it is reasonable to post a short biography on Wikipedia. The short synopsis of my career I feel is not particularly self promoting and it does not comment on or advocate in regard to areas of my work and actions I have taken which may be contested. Unfortunately an anonymous person posting under the name duckquackquackquack keeps inserting material relating to a particular debate around the issue of outsourcing ABC production. I have no problem if this person wishes to set up their own page to advocate their position. However, I think it is unreasonable that they advocate their position anonymously and effectively mount a criticism of me. I would appreciate it if you were able to take some action on this matter.
The text in question is below.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Kim Dalton.
'Privatising the Australian Broadcasting Corporation
On 10 August 2011, in a letter by the CPSU (Community and Public Sector Union) on behalf of ABC Staff, [1] the Section Secretary Graeme Thomson responded to ABC Managing Director Mark Scott's 'all staff email' [2], which defended Kim Dalton's axing of TV programs: The New Inventors, Collectors and Art Nation. Mr Thomson confirms that ABC staff has called for an audit of what has become known as the 'Dalton Model', a style of management that diverts public funding to the private sector, resulting in the termination of in-house productions, mass redundancies and skill shortages.
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon passed a motion in the upper house on 17 August 2011 with the support of Labor and The Greens for an inquiry into 'Recent ABC (TV) programming decisions'. [3] The report which came out in October 2011 [4] is critical of Kim Dalton's management, quoting him in Perth, where he announced to ABC production staff 'that only program ideas pitched from outside the ABC would be considered for production' 3.37.
With regard to the 'Dalton Model', the Australian Senate recommended this:
'The committee recommends that the ABC ensure that it maintains an effective capacity to internally produce quality programming across the regions in addition to news, sport and current affairs. The committee notes that the increasing use of external producers has the capacity to diminish the ABC’s independence and skill base. 3.50'
On 24 February 2012, the ABC appointed Katrina Sedgwick to a newly formed position of ABC TV Head of Arts. [5] In this role; created to 'provide stronger focus on the ABC's arts programming', [6] she answers directly to ABC Head of Television, Kim Dalton. Ironically, it was Dalton who 6 months earlier axed the internally produced program Art Nation. [7] Dalton revealed to the media that 'As a result of changes to our arts production and line up last year (2011) we have increased the resources committed to primetime arts programming to be commissioned from the independent production sector.' [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim7159 ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Is Kim Dalton insisting on controlling his own biography? 'The short synopsis of my career'? The revision by Bbb23, although simplifying the article has resulted in the loss of content. If it is to be revised, I suggest leaving the course of events involving the Australian Senate. It is also important that the article contain information relevant to an obvious effort by Dalton to funnel public money into the private sector. The senate has made comment on this and Dalton himself recently mentioned it in the media. The additions I have made over time are well referenced and I would be the first to amend any inaccuracies. With regard to the confusion over the Senate Report, the dates are correct and available on http://www.aph.gov.au. -- Duckquackquack ( talk) 05:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
A real need here is for solid background to balance high-profile the subject currently has. this is a good source, and I'm sure that those who actually know what his job involves can find more. Stuartyeates ( talk) 05:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Point taken that it was hard to follow but I now have a major issue with the article, the Senate report into ABC TV programming decisions, which specifically mentions Dalton came out in October 2011, here is the official link http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=ec_ctte/abc/report/index.htm. I would like to quote Recommendation 1. 3.50 'The committee recommends that the ABC ensure that it maintains an effective capacity to internally produce quality programming across the regions in addition to news, sport and current affairs. The committee notes that the increasing use of external producers has the capacity to diminish the ABC’s independence and skill base.' This is at odds with the way Dalton is currently running ABC TV and should be juxtaposed with the recent article ( http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2012/02/24/abc-tv-appoints-head-of-arts/) about the new head of arts and dalton's comment that he has 'increased the resources committed to primetime arts programming to be commissioned from the independent production sector. Given that Dalton is a public figure and answers to the government I believe that 'increasing programming from the private sector' and the Senate's recommendation that 'increasing use of external producers has the capacity to diminish the ABC’s independence and skill base' is relevant and should be added to this biography. Please respond before I make the changes. -- Duckquackquack ( talk) 02:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not looking for support, I'm pointing out to the group that this article is obsolete. The Senate report that it mentions has been available since the 13th of October 2011. Check the link. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=ec_ctte/abc/report/index.htm -- Duckquackquack ( talk) 14:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
You have reverted the new information, fine. But you have left the article incorrect. THE SENATE REPORT HAS BEEN RELEASED (not due in October 2012). If you do not want to correct this I will. -- Duckquackquack ( talk) 00:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Viktor Yanukovych ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Your attention is urgently needed on this article. An edit-war has erupted over including the details of the personal life and business activities not of Victor but Oleksandr, his son, in a transparent attempt to embarrass Victor Yanukovych by implication and weasel means. There has also been a message left on my talk with charged analogies. Help is needed. The edit in question is: diff. Further, a more general look is needed into the other sections of this article. There is a blunders section which reads like a polemic suitably titled: Yanukovych's famous public speaking errors (blunders). This needs to be removed also. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 23:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks all! Just to be clear I will not oppose Bbb23 as I see now what is standard in Wikipedia but I have made a start with an article about this son, Oleksandr Yanukovych, (will take a new look at it after the week-end) and I did write in there "Various Ukrainian press have sugested people close to Oleksandr have landed some of Ukraine’s most important position". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Grant Cardone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editor “ Henry Sewell” and others have been making changes to the Grant Cardone page since at least June 2011. Combined with attempts to restore prior versions of the article, this engagement may qualify as an “ edit war,” which indicates the matter should be raised to the Noticeboard for discussion and resolution.
The “Henry Sewell” version of the page removes relevant or noteworthy information from earlier versions of the page (e.g., acknowledging the birth of Mr. Cardone’s second daughter, Scarlett; descriptions of Mr. Cardone’s businesses under the “Entrepreneur” section; citation to his fourth book, The 10X Rule).
Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, “Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.” Mr. Cardone is a motivational speaker and author, and his religious beliefs are not relevant to his public life or notability as a motivational speaker and author.
Wikipedia’s editorial standards for Biographies of living persons (BLPs) expressly state that editors must “Be very firm about the use of high quality sources.” See Wikipedia:Biolgraphies of living persons. The claim that Mr. Cardone is a “high-level Scientologist” is not supported in the text of the article found in footnote 2 of “Henry Sewell’s” edit of the Cardone article. Footnote 3 of the current Cardone article, a citation to truthaboutscientology.com, does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sources. When a reliable source is required, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Likewise, the Village Voice article cited as Footnote 4 of the current Cardone article does not state that Mr. Cardone conducts “Fair Game” activities in the body of the article.
Even if Mr. Cardone’s religious beliefs were relevant to his public life or notability, the overall treatment of Mr. Cardone’s adherence to Scientology is not given neutral treatment, from the description in the opening paragraph to the “ Attack on Milton Katselas” section. This runs contrary to Wikipedia’s presumption in favor of privacy in BLPs, the importance of a neutral point of view (one of Wikipedia’s core principles), and is inconsistent with the balanced and proportionate treatment found in discussion of Scientology on pages of other public figures who are adherents to the Church of Scientology (see, for example, the relatively modest discussion of Scientology on pages for John Travolta, Jenna Elfman, Anne Archer, and others).
"Henry Sewell’s" comments on the Grant Cardone Talk page suggest a personal agenda to antagonize Mr. Cardone, rather than bona fide efforts to edit the article in a neutral manner in keeping with Wikipedia’s BLP standards. On October 1, 2011, “Henry Sewell” posted the following message to the Talk:Grant Cardone page: “Having some fun and games with someone attempting to remove the mention of Cardone's involvement with Scientology's Fair Game practises in relation to the mass email sent to Scientologists linked to its Los Angeles Celebrity Centre. If it persists, I shall add additional data concerning the email, and a letter Cardone sent directly to Katselas.”
The “ Attack on Milton Katselas” section is problematic in a few ways: When the subject of a BLP is a public figure, allegations must be supported by multiple sources ( Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: “If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.”). Here, the Milton Katselas section is supported by citation to just a single source, the Village Voice article.
Second, BLPs must be balanced: “Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints…[c]are must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.” The section heading, “Attack on Milton Katselas” is not neutral. The section itself comprises an entire printed page of a three-page article (excluding references), and is therefore “disproportionate” relative to the overall article. Again, compare both the quality and quantity of content to that found in BLPs of other notable Scientologists.
The inclusion of Mr. Cardone’s involvement in “Freedom Motorsports Group, Inc.” appears to be made for no other purpose than to further establish a connection between Mr. Cardone and the Church of Scientology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.107.157 ( talk) 00:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
More eyes on this article would be appreciated. Despite being an apparent copyright violation and representing significant BLP concerns, my initial edit was reverted.
Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (
talk) 15:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted the removal of the information concerning Cardone's attack on Milton Katselas. I'm not sure how else his activities in this regard could be described, especially in light of Wikipedia's own article on the subject of Fair Game. Also, the claim in regard copyrght can be ignored in that there has been no complaint made in this regard and, even then, what has been quoted amounts to "Fair Use". If there is a consensus that the email material be removed, there is no consequential need to remove the section dealing with this aspect Cardone's biography. Henry Sewell ( talk) 21:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a some disagreement about Sheldon Souray and Angelica Bridges being divorced. When either page is modified to say they are divorced, the changes are reverted. I've found multiple sources saying the 2 are divorced. I can add them all to the statement saying they are divorced, but it will likely be reverted again. I'm not sure why this a divorce that happened in 2007 is being removed. AuroraHcky ( talk) 02:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
To whom it may concern.
Although I attended the same drama school as Alex Sweet the information and any references to me he has supplied are incorrect, please remove from the page.
Kind regards Arthur Byrne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9teeskid ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Richard F. Cebull ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has received a fair amount of attention since the e-mail he forwarded was (apparently) forwarded to the media. There is currently a battle going on about whether we should include an interpretation of what the e-mail means by a journalist. One editor insists on putting it in (the usual "it's a fact and it's reliably sourced" argument), and two editors (me included) believe it doesn't belong. The inclusion editor refuses to address some of the issues raised on the article Talk page.
At one point, the e-mail was quoted in the article. It was removed by yet another editor who felt it was WP:UNDUE, although that's not precisely what she said in her edit summary. That editor hasn't contributed to the current discussion.
The Talk page discussion isn't long, so you can fairly easily follow the issues. In a nutshell, my view is we shouldn't be including interpretations of the e-mail, even if reliably sourced. The interpretation currently included is just one interpretation. There are others. So, do we have to cite to all of them? If we do, I think that's clearly too much WP:WEIGHT. If we don't, we are cherrypicking. As for putting back in the text of the e-mail, I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, I like it because then, as lawyers say, the document speaks for itself. On the other hand, I can see Jokestress's point, that it's more information than is needed. I suppose I favor just restoring the article back to before the interpretation and without quoting the e-mail. It's a reasonable digest of what happened. It's unlikely there will be any further news on this issue until the Ninth Circuit issues a ruling on the judicial misconduct issue.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Iain Duncan Smith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can I ask for more eyes on this article? A single purpose IP is continuing to add sections like these which are stuffed full of synthesis, original research and attacks on the article's subject. Myself and another editor have already removed them, but they keep adding them back. Valenciano ( talk) 23:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Robin van Persie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor has been removing a referenced but controversial action by a famous footballer. This is one such edit. The section is worded:
With the Daily Mail as the reference. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2055547/Robin-van-Persie-denies-Nazi-salute-Chelsea.html "I'm no Nazi! Van Persie slams internet rumours over 'salute' celebration against Chelsea". For some reason this has become controversial today, four months after it was added. Discussion at Talk:Robin van Persie#Nazi salute. Need some additional comments here or there. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Sally Boazman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am the person accused of this `stalking` incident. My name is Hilary Reeves(nee French).
I have recently deleted this article about me, as i thought after 9 years it was inappropriate to my circumstances at the present, as i am in a legal tangle regarding this issue, which has excluded my main reason for being arrested. My concern over subliminal messaging at the place of her work. I have also noted, that as the Leveson Enquiry is including many famous people for the alleged hacking of their phones, and i have reason to believe this is being done to my e-mails, i have been omitted from that.
The article also suggests the name of Jamie Pyatt, who was included in this process, and was arrested over illegally purchasing information from the police. This article has also not been removed from other sources i have enquired about, although i have instinctively suggested i am not the cause of this harrassment, and i have further written proof to verify this.
This could then become a two way attack on each parties concerned as ha(d) is a sic note. I have legal implications applying to this post, and wish it to be removed immediately.
This is an attack that is permanently ongoing, with no appeal being made on my behalf, due to abuse of process. Something very fishy going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.206.117 ( talk) 22:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
@80.4.206.117, I am having trouble following you, but the information you removed from the article (which has since been restored) satisfies Wikipedia's standards of relevance and reliability. If you feel strongly about the issue, you might want to e-mail the Wikimedia foundation at info-en-q@wikimedia.org. See WP:FEFS.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Sons of Guns ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm in the awkward position of being the lone WP:BLP reverter at Sons of Guns and don't want an edit war sanction to come down on me. I believe I come under the WP:BLP exception, but I don't want to press that. The article is about a TV show that centers around Red Jacket Firearms (RJF) and its BLP principal Will Hayden. The issue is including the description of a lawsuit, Radford v RJF and Hayden. There's no doubt the lawsuit exists; it is available on the federal court information system (PACER). I believe WP:WELLKNOWN is not met. WP:BLPPRIMARY WP:BLPREMOVE
The description of the lawsuit in the article
[25] is based on the complaint and does not have an opposing view. The proponents claim that it is well sourced, but the offered references are
an internet copy of the complaint and
Justia's docket report that merely reflects the existence of the lawsuit. There are no reliable independent reports about the lawsuit and that suggest that it is notable.
Glrx (
talk) 01:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Brenda Vaccaro ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I wonder if the references are reliable to verify data. -- George Ho ( talk) 13:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Cardinal O'Brien's recent statement on gay marriage is being used in the article and on the talk page to label him in ways not in the sources. Anyone think I should rev/del? Dougweller ( talk) 18:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Just checking. Is the following addition to Julius West Middle School OK? I moved the reference from the bottom of the page to a more appropriate place. diff Wanted to make sure that the reporting of the arrest is appropriate. Thanks Jim1138 ( talk) 01:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)