This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Michael Schindhelm ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biography is not up to date.
- Currently, he works there as professor for the subject of public space.[3] Since 2010 he is also involved in the creation of a think tank for global culture at Zurich University for the Arts. Furthermore, in 2010 he started a collaboration on global philanthropy with the German charity organization Welthungerhilfe.
- He's not a culture manager. Culture Advisor.
- To General: Cultural management => Cultural research, teaching, and consultancy.
Would like to change it. Thank you.
Jong Soo Park ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A lot of potentially libelous material on that page - someone out there doesn't like the guy at all!
Bebe Zeva ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
this article contains no historical or cultural important information and should be deleted immediately
Could stand another set of hands here. IP repeatedly adding unsourced controversial material. Most recent attempt cited youtube. [1] Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 23:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
We have a familiar situation at Justin Bieber ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where some tabloid allegations are being edit-warred into the article. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 00:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia give preference to official portraits and images provided or published by the subject of the biography? Please see relevant discussion on Talk:Narendra Modi regarding infobox image(s). ( permalink) See also: WP:AUTOPROB. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Either the article is about 2 people, or about someone with no sources. Something very wrong. In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
IP insists on inserting the name of the subject's spouse and number of children, which was reported to OTRS as being incorrect and is unsourced anyway. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Anil k khandelwal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A fine example of a promotional article that probably needs toning down a notch. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The Judith Collins article has been receiving a lot of attention lately in NZ including [2] so it may be useful for more eyes. Nil Einne ( talk) 08:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Richard Barber ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article about myself is headed by a warning that it lacks sufficient verification and requesting additional sources. I can't see anything more that can be documented. Please advise what is missing so that the warning can be cleared. Rwbarberuk ( talk) 15:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Richard Barber
Linda R. Reade ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't believe that the report addresses enough detail to the outrages of Linda Reade's extraordinarily controversial participation in the trial despite working together with the prosecutors on the raid which would strongly suggest an invested interest which should have disqualified her. Furthermore, 6 former attorney generals commented that her sentence was out of proportion to the crime committed which was essentially wilfull misreporting of income to a bank without intent to commit harm. Also, she presided over the first appeal, and there was considerable evidence that she was involved in the decision of the second appeal. Hundreds of thousands of people signed a petition requesting further review of this case including several dozen congressmen.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.202.186 ( talk) 19:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Lance Hohaia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the refernce section Lance's middle name is spelt incorrectly it should be KORO (I am his sister). The link does not work so I don't know how to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulaKiri ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Techno Viking ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) + File:Technoviking.jpg In the article and on its talk page, there are various (poorly or not sourced) speculations about name and identity posted about a person, who has never agreed to be published but explicitly expressed dissent and per court decisions is granted his name and images are not published anymore [3]. Several edits on the article and talk page should be hidden, for ex. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]!!, [10], [11], [12], ... and the whole article between [13] and [14]. (Repost as the versions are still all visible and the image has been inserted again although there is no IfD-solution yet.) -- Trofobi ( talk) 18:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Gary Catona Article is 100% ad copy for him and his voice classes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.55.80 ( talk) 14:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this article has any place on wikipedia. I believe this falls under criteria G11 for speedy deletion. Most of the events described in the article have little to do with Dakota Brant herself. I mean are there entries for every student journalist on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.148.119 ( talk) 22:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Gabriel Calzada Alvarez ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This suitability of this article is dubious. Given that most of the length is criticism of a single article, serious balance issues are present even if this does not rise to the level of WP:ATTACK. The independent notability of the subject or the notability of the controversy (for BLP1E) are not clear. Advice on the appropriate disposition of this article is requested. Novangelis ( talk) 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
In this article, an IP editor removed a mention of the subject leaving his company because of allegations of sexual harassment. The real-life context will be readily apparent from a Google search or from [15] (though that looks like a blog and thus not referenceable in mainspace). The reason given for the removal of the information, "not to a primary source", is a bit puzzling because per WP:V, we prefer reliable secondary sources over primary ones. But are there serious concerns that the one source cited is inadequate as a reference for WP:BLP purposes? Sandstein 07:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Wayne Rooney ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article says that he is the third most payed footballer, the source is a Goal.com article from 2011, please revise this information as i believe this information is now outdated, Rooney is not third anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.4 ( talk) 09:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Julie Larson-Green ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chris Bascombe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor is repeatedly reintroducing this content into the article. While possibly true, it is sourced to the autobiography of one of the participants who was allegedly the target of wrongdoing, and is controversial. This isn't supported by other sources as far as I can tell, and even if notable the accusations are notable the fact most probably belong in Gerard Houllier, as its not clear that they would merit inclusion in this (short) biography. What's the next step for getting this resolved? L Faraone 21:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
No verifiability or citations for wealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.187.102 ( talk) 16:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Dayalbagh Educational Institute ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dayalbagh ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In March of this year, a PhD student was apparently murdered in the premises of the Dayalbagh Educational Institute, and subsequently the grandson of the DEI chairman has been arrested and charged with the murder. While it might possibly seem reasonable to cover this story briefly in at least one of these articles, I have just had to remove a large section covering the story from both articles. The sourcing was poor - including some 'citing' of scanned documents apparently uploaded by a contributor (clearly not WP:RS, and needing translation even if properly sourced), and the section made multiple claims regarding some sort of cover-up, none of which seemed to be verifiable. Clearly we will need to investigate proper sourcing, but can I ask BLPN regulars to lend a hand in deciding what, if any, coverage is appropriate regarding the story in the articles, and to help with ensuring that such coverage complies with policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I am the contributor in question. The content is true and can be verified by users having knowledge of Hindi at eArchives of the Agra edition of Amar Ujala papers published from dates 16th March to 30th April at http://earchive.amarujala.com/. Also, some of the content of the section can be verified at http://www.indianexpress.com/news/laboratory-of-murder-clues/1107266/0.
I request fellow editors to suggest better ways to source content published in print newspapers. The content is available on the web but is protected behind a login screen. AgraNewsObserver ( talk) 15:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Editor User:TransVannian is rather pointedly trying to highlight the victim's name in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case at the article and on the article talk. The victim has been identified in some reliable press accounts at the direct request of her father; however, most reliable sources (both Indian and international) continue to use pseudonyms. I have mixed feelings myself as to whether the victim's name should be included here, but I thought I should alert this board to the issue to get the thoughts of some uninvolved experienced editors. I'm on semi-Wikibreak and can't really monitor the situation. Thanks all, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 15:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Reported to OTRS. Single paragraph about past misdeeds which have been cleared up, etc. Low-intensity revert war between the subject or people associated with him and some IPs. Removed as WP:UNDUE. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't have any references and it just speaks about how great this person is without any verifiable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirudha2000 2000 ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no valid reference for this stub. The only reference is another wikipdia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.177.98 ( talk) 05:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The recent edits to Jay Jopling may or may not be improvements factually, but the removal of references is going to be trouble. Reverted just now. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
User:SamerVergara 21 has been repeatedly updating the page for Sandra Vergara, attempting to add dates of birth. My concern with these repeated edits are:
I am not trying to get into a debate about the Sandra Vergara's true date of birth; I merely do not think it is appropriate for her son to be inserting unsourced dates into his mother's article, especially given the fact that it conflicts with published sources. (The published sources are also all over the place year-wise, btw.) It seems that the subject does not want her true date of birth to be public knowledge and wp:blp requires that we respect this (implied) wish. In the past, we have not knowingly published inaccurate dates of birth for the sake of an actor's vanity but we have omitted dates of birth from an actor's page if the year is contested, all per wp:blp.
The editor periodically returns to editing his mom's page. It is almost the only page he has ever edited in the article space (with one exception). I would like to propose a subject-ban on this editor.
Thanks, Dusty| 💬| You can help! 14:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Just an heads up. Subject is currently in the news due to an arrest. There is, as expected, a spike of activity on the page, and news sources seem to have a penchant for making weak links between the (certainly controversial) subject and Anders Behring Breivik. So far nothing really concerning as far as I can see, apart from a clear violation I reverted, but given the situation I'd like some experienced people to watchlist it. Thanks. -- cyclopia speak! 14:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is about the judge who is best known for presiding over the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Most of this article is unsourced and appears to be in violation of BLP. I would remove the material but there be little left of the article. Perhaps someone familiar with the subject could look at it. TFD ( talk) 17:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Luca Parmitano ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
From the Education section: "Parmitano graduated from the Liceo Scientifico Statale `Galileo Galilei´ in Catania, Italy, in 1995. Parmitano spent a year (1963) as an exchange student in USA with AFS Intercultural Programs."
Year 1963 is a typo, as Luca Parmitano was born in 1976. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.236.218.45 ( talk) 19:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Our article on Rick Still ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) says he is "best known as the creator of UFO Phil - in both cases the source is IMDB which of course we cannot use as a source. The closest I can get to a source is [16] which only suggests that it is possible. The problem exists at both articles. I'm not sure that without this suggestion that they might be the same that Rick Still is even notable. Looks like quite a bit of coi also at Ufo Phil, IPs from LA and a new editor named - Ufo Phil. Dougweller ( talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Babita Sharma ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The subject has contacted OTRS about the repeated addition to the article of an unsourced DoB. I have warned the most prolific reverter not to add it back without a reliable source, per BLP. More eyes please. Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 15:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Several accounts are using the article to vent on a teacher arrested for sex crimes with minors, adding some sourced and some unsourced content. This involves non-notables, and I've suggested this be discussed at the talk page, to no avail. 76.248.144.216 ( talk) 19:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There is a absolutely no evidence that Al Sharpton should have the title of Rev. He attended no seminary, etc. To call him a Rev. is a disservice to those who spent years in a seminary and have been called by God to service their congregations with the church's peace and love message. He is a publicity seeker and in no way represent sane or rational discussion of race in this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.115.231 ( talk) 23:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
|
Has categories all to himself - including "Jesuit Popes" and "Argentine Popes." Are they really of any conceivable value to readers? Collect ( talk) 11:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
John Acquaviva ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not an urgent request, however I'm hoping an interested editor will be willing to give this BLP a good NPOV scrub. I also have concerns regarding copyright issues related to material lifted from his official bio. -- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 21:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that the advertising tag on Gateways (organization) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been removed and took a look at the article for the first time in a while. I've brought it here because most of it is really made up of 3 BLP 'articles', each of which dwarfs the information on the organisation itself. This seems inappropriate but I'm not sure what, if anything, should be done about it. Maybe the 3 biographies need to be turned into articles? Dougweller ( talk) 08:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Anons are used (now several times daily) since 24 Januiary 2013 to restore an unsourced and at least partially inaccurate claim that an alleged illegitimate son, "Dr. Emmanuel Bertounesque", is the rightful heir to the Orsini family's hereditary titles, in the article on the historical noble Italian Orsini family, several members of which are living. The allegations directly refer to and concern living persons mentioned by name in the offending edits. The inaccuracies have been pointed out and explained on the talk page. Diffs are here, here, here, here and here. It is obvious that the editor understands the nature of the BLP objection because the last-mentioned dif ends with a cite to an Italian Yahoo groups article about a lawsuit for public recognition by an alleged illegitimate daughter of soon-to-abdicate Albert II of Belgium: That cite, however, does not mention the Orsini family or its members in any way. Since most of the inserted violations and reverts of corrections are done by new anons, protecting this article from this 7 month pattern of BLP violations necessitates that the page be semi-protected. Although the problem was reported here, the BLP violations have increased: Admin intervention is needed. Archived by bot, re-listed for still needed admin action. FactStraight ( talk) 16:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The chief problem with the John Sankey (drummer) article is its tone: self-serving, overly positive and promotional. It reads like a media release, perhaps written by the subject, and at times like a fanzine article (e.g. 'needless to say Sankey fired Carpenter from the band immediately'). Further, the article fails entirely to meet the verifiability standard, due to the inclusion of numerous unsourced quotes and unreferenced mentions of awards, praise and renown. There is too much information about the career of the band Devolved (band), which has its own article. A minor issue is idiosyncratic formatting of the article: the image of the subject is large and located top and centre of the page, instead of being thumbnailed and placed on one margin, and the subject's name has been formatted in bold type throughout the text. Last, the links at the bottom of the page have been headed as 'References' but they are actually 'External links'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondrumm ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Article looks like it was written by himself. Interesting, in view of recent debunking by Sokal http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/07/16/death-of-a-theory Richard Gill ( talk) 19:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The user is presenting himself as Dale Berra. He has first attempted to delete sourced material from the article about a drug indictment ( most recent diff) and lately has been trying to add material claiming sobriety for the last 20 years ( diff) using only primary, non-published sources. — C.Fred ( talk) 04:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am raising an issue that has been raised at WP:ANI#Jehovah's Witnesses. My complaint has been swamped there with a hijacking of the thread by irrelevant material that needs to be raised elsewhere.
User:Corjay has made multiple attacks at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Opinion of Andrew Holden not a fact on Andrew Holden, a published and widely-cited English sociologist, arising from objections that Corjay (a self-identified Jehovah's Witness) has with a statement about the religion sourced to Holden.
Corjay has claimed Holden:
Corjay has brushed off my warning about personal attacks. [26] WP:BLP covers comments on talk pages. Holden is a reputable academic and such personal attacks on that talk page by a defiant and unrepentant editor deserve to be sanctioned. BlackCab ( talk) 11:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
John Sinrud ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article violates wikipedia guidlines. In addition to being difficult to read, the content is poorly sourced and editorialized. In addition, there seems to be a debate taking place on the page that is more suitable for the Talk Page. Furthermore, I'm not sure that this article is noteworthy enough to merit its own page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.78.122 ( talk • contribs)
After a recent controversy, this article has completely lost its neutrality. Please check the edit history and the talk page for the discussion and circumstances regarding this complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.241.213.18 ( talk) 15:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
"primary architect of the decline of The United States"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.126.109 ( talk) 08:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Andy Burnham ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Daily Mail is in a lather over this article today. [28] I explained on the talk page what the problem was, and would appreciate some input from non-involved editors.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
S. P. Balasubrahmanyam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is subject to a lot of additions of gushing fan cruft. Usually, it is done by IPs, but the latest offender is an auto-confirmed account, although it's possible that some of the IPs preceding the registered account adding the same material are the same person. I've warned the editor, but it doesn't seem to do any good. They're one of those editors who never talk. They just keep plugging away like no one else exists but them. They have added a large section to the article charmingly entitled "Love for Karnataka and Kannadigas" with some choice tidbits like:
In addition to that (and more), there are long quotes from the subject about how he feels. -- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Removed blatant puff lists of everything he has ever done with anyone -- I suggest the linked list of "awards" may also be a tad down-filled Collect ( talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
*Taking a go. EBY ( talk) 16:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Dulee Johnson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would someone please take a look at the message I have posted at this article's talk page following an e-mail from the subject at OTRS? Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 16:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Ram Revilla ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi, I'm currently expanding the article Ram Revilla. As suggested by User:DGG that I should make a request here before editing the article to prevent me from making any more mistakes that would violate the BLP policies. I have read the policies and somewhat edited it to my best. I have now my draft, but I am warned that if I post anything I'd be blocked. So, where do I show it for your approval? Thanks a lot. By the way, I was originally creating another article for the same person Ram Revilla Murder Case but now, as suggested I will just expand it on the main article. Fearjesus ( talk) 08:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Also, as said on the policies that unconvicted or suspects's name must not be included, so I only made it as their initials. But I also see an exemption about putting names if they are publicizednow in the news over and over again. Fearjesus ( talk) 08:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
That being, I don't know who the heck the guy is! Marc Biedermann is the title of the article. The AllMusic entry used as its only source says he's "Mike" Biedermann. A Google search gives two non-WP-related hits, one where he's listed as "Marc" and the other as "Mark." He's borderline notable due to tour/session associations with other acts, so article deletion isn't likely, but it's hard to do anything with the article when the name can't be searched for easily. MSJapan ( talk) 20:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor ~ 86.19.115.227 ~ is repeatedly adding soapboxing commentary on an alleged controversy concerning Mehmet Oz's ("Dr. Oz") views on circumcision. The IP's original edits accused Oz's views as "ludicrous" (which they may be but that isn't for the IP to tell us). I have unsuccessively tried to indicate to the IP why these edits aren't acceptable. The IP instead responds with false accusations of "vandalism" in edit summaries and with rants and threats on the article's discussion page. Apart from the edits being both soapboxing and commentary no citations have been provided that Oz's views on circumcision has attracted any controversy. I will appreciate other editors and administrators having a look at the IP's edits and monitoring the page for further BLP violations. Afterwriting ( talk) 04:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Evie Sands ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I know Evie Sands personally, and she assures me that she was NOT born in 1946, and her birthday IS July 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.109.203 ( talk) 06:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Article: Li Hongzhi
Paragraph in question:
Issue: Two editors (one of whom is now topic banned) have repeatedly added citations in this paragraph to Chinese government sources (second and third citations, from the Chinese embassy and Xinhua, respectively). I am concerned that this violates the spirit and letter of the BLP policy, as these sources contain inflammatory and unfounded allegations about a living person. Note that I am not disputing the text, but merely the inclusion of these two supplementary, primary source citations. My concerns are as follows:
One of the opposing editors noted that "the Chinese government is a reliable source for the position of the Chinese government on issues of relevance to the Chinese government." I agree. However, these sources are not merely stating the position of the Chinese government; they are making derogatory and extraordinary statements about a third party, which is why there's a concern. I would appreciate community input in this matter. TheBlueCanoe 18:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Since the original charges agains Assange were issues, there has been a long running debate on how to characterize the charges. Some editors have suggested that the charges should be called "rape", while others have suggested more general terms like "sexual assault". Complicating the issue is the fact that the exact charges are legal in nature and roughly translate to something like "rape lesser degree", for which there is no congruent term in the English language. The general nature of the charge appears to be a category of sexual assault which is somewhere between "date rape" and "sexual harassment", though the precise definition is a bit nebulous due to translation issues, both legal and language.
This topic has been discussed several times on both the case page, and Assange's page: [33], [34]. Similarly, from Julian Assange, [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42].
The general consensus has been to prefer high quality secondary sources when referring to the charges. Currently an editor is attempting to insert descriptions based on this source: [43], which is a foreign language primary source from the prosecution. Using this source seems to run afoul of WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:CRIME. Higher quality sources like in-depth reporting from large news outlets are safer sources for supporting controversial content like the exact nature of the charges.
Any guidance here would be appreciated. aprock ( talk) 17:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Kuldip Singh Kular ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gsingh ( talk) 01:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Some days ago I came across this article while monitoring recent changes. I removed a paragraph of unsupported criminal allegations. My removal was undone today, with two footnotes added -- one an invalid URL and one to an aggregator which backs up almost none of the paragraph in question. Upon looking more closely, the sources adequately back up such a small part of the article as a whole that it seemed worth bringing it to the noticeboard. I should say, however, that I had absolutely no idea who Dave Hilton Jr. is and can't make a judgment as to whether the article is actually true -- just that as it stands the sources don't back it up.
Hi all,
The subject of the article ( R.A. the Rugged Man) has been in touch with the OTRS response team (ticket 2013070710000468 for those with OTRS access). He has claimed that among other issues, there are two significant inaccuracies in his article - that the lede section has his name as "Richard Andrew Thorburn" where "Richard Andrew" is his middle name, and his first name is not public knowledge, but due to how article is written, it looks as if Richard is his surname. He addressed this in a radio interview at 31:45 that the information is incorrect (along with his DOB being incorrect, and this too being non-public info). I am thinking we should consider changing the lede section to either omit the real name as the first name is not known, or detail in the lede that the names we have don't include first names (but that doesn't make much sense to me). In regards to the DOB, he is contesting that the year is incorrect, however in the article a passage says "In 1992, at the age of 18, Thorburn signed with Jive Records, then in the mid-1990s signed with Priority Records/EMI." This info largely seems to have come from this reference and if you take this tweet from the subject, their date of is on Jan 10, in either 1973 or 1974, most likely 1974. The subject is stating this is incorrect and that he has spread misinformation about his actual date of birth, so it may be possible to note an approximate DOB and further down note that the subject has provided conflicting information about their DOB. Can I get some input on this one please? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 14:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add the following to the James Randi article: On May 29th 2012 James Randi's long-term partner, Deyvi Pena was convicted of stealing the identity of Jose Luis Alvarez, a teaching assistant from the Bronx. Pena was sentenced to 6 months house arrest, but may face deportation. He had lived for 24 years under the stolen identity causing numerous problems for the real Alvarez, including an IRS investigation. Deyvi Pena had also played the part of 'Carlos' a fake channeler, in James Randi's Project Alpha. [4] [5]
There is currently virtually no criticism of Randi in the article, and no mention of his partner being convicted, despite the fact it mentions their marriage and the Project Alpha. I feel the article is not NPOV and is being controlled by those who support Randi's work with no balance. Solar ( talk) 14:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I realize that Wikipedia errs on the side of caution and privacy when it comes to BLP issues, but occasionally, common sense needs to be interjected. Keep in mind that this is a biography - the description of someone's life. From what I gather, this person's spouse was tried and convicted of a crime. Are we seriously suggesting that this had no impact on this person's life? This discussion, sadly, seems more focused on whether this event makes this person look good or bad. Instead, we should be focused on providing our readers an accurate description of a person's life. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The use of the identity in the Carlos/alpha stunt seems incidental to the BLP (although the identity swap should be mentioned in the alpha article). The ID theft itself is not relevant to Randi's BLP, however, one of the sources does indicate a portion of the story that IS relevant to his BLP "Pena stole the identity a year before he began traveling with Randi in the magician's crusade to expose mystics, faith healers and psychics as frauds. Randi testified at an October court hearing to Pena's true identity, acknowledging he had seen Pena's Venezuelan passport years ago." [46] <BLP violation redacted> So, the only question remains are the sources reliable enough for the BLP allegation? Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
In other news, between the current scandal articles, and the previous fame from the alpha hoax, It seems like pena may pass WP:GNG where more of this information could correctly go. (Although obviously he is only getting coverage (in both cases perhaps) via his relatinoship with randi - he is getting the coverage. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Subject person does not appear to meet the WP guidelines for notability. A review of the Talk page shows virtually unanimous consent for this understanding. Additionally, this person's photograph appeared as Picture of the Day on her birthday. This does seem to be some sort of childish prank which dilutes the credibility and seriousness of WP by gerrymandering the consensus system.
First question: what is the appropriate approach for starting the deletion process in this case? I looked at several help articles and found varying methods, e.g. Speedy Deletion, but am not clear what is best here.
Second question: despite the clear consensus on the talk page, the deletion process may well generate self-serving protest, fake voting, further gaming of the system, etc., from the same people who managed to vandalize the POTD process. Is there a proactive way to avoid, detect or otherwise stop this? Skilled and attractive as this person may be, the article belongs on LinkedIn–and the pic belongs on Tumblr–not in WP. Wikipedia is the greatest collaboration of notable knowledge ever undertaken. It's too bad this discussion even exists, but hopefully WP's integrity will benefit. Thanks, Marquess ( talk) 00:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor at Tim Loughton has identified himself as a party in an incident discussed in the article. Perhaps some UK editors could untangle this matter? Gamaliel ( talk) 22:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Shekhar Gurera ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Recent edits have been by the subject of the article ( example), and it's now heavily self-promotional, WP:NOTRESUME. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Yasin Bhatkal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No citations given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.46.9 ( talk) 23:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm in an edit war with an IP user here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hal_Rogers&action=historysubmit&diff=565917520&oldid=565897390
My contention is that simply noting the living (last I checked) Congrescritter's vote against a certain measure does not rise to the level we should notice, absent some comment from or about him specifically as to why he himself voted this way. Hcobb ( talk) 23:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Roger Waters ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
After reading the sources and others the Israel section seems POV. The symbols on the pig included hammer and sickle, dollar signs, Shell oil symbol etc. The article calls them 'symbols of fascism'. Another RS I read stated (by a Jewish notable) that he didn't consider the Berlin show as anti-sematic. The subject is honoring the performance boycott in Israel but that should make him anti-Israeli government not anti-people. This would be similar to calling those that boycotted performance in South Africa as anti-white and not anti-Apartheid. I don't know how many other subjects we have that are boycotting Israel but some of them may be tagged as anti-Semites as well. Thoughts?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 00:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Joachim von zur Gathen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - contained what seemed to me appalling BLP issues after this started. I don't know about the allegations but I do know that they were (like the rest of the article) wholly unreferenced. I've put it back to what I hope is an acceptable state but there's clearly at least one recently active campaigner wants this content in, and the article might benefit from BLP-aware people keeping an eye on it. I am assuming it doesn't need diffs hiding for legal reasons but again I'm sure others will know better than me. Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 08:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Art Bell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some editors (including User:Tommyofcoast ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User:Georgesnoory ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are adding info indicating that Bell has died. Nothing online yet indicating that he has. [47] -- Auric talk 19:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The wording of this Wikipedia biography about a Swedish politician is very negative, extremely suspect and highly inflammatory. Sourcing isn't very solid. Portions of the article are unsourced. Most recent additions were done by an IP editor whose address traces to Sweden. A previous, even more inflammatory and completely unsourced edit, [48] reverted as vandalism, was done by a previous IP editor from the same Swedish IP range. I've already reverted the most problematic recent edits — but I think a little light protection for the article is in order. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 16:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Grant Cardone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone should take a look at the new Scientology-related material added to this article. I've tried to keep it out because, in my view, it has too many BLP problems and related sourcing issues. However, a second editor (who's professed interest is only Scientology) has joined the fray.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Thimbleweed and I have reached agreement on part of the material. The sticking point is one paragraph. I was going to suggest some sort of dispute resolution, but really the best forum for resolving a BLP dispute is this board. So, if anyone wants to mosey on over to the article talk page and offer their opinion, it would hopefully provide a clearer consensus. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
At least two (or possibly more) living people currently in this list do not qualify as "sockpuppets" in my opinion. More input would be welcome. My very best wishes ( talk) 19:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The statement that Amir prostitutes girls for Bitcoins, sourced by a forum post, is being added and removed from the article repeatedly, over a dispute about whether a forum post is an acceptable source for it or not. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 02:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
this article biography of eugene blair need a references. Strongvibration ( talk) 12:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Waje ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
there is no Evidence of notability on the article of WAJE. there is no relieble references that proof the Awards or her Nominations... this article need a relieble independent source. Strongvibration ( talk) 12:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Ana Ivanovic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Per Wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living persons, we are under strictures to make their biographies adhere precisely to severe guidelines, including legal accuracy. Has Ana Ivanović changed her legal name from "Ivanović" to "Ivanovic"? Could anyone provide a source, that this has happened? Can someone quote Ana Ivanović from a reliable source on this subject? She is a resident of Switzerland now, so perhaps this occurred when filing for residency there? If not, we would seem to be breaking the strictures of WP:BLP by inventing rationale to spell her name other than her actual name.
I also remind everyone that other Serbian (former world no.1 Jelena Janković who resides in Dubai, or Ana Jovanović who resides in Munich, Germany), Czech (eg., nearly the entire content of Category:Czech female tennis players), Slovak (e.g., nearly the entire content of Category:Slovak female tennis players), Polish tennis players (including world no. 4 Agnieszka Radwańska and her Top40 sister Urszula Radwańska), or even Australian player Jarmila Gajdošová -- are consistently spelled in their BLP articles with their actual legal name spelling. At most, we provide redirects from names without diacritics to facilitate search for those who simply are unaware of these precise spellings, thanks to WTA, BBC, CNN, etcetera. Right now, as I am typing this, the 2013 Bank of the West Classic singles final is being contested by Agnieszka Radwańska and Dominika Cibulková. I am sure that hundreds of news dispatches in the English-speaking world and WTA publications online and elsewhere will omit both player's diacritics, but we are an encyclopedia, and I don't see us doing it. So why is a group of editors doing it to Ana Ivanović (redirect since 2012, spelled correctly on Commons)?
My attempts to copyedit Ivanović per this reasoning earlier today have been forcefully and repeatedly reverted by one of those editors.
Thoughts? -- Mareklug talk 22:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Lilith Love ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't understand why the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith_Love needs additional citations for verification. To my concern there are no links missing. The controversity of Lilith's work has a link to the newspaper that wrote about it, and as far as I'm concerned that's the only part of the article that needs citation - or am I wrong? Please let me know how to complete this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CortezNL ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Alice Walker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Some extra eyes on this BLP may be necessary. Walker has complained about inaccuracies in the article in the past and she is already controversial figure to some. However, to makes matters potentially worse, the BLP is now being targeted by blocked user AndresHerutJaim via sockpuppetry. Their latest sockpuppet User:Silmeter has been blocked, but given their extensive history of block evasion they are likely to return. I think it is necessary to add that judging from a trivial search, AndresHerutJaim appears to be a pretty fanatical Israel supporter who refers to Arabs and Iranians as apes. So, a blocked user with extreme views who uses sockpuppetry extensively and is probably not a fan of Walker. Exactly the kind of person that needs to be kept away from a BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
An Israeli news service called TheMarker reported on their interview with Peter Joseph, maker of the film, Zeitgeist: The Movie. In the report, they said Joseph is now "distancing himself" from the movie. Peter Joseph responded to this via the film's website, saying that he was misquoted and denying that he was distancing himself from the movie.
The addition of Joseph's self-published response (diff above) is the subject of an edit war and a discussion on the talk page. I'm presenting a condensed version of the discussion below (I've made every effort to present both sides without bias. If any involved parties have anything to add, feel free):
I myself am on the side of adding the response, assuming TheMarker's report is kept in the article. Some have suggested removing it altogether, which I would also find acceptable, though that removal has been tried and warred over as well. Equazcion (talk) 13:47, 24 Jul 2013 (UTC)
This list states that certain people are members of organised crime. This is in direct contravention of BLP issues. For such claims to be made the people so listed must, surely, self identify as members of the organisation, if, indeed, organisation it be. Nominated for AfD, but I think there is an urgent issue here. Fiddle Faddle 14:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I have concerns about the appropriateness of some of the material related to scientology that is currently included on Michael Doven's page. Although it's reported in reliable sources, I don't think that mentioning that he was involved in some form of confrontation with someone once is due weight for a BLP. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 22:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Subject of a back and forth with Legal a few months ago, the bio was a mess of OR, primary sources and clever editing by multiple SPAs with what appeared to be an agenda of some sort. The article was protected while the legal issues were worked out and then bounced back to OTRS with the recommendation that we bring it into policy, so that's what I did. I'm hoping I'm wrong, but I'd appreciate a few eyes on this in case the "OMG YOU MUST PUBLISH THIS FOR GREAT JUSTICE" crowd shows up for edit warring without reliable sources and the usual undue weight. I also left a comment on the talk page with more detail about what was wrong with it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The Talk page at Storage Wars contains a troubling comment under the "Dave Hester" section, specifically this thread. It begins "Dave Hester should be removed completely." I won't repeat the rest. What concerns me is that the statement is signed by one user, but a bot has indicated it is an IP that left the comment. Is it possible the registered user didn't make the comment or the IP piggybacked on it? Either way, it looks like a BLP violation. I'd have removed it myself but am unsure of protocol involving talk pages. 70.76.69.162 ( talk) 15:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a heads up, rather than a complaint. I think that I've edited the article so that it's current state is acceptable.
There have been allegations of abuse at Fort Augustus Abbey in Scotland. Understandably, there was quite a lengthy section inserted in the article recently. I'm concerned that while there were a lot of "allegedly"s and "allegations of" in the sources, this was not reflected in the article itself. I have amended the article accordingly, but considering the current newsworthy status of this article then this could become a magnet for BLP issues. JASpencer ( talk) 15:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Question for you BLP warriors. I've been working on the (existing) list of "Misconduct" in this article; I've removed the alleged offenders' names and added some proper citations. But the more I think about it, the more I am coming to the conclusion that such a list of alleged misconduct is not OK in the first place--all of them involve alleged misconduct and they are followed by a resignation. None of those cases (as far as I can tell) went to trial. So it strikes me as similar to the "person X got arrested" kind of thing we see popping up in BLPs (but person X wasn't tried and convicted, where convention (I think) says we don't include such information unless it was hugely important and widely covered. So I think the whole section should go, since it's a variety of name them and shame them (well, I took out the names, since there is no encyclopedic reason to include them--the article is about the MPD, not about individual cops). See also my comments on the talk page.
Anyway, I don't edit a lot of police department articles and I don't know if there are any guidelines and conventions there; in no way does this compare to a section like Los_Angeles_Police_Department#Controversy, for instance. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 17:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so what do we do about the Article Feedback Tool and comments that violate BLP? I had my first look at the system today and, well, there are some issues.
Thoughts? Gamaliel ( talk) 17:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday I posted correct information under the ==Controversies== section on the Monty Roberts page and provided multiple sources for the information. Today I see it has been deleted. I believe the fact that you deleted correct information on this very controversial person is suspicious and that you are being controlled by Monty Roberts himself to have such correct information promptly removed. There was absolutely NO libel involved in the information. I can add additional source material to prove the information true if need be but I am certain you will only delete it again. I have noticed on the talk page regarding this subject that you have elected to avoid all the controversy. Interesting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolidGiver ( talk • contribs)
Gary North (economist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is the section title
proper in the BLP Gary North (economist)? Alternatives were proposed for "Biblical punishments" and "Using biblical standards for capital punishment" as being valid per WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and covering the actual content of that section. Is the wording of that section proper per the requirements of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in general? There is another issue concomitant which is whether a primary source should be used to back a claim made in Wikipedia's voice concerning this controversial person. Collect ( talk) 21:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments by S.Rich – Introduction:
The particular section title posted by Collect is but the latest of a continuing series of BLP problems.
IMO, much of the BLP problem in Gary North (economist) comes from editing efforts by User:Steeletrap. "Steele" has made 79 edits to the Gary North page. See [51] for the stats. Of these, 20 have been to section headings (section titles) and 2 or 3 have been to remove the BLP template. This listing of edits (below) focuses on the section heading changes by Steeltrap. They are listed as follows:
As stated, these diffs focus on the section headings/titles in which Steele has added, IMNSHO, they are POV. Steele has made repeated reverts to non-appropriate headings. Much discussion has taken place on the article talk page (and on User_talk:Steeletrap#North_RFC) about the need to follow NPOV, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, WP:NDESC, WP:HEADINGS, WP:BALANCE, etc. So, this listing of headings does not include problems in article text where Primary Source into is used (improperly) and templates such as quote, verification, OR, etc. are removed without resolving the problems. In many cases, Steele is responsible for the addition of this material.
Steele has been less than cooperative with very experienced (and previously non-involved) editors who have come in recently to edit the article. E.g., Steele has reverted their edits and argued about the rationale cited by these editors. Indeed, much of Steele's response as been WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. (While I have cited WP policy and guidance, the response has been that I have misquoted policy. And when I've asked for examples, I have not received any meaningful responses.)
@Srich - Srich, this board is to discuss application of policy to content, not editor behavior. Please consider hatting your log of editor actions and your comments about editors, above. Please share your BLP concerns in specific terms that relate WP content to policy. I believe that it's clear that there's been excessive and unresolved revision of these problematic section headings. Part of the problem with this article seems to be that editors have differing understandings of the relevant WP policy statements. Let's try to be clear and specific about our understandings of policy and how policy applies to the text in this article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Proposed section title revisions
Presently the article has the following structure. Headings subject to revision are italicized:
I propose that sections 3 & 4 be combined and revised to read:
Here it is... self-published primary sources usable subject to various limitations which do not pertain to the current iteration of the North article: WP:ABOUTSELF. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for conceding my point and acknowledging the WP policy. I have no further concern. SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I am very distressed to see that my peers Carol, Collect, and Rich have decided to focus on the alleged personal flaws of editors rather than engage in an even-handed policy-based discussion as to why the title may or may not be appropriate. The case for the current title is threefold: 1) that North, as confirmed by numerous RS, supports executing gays and 2) The secondary RS are responding to this very point in their criticism of North. 3) The section as written focuses on North's views about homosexuality. I am deeply disappointed that OP did not note these facts at the top. Steeletrap ( talk) 17:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Would anyone oppose me hatting this and redirecting it back to the Gary North page? It seems to be a continuation of the debate at Gary North's page, so for the long term would be better if this discussion was held there. I think this board can now consider itself to have been notified.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 00:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Huma Abedin has been the subject of Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories advanced by a fringe group of right-wing activists and politicians. Their claims have been widely discredited in mainstream media and are considered false and pernicious. User:BingNorton is attempting to whitewash this fact by removing well-sourced rebuttals and rejections of those conspiracy theories from the Washington Post and Anti-Defamation League, which has the effect of making the conspiracy theories seem more credible and important than they really are. Omitting the mainstream consensus (that the claims are evidence-free, politically-motivated attacks) gives those claims undue weight. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Michael Schindhelm ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biography is not up to date.
- Currently, he works there as professor for the subject of public space.[3] Since 2010 he is also involved in the creation of a think tank for global culture at Zurich University for the Arts. Furthermore, in 2010 he started a collaboration on global philanthropy with the German charity organization Welthungerhilfe.
- He's not a culture manager. Culture Advisor.
- To General: Cultural management => Cultural research, teaching, and consultancy.
Would like to change it. Thank you.
Jong Soo Park ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A lot of potentially libelous material on that page - someone out there doesn't like the guy at all!
Bebe Zeva ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
this article contains no historical or cultural important information and should be deleted immediately
Could stand another set of hands here. IP repeatedly adding unsourced controversial material. Most recent attempt cited youtube. [1] Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 23:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
We have a familiar situation at Justin Bieber ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where some tabloid allegations are being edit-warred into the article. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 00:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia give preference to official portraits and images provided or published by the subject of the biography? Please see relevant discussion on Talk:Narendra Modi regarding infobox image(s). ( permalink) See also: WP:AUTOPROB. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Either the article is about 2 people, or about someone with no sources. Something very wrong. In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
IP insists on inserting the name of the subject's spouse and number of children, which was reported to OTRS as being incorrect and is unsourced anyway. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Anil k khandelwal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A fine example of a promotional article that probably needs toning down a notch. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The Judith Collins article has been receiving a lot of attention lately in NZ including [2] so it may be useful for more eyes. Nil Einne ( talk) 08:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Richard Barber ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article about myself is headed by a warning that it lacks sufficient verification and requesting additional sources. I can't see anything more that can be documented. Please advise what is missing so that the warning can be cleared. Rwbarberuk ( talk) 15:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Richard Barber
Linda R. Reade ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't believe that the report addresses enough detail to the outrages of Linda Reade's extraordinarily controversial participation in the trial despite working together with the prosecutors on the raid which would strongly suggest an invested interest which should have disqualified her. Furthermore, 6 former attorney generals commented that her sentence was out of proportion to the crime committed which was essentially wilfull misreporting of income to a bank without intent to commit harm. Also, she presided over the first appeal, and there was considerable evidence that she was involved in the decision of the second appeal. Hundreds of thousands of people signed a petition requesting further review of this case including several dozen congressmen.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.202.186 ( talk) 19:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Lance Hohaia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the refernce section Lance's middle name is spelt incorrectly it should be KORO (I am his sister). The link does not work so I don't know how to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulaKiri ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Techno Viking ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) + File:Technoviking.jpg In the article and on its talk page, there are various (poorly or not sourced) speculations about name and identity posted about a person, who has never agreed to be published but explicitly expressed dissent and per court decisions is granted his name and images are not published anymore [3]. Several edits on the article and talk page should be hidden, for ex. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]!!, [10], [11], [12], ... and the whole article between [13] and [14]. (Repost as the versions are still all visible and the image has been inserted again although there is no IfD-solution yet.) -- Trofobi ( talk) 18:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Gary Catona Article is 100% ad copy for him and his voice classes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.55.80 ( talk) 14:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this article has any place on wikipedia. I believe this falls under criteria G11 for speedy deletion. Most of the events described in the article have little to do with Dakota Brant herself. I mean are there entries for every student journalist on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.148.119 ( talk) 22:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Gabriel Calzada Alvarez ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This suitability of this article is dubious. Given that most of the length is criticism of a single article, serious balance issues are present even if this does not rise to the level of WP:ATTACK. The independent notability of the subject or the notability of the controversy (for BLP1E) are not clear. Advice on the appropriate disposition of this article is requested. Novangelis ( talk) 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
In this article, an IP editor removed a mention of the subject leaving his company because of allegations of sexual harassment. The real-life context will be readily apparent from a Google search or from [15] (though that looks like a blog and thus not referenceable in mainspace). The reason given for the removal of the information, "not to a primary source", is a bit puzzling because per WP:V, we prefer reliable secondary sources over primary ones. But are there serious concerns that the one source cited is inadequate as a reference for WP:BLP purposes? Sandstein 07:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Wayne Rooney ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article says that he is the third most payed footballer, the source is a Goal.com article from 2011, please revise this information as i believe this information is now outdated, Rooney is not third anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.4 ( talk) 09:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Julie Larson-Green ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chris Bascombe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor is repeatedly reintroducing this content into the article. While possibly true, it is sourced to the autobiography of one of the participants who was allegedly the target of wrongdoing, and is controversial. This isn't supported by other sources as far as I can tell, and even if notable the accusations are notable the fact most probably belong in Gerard Houllier, as its not clear that they would merit inclusion in this (short) biography. What's the next step for getting this resolved? L Faraone 21:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
No verifiability or citations for wealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.187.102 ( talk) 16:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Dayalbagh Educational Institute ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dayalbagh ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In March of this year, a PhD student was apparently murdered in the premises of the Dayalbagh Educational Institute, and subsequently the grandson of the DEI chairman has been arrested and charged with the murder. While it might possibly seem reasonable to cover this story briefly in at least one of these articles, I have just had to remove a large section covering the story from both articles. The sourcing was poor - including some 'citing' of scanned documents apparently uploaded by a contributor (clearly not WP:RS, and needing translation even if properly sourced), and the section made multiple claims regarding some sort of cover-up, none of which seemed to be verifiable. Clearly we will need to investigate proper sourcing, but can I ask BLPN regulars to lend a hand in deciding what, if any, coverage is appropriate regarding the story in the articles, and to help with ensuring that such coverage complies with policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I am the contributor in question. The content is true and can be verified by users having knowledge of Hindi at eArchives of the Agra edition of Amar Ujala papers published from dates 16th March to 30th April at http://earchive.amarujala.com/. Also, some of the content of the section can be verified at http://www.indianexpress.com/news/laboratory-of-murder-clues/1107266/0.
I request fellow editors to suggest better ways to source content published in print newspapers. The content is available on the web but is protected behind a login screen. AgraNewsObserver ( talk) 15:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Editor User:TransVannian is rather pointedly trying to highlight the victim's name in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case at the article and on the article talk. The victim has been identified in some reliable press accounts at the direct request of her father; however, most reliable sources (both Indian and international) continue to use pseudonyms. I have mixed feelings myself as to whether the victim's name should be included here, but I thought I should alert this board to the issue to get the thoughts of some uninvolved experienced editors. I'm on semi-Wikibreak and can't really monitor the situation. Thanks all, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 15:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Reported to OTRS. Single paragraph about past misdeeds which have been cleared up, etc. Low-intensity revert war between the subject or people associated with him and some IPs. Removed as WP:UNDUE. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't have any references and it just speaks about how great this person is without any verifiable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirudha2000 2000 ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no valid reference for this stub. The only reference is another wikipdia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.177.98 ( talk) 05:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The recent edits to Jay Jopling may or may not be improvements factually, but the removal of references is going to be trouble. Reverted just now. Charles Matthews ( talk) 07:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
User:SamerVergara 21 has been repeatedly updating the page for Sandra Vergara, attempting to add dates of birth. My concern with these repeated edits are:
I am not trying to get into a debate about the Sandra Vergara's true date of birth; I merely do not think it is appropriate for her son to be inserting unsourced dates into his mother's article, especially given the fact that it conflicts with published sources. (The published sources are also all over the place year-wise, btw.) It seems that the subject does not want her true date of birth to be public knowledge and wp:blp requires that we respect this (implied) wish. In the past, we have not knowingly published inaccurate dates of birth for the sake of an actor's vanity but we have omitted dates of birth from an actor's page if the year is contested, all per wp:blp.
The editor periodically returns to editing his mom's page. It is almost the only page he has ever edited in the article space (with one exception). I would like to propose a subject-ban on this editor.
Thanks, Dusty| 💬| You can help! 14:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Just an heads up. Subject is currently in the news due to an arrest. There is, as expected, a spike of activity on the page, and news sources seem to have a penchant for making weak links between the (certainly controversial) subject and Anders Behring Breivik. So far nothing really concerning as far as I can see, apart from a clear violation I reverted, but given the situation I'd like some experienced people to watchlist it. Thanks. -- cyclopia speak! 14:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is about the judge who is best known for presiding over the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Most of this article is unsourced and appears to be in violation of BLP. I would remove the material but there be little left of the article. Perhaps someone familiar with the subject could look at it. TFD ( talk) 17:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Luca Parmitano ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
From the Education section: "Parmitano graduated from the Liceo Scientifico Statale `Galileo Galilei´ in Catania, Italy, in 1995. Parmitano spent a year (1963) as an exchange student in USA with AFS Intercultural Programs."
Year 1963 is a typo, as Luca Parmitano was born in 1976. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.236.218.45 ( talk) 19:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Our article on Rick Still ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) says he is "best known as the creator of UFO Phil - in both cases the source is IMDB which of course we cannot use as a source. The closest I can get to a source is [16] which only suggests that it is possible. The problem exists at both articles. I'm not sure that without this suggestion that they might be the same that Rick Still is even notable. Looks like quite a bit of coi also at Ufo Phil, IPs from LA and a new editor named - Ufo Phil. Dougweller ( talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Babita Sharma ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The subject has contacted OTRS about the repeated addition to the article of an unsourced DoB. I have warned the most prolific reverter not to add it back without a reliable source, per BLP. More eyes please. Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 15:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Several accounts are using the article to vent on a teacher arrested for sex crimes with minors, adding some sourced and some unsourced content. This involves non-notables, and I've suggested this be discussed at the talk page, to no avail. 76.248.144.216 ( talk) 19:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There is a absolutely no evidence that Al Sharpton should have the title of Rev. He attended no seminary, etc. To call him a Rev. is a disservice to those who spent years in a seminary and have been called by God to service their congregations with the church's peace and love message. He is a publicity seeker and in no way represent sane or rational discussion of race in this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.115.231 ( talk) 23:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
|
Has categories all to himself - including "Jesuit Popes" and "Argentine Popes." Are they really of any conceivable value to readers? Collect ( talk) 11:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
John Acquaviva ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not an urgent request, however I'm hoping an interested editor will be willing to give this BLP a good NPOV scrub. I also have concerns regarding copyright issues related to material lifted from his official bio. -- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 21:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that the advertising tag on Gateways (organization) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been removed and took a look at the article for the first time in a while. I've brought it here because most of it is really made up of 3 BLP 'articles', each of which dwarfs the information on the organisation itself. This seems inappropriate but I'm not sure what, if anything, should be done about it. Maybe the 3 biographies need to be turned into articles? Dougweller ( talk) 08:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Anons are used (now several times daily) since 24 Januiary 2013 to restore an unsourced and at least partially inaccurate claim that an alleged illegitimate son, "Dr. Emmanuel Bertounesque", is the rightful heir to the Orsini family's hereditary titles, in the article on the historical noble Italian Orsini family, several members of which are living. The allegations directly refer to and concern living persons mentioned by name in the offending edits. The inaccuracies have been pointed out and explained on the talk page. Diffs are here, here, here, here and here. It is obvious that the editor understands the nature of the BLP objection because the last-mentioned dif ends with a cite to an Italian Yahoo groups article about a lawsuit for public recognition by an alleged illegitimate daughter of soon-to-abdicate Albert II of Belgium: That cite, however, does not mention the Orsini family or its members in any way. Since most of the inserted violations and reverts of corrections are done by new anons, protecting this article from this 7 month pattern of BLP violations necessitates that the page be semi-protected. Although the problem was reported here, the BLP violations have increased: Admin intervention is needed. Archived by bot, re-listed for still needed admin action. FactStraight ( talk) 16:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The chief problem with the John Sankey (drummer) article is its tone: self-serving, overly positive and promotional. It reads like a media release, perhaps written by the subject, and at times like a fanzine article (e.g. 'needless to say Sankey fired Carpenter from the band immediately'). Further, the article fails entirely to meet the verifiability standard, due to the inclusion of numerous unsourced quotes and unreferenced mentions of awards, praise and renown. There is too much information about the career of the band Devolved (band), which has its own article. A minor issue is idiosyncratic formatting of the article: the image of the subject is large and located top and centre of the page, instead of being thumbnailed and placed on one margin, and the subject's name has been formatted in bold type throughout the text. Last, the links at the bottom of the page have been headed as 'References' but they are actually 'External links'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondrumm ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Article looks like it was written by himself. Interesting, in view of recent debunking by Sokal http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/07/16/death-of-a-theory Richard Gill ( talk) 19:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The user is presenting himself as Dale Berra. He has first attempted to delete sourced material from the article about a drug indictment ( most recent diff) and lately has been trying to add material claiming sobriety for the last 20 years ( diff) using only primary, non-published sources. — C.Fred ( talk) 04:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am raising an issue that has been raised at WP:ANI#Jehovah's Witnesses. My complaint has been swamped there with a hijacking of the thread by irrelevant material that needs to be raised elsewhere.
User:Corjay has made multiple attacks at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Opinion of Andrew Holden not a fact on Andrew Holden, a published and widely-cited English sociologist, arising from objections that Corjay (a self-identified Jehovah's Witness) has with a statement about the religion sourced to Holden.
Corjay has claimed Holden:
Corjay has brushed off my warning about personal attacks. [26] WP:BLP covers comments on talk pages. Holden is a reputable academic and such personal attacks on that talk page by a defiant and unrepentant editor deserve to be sanctioned. BlackCab ( talk) 11:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
John Sinrud ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article violates wikipedia guidlines. In addition to being difficult to read, the content is poorly sourced and editorialized. In addition, there seems to be a debate taking place on the page that is more suitable for the Talk Page. Furthermore, I'm not sure that this article is noteworthy enough to merit its own page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.78.122 ( talk • contribs)
After a recent controversy, this article has completely lost its neutrality. Please check the edit history and the talk page for the discussion and circumstances regarding this complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.241.213.18 ( talk) 15:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
"primary architect of the decline of The United States"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.126.109 ( talk) 08:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Andy Burnham ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Daily Mail is in a lather over this article today. [28] I explained on the talk page what the problem was, and would appreciate some input from non-involved editors.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
S. P. Balasubrahmanyam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is subject to a lot of additions of gushing fan cruft. Usually, it is done by IPs, but the latest offender is an auto-confirmed account, although it's possible that some of the IPs preceding the registered account adding the same material are the same person. I've warned the editor, but it doesn't seem to do any good. They're one of those editors who never talk. They just keep plugging away like no one else exists but them. They have added a large section to the article charmingly entitled "Love for Karnataka and Kannadigas" with some choice tidbits like:
In addition to that (and more), there are long quotes from the subject about how he feels. -- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Removed blatant puff lists of everything he has ever done with anyone -- I suggest the linked list of "awards" may also be a tad down-filled Collect ( talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
*Taking a go. EBY ( talk) 16:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Dulee Johnson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would someone please take a look at the message I have posted at this article's talk page following an e-mail from the subject at OTRS? Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 16:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Ram Revilla ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi, I'm currently expanding the article Ram Revilla. As suggested by User:DGG that I should make a request here before editing the article to prevent me from making any more mistakes that would violate the BLP policies. I have read the policies and somewhat edited it to my best. I have now my draft, but I am warned that if I post anything I'd be blocked. So, where do I show it for your approval? Thanks a lot. By the way, I was originally creating another article for the same person Ram Revilla Murder Case but now, as suggested I will just expand it on the main article. Fearjesus ( talk) 08:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Also, as said on the policies that unconvicted or suspects's name must not be included, so I only made it as their initials. But I also see an exemption about putting names if they are publicizednow in the news over and over again. Fearjesus ( talk) 08:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
That being, I don't know who the heck the guy is! Marc Biedermann is the title of the article. The AllMusic entry used as its only source says he's "Mike" Biedermann. A Google search gives two non-WP-related hits, one where he's listed as "Marc" and the other as "Mark." He's borderline notable due to tour/session associations with other acts, so article deletion isn't likely, but it's hard to do anything with the article when the name can't be searched for easily. MSJapan ( talk) 20:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor ~ 86.19.115.227 ~ is repeatedly adding soapboxing commentary on an alleged controversy concerning Mehmet Oz's ("Dr. Oz") views on circumcision. The IP's original edits accused Oz's views as "ludicrous" (which they may be but that isn't for the IP to tell us). I have unsuccessively tried to indicate to the IP why these edits aren't acceptable. The IP instead responds with false accusations of "vandalism" in edit summaries and with rants and threats on the article's discussion page. Apart from the edits being both soapboxing and commentary no citations have been provided that Oz's views on circumcision has attracted any controversy. I will appreciate other editors and administrators having a look at the IP's edits and monitoring the page for further BLP violations. Afterwriting ( talk) 04:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Evie Sands ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I know Evie Sands personally, and she assures me that she was NOT born in 1946, and her birthday IS July 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.109.203 ( talk) 06:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Article: Li Hongzhi
Paragraph in question:
Issue: Two editors (one of whom is now topic banned) have repeatedly added citations in this paragraph to Chinese government sources (second and third citations, from the Chinese embassy and Xinhua, respectively). I am concerned that this violates the spirit and letter of the BLP policy, as these sources contain inflammatory and unfounded allegations about a living person. Note that I am not disputing the text, but merely the inclusion of these two supplementary, primary source citations. My concerns are as follows:
One of the opposing editors noted that "the Chinese government is a reliable source for the position of the Chinese government on issues of relevance to the Chinese government." I agree. However, these sources are not merely stating the position of the Chinese government; they are making derogatory and extraordinary statements about a third party, which is why there's a concern. I would appreciate community input in this matter. TheBlueCanoe 18:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Since the original charges agains Assange were issues, there has been a long running debate on how to characterize the charges. Some editors have suggested that the charges should be called "rape", while others have suggested more general terms like "sexual assault". Complicating the issue is the fact that the exact charges are legal in nature and roughly translate to something like "rape lesser degree", for which there is no congruent term in the English language. The general nature of the charge appears to be a category of sexual assault which is somewhere between "date rape" and "sexual harassment", though the precise definition is a bit nebulous due to translation issues, both legal and language.
This topic has been discussed several times on both the case page, and Assange's page: [33], [34]. Similarly, from Julian Assange, [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42].
The general consensus has been to prefer high quality secondary sources when referring to the charges. Currently an editor is attempting to insert descriptions based on this source: [43], which is a foreign language primary source from the prosecution. Using this source seems to run afoul of WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:CRIME. Higher quality sources like in-depth reporting from large news outlets are safer sources for supporting controversial content like the exact nature of the charges.
Any guidance here would be appreciated. aprock ( talk) 17:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Kuldip Singh Kular ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gsingh ( talk) 01:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Some days ago I came across this article while monitoring recent changes. I removed a paragraph of unsupported criminal allegations. My removal was undone today, with two footnotes added -- one an invalid URL and one to an aggregator which backs up almost none of the paragraph in question. Upon looking more closely, the sources adequately back up such a small part of the article as a whole that it seemed worth bringing it to the noticeboard. I should say, however, that I had absolutely no idea who Dave Hilton Jr. is and can't make a judgment as to whether the article is actually true -- just that as it stands the sources don't back it up.
Hi all,
The subject of the article ( R.A. the Rugged Man) has been in touch with the OTRS response team (ticket 2013070710000468 for those with OTRS access). He has claimed that among other issues, there are two significant inaccuracies in his article - that the lede section has his name as "Richard Andrew Thorburn" where "Richard Andrew" is his middle name, and his first name is not public knowledge, but due to how article is written, it looks as if Richard is his surname. He addressed this in a radio interview at 31:45 that the information is incorrect (along with his DOB being incorrect, and this too being non-public info). I am thinking we should consider changing the lede section to either omit the real name as the first name is not known, or detail in the lede that the names we have don't include first names (but that doesn't make much sense to me). In regards to the DOB, he is contesting that the year is incorrect, however in the article a passage says "In 1992, at the age of 18, Thorburn signed with Jive Records, then in the mid-1990s signed with Priority Records/EMI." This info largely seems to have come from this reference and if you take this tweet from the subject, their date of is on Jan 10, in either 1973 or 1974, most likely 1974. The subject is stating this is incorrect and that he has spread misinformation about his actual date of birth, so it may be possible to note an approximate DOB and further down note that the subject has provided conflicting information about their DOB. Can I get some input on this one please? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 14:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add the following to the James Randi article: On May 29th 2012 James Randi's long-term partner, Deyvi Pena was convicted of stealing the identity of Jose Luis Alvarez, a teaching assistant from the Bronx. Pena was sentenced to 6 months house arrest, but may face deportation. He had lived for 24 years under the stolen identity causing numerous problems for the real Alvarez, including an IRS investigation. Deyvi Pena had also played the part of 'Carlos' a fake channeler, in James Randi's Project Alpha. [4] [5]
There is currently virtually no criticism of Randi in the article, and no mention of his partner being convicted, despite the fact it mentions their marriage and the Project Alpha. I feel the article is not NPOV and is being controlled by those who support Randi's work with no balance. Solar ( talk) 14:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I realize that Wikipedia errs on the side of caution and privacy when it comes to BLP issues, but occasionally, common sense needs to be interjected. Keep in mind that this is a biography - the description of someone's life. From what I gather, this person's spouse was tried and convicted of a crime. Are we seriously suggesting that this had no impact on this person's life? This discussion, sadly, seems more focused on whether this event makes this person look good or bad. Instead, we should be focused on providing our readers an accurate description of a person's life. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The use of the identity in the Carlos/alpha stunt seems incidental to the BLP (although the identity swap should be mentioned in the alpha article). The ID theft itself is not relevant to Randi's BLP, however, one of the sources does indicate a portion of the story that IS relevant to his BLP "Pena stole the identity a year before he began traveling with Randi in the magician's crusade to expose mystics, faith healers and psychics as frauds. Randi testified at an October court hearing to Pena's true identity, acknowledging he had seen Pena's Venezuelan passport years ago." [46] <BLP violation redacted> So, the only question remains are the sources reliable enough for the BLP allegation? Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
In other news, between the current scandal articles, and the previous fame from the alpha hoax, It seems like pena may pass WP:GNG where more of this information could correctly go. (Although obviously he is only getting coverage (in both cases perhaps) via his relatinoship with randi - he is getting the coverage. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Subject person does not appear to meet the WP guidelines for notability. A review of the Talk page shows virtually unanimous consent for this understanding. Additionally, this person's photograph appeared as Picture of the Day on her birthday. This does seem to be some sort of childish prank which dilutes the credibility and seriousness of WP by gerrymandering the consensus system.
First question: what is the appropriate approach for starting the deletion process in this case? I looked at several help articles and found varying methods, e.g. Speedy Deletion, but am not clear what is best here.
Second question: despite the clear consensus on the talk page, the deletion process may well generate self-serving protest, fake voting, further gaming of the system, etc., from the same people who managed to vandalize the POTD process. Is there a proactive way to avoid, detect or otherwise stop this? Skilled and attractive as this person may be, the article belongs on LinkedIn–and the pic belongs on Tumblr–not in WP. Wikipedia is the greatest collaboration of notable knowledge ever undertaken. It's too bad this discussion even exists, but hopefully WP's integrity will benefit. Thanks, Marquess ( talk) 00:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor at Tim Loughton has identified himself as a party in an incident discussed in the article. Perhaps some UK editors could untangle this matter? Gamaliel ( talk) 22:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Shekhar Gurera ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Recent edits have been by the subject of the article ( example), and it's now heavily self-promotional, WP:NOTRESUME. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Yasin Bhatkal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No citations given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.46.9 ( talk) 23:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm in an edit war with an IP user here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hal_Rogers&action=historysubmit&diff=565917520&oldid=565897390
My contention is that simply noting the living (last I checked) Congrescritter's vote against a certain measure does not rise to the level we should notice, absent some comment from or about him specifically as to why he himself voted this way. Hcobb ( talk) 23:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Roger Waters ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
After reading the sources and others the Israel section seems POV. The symbols on the pig included hammer and sickle, dollar signs, Shell oil symbol etc. The article calls them 'symbols of fascism'. Another RS I read stated (by a Jewish notable) that he didn't consider the Berlin show as anti-sematic. The subject is honoring the performance boycott in Israel but that should make him anti-Israeli government not anti-people. This would be similar to calling those that boycotted performance in South Africa as anti-white and not anti-Apartheid. I don't know how many other subjects we have that are boycotting Israel but some of them may be tagged as anti-Semites as well. Thoughts?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 00:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Joachim von zur Gathen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - contained what seemed to me appalling BLP issues after this started. I don't know about the allegations but I do know that they were (like the rest of the article) wholly unreferenced. I've put it back to what I hope is an acceptable state but there's clearly at least one recently active campaigner wants this content in, and the article might benefit from BLP-aware people keeping an eye on it. I am assuming it doesn't need diffs hiding for legal reasons but again I'm sure others will know better than me. Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 08:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Art Bell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some editors (including User:Tommyofcoast ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User:Georgesnoory ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are adding info indicating that Bell has died. Nothing online yet indicating that he has. [47] -- Auric talk 19:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The wording of this Wikipedia biography about a Swedish politician is very negative, extremely suspect and highly inflammatory. Sourcing isn't very solid. Portions of the article are unsourced. Most recent additions were done by an IP editor whose address traces to Sweden. A previous, even more inflammatory and completely unsourced edit, [48] reverted as vandalism, was done by a previous IP editor from the same Swedish IP range. I've already reverted the most problematic recent edits — but I think a little light protection for the article is in order. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 16:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Grant Cardone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone should take a look at the new Scientology-related material added to this article. I've tried to keep it out because, in my view, it has too many BLP problems and related sourcing issues. However, a second editor (who's professed interest is only Scientology) has joined the fray.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Thimbleweed and I have reached agreement on part of the material. The sticking point is one paragraph. I was going to suggest some sort of dispute resolution, but really the best forum for resolving a BLP dispute is this board. So, if anyone wants to mosey on over to the article talk page and offer their opinion, it would hopefully provide a clearer consensus. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
At least two (or possibly more) living people currently in this list do not qualify as "sockpuppets" in my opinion. More input would be welcome. My very best wishes ( talk) 19:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The statement that Amir prostitutes girls for Bitcoins, sourced by a forum post, is being added and removed from the article repeatedly, over a dispute about whether a forum post is an acceptable source for it or not. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 02:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
this article biography of eugene blair need a references. Strongvibration ( talk) 12:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Waje ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
there is no Evidence of notability on the article of WAJE. there is no relieble references that proof the Awards or her Nominations... this article need a relieble independent source. Strongvibration ( talk) 12:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Ana Ivanovic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Per Wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living persons, we are under strictures to make their biographies adhere precisely to severe guidelines, including legal accuracy. Has Ana Ivanović changed her legal name from "Ivanović" to "Ivanovic"? Could anyone provide a source, that this has happened? Can someone quote Ana Ivanović from a reliable source on this subject? She is a resident of Switzerland now, so perhaps this occurred when filing for residency there? If not, we would seem to be breaking the strictures of WP:BLP by inventing rationale to spell her name other than her actual name.
I also remind everyone that other Serbian (former world no.1 Jelena Janković who resides in Dubai, or Ana Jovanović who resides in Munich, Germany), Czech (eg., nearly the entire content of Category:Czech female tennis players), Slovak (e.g., nearly the entire content of Category:Slovak female tennis players), Polish tennis players (including world no. 4 Agnieszka Radwańska and her Top40 sister Urszula Radwańska), or even Australian player Jarmila Gajdošová -- are consistently spelled in their BLP articles with their actual legal name spelling. At most, we provide redirects from names without diacritics to facilitate search for those who simply are unaware of these precise spellings, thanks to WTA, BBC, CNN, etcetera. Right now, as I am typing this, the 2013 Bank of the West Classic singles final is being contested by Agnieszka Radwańska and Dominika Cibulková. I am sure that hundreds of news dispatches in the English-speaking world and WTA publications online and elsewhere will omit both player's diacritics, but we are an encyclopedia, and I don't see us doing it. So why is a group of editors doing it to Ana Ivanović (redirect since 2012, spelled correctly on Commons)?
My attempts to copyedit Ivanović per this reasoning earlier today have been forcefully and repeatedly reverted by one of those editors.
Thoughts? -- Mareklug talk 22:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Lilith Love ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't understand why the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith_Love needs additional citations for verification. To my concern there are no links missing. The controversity of Lilith's work has a link to the newspaper that wrote about it, and as far as I'm concerned that's the only part of the article that needs citation - or am I wrong? Please let me know how to complete this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CortezNL ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Alice Walker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Some extra eyes on this BLP may be necessary. Walker has complained about inaccuracies in the article in the past and she is already controversial figure to some. However, to makes matters potentially worse, the BLP is now being targeted by blocked user AndresHerutJaim via sockpuppetry. Their latest sockpuppet User:Silmeter has been blocked, but given their extensive history of block evasion they are likely to return. I think it is necessary to add that judging from a trivial search, AndresHerutJaim appears to be a pretty fanatical Israel supporter who refers to Arabs and Iranians as apes. So, a blocked user with extreme views who uses sockpuppetry extensively and is probably not a fan of Walker. Exactly the kind of person that needs to be kept away from a BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
An Israeli news service called TheMarker reported on their interview with Peter Joseph, maker of the film, Zeitgeist: The Movie. In the report, they said Joseph is now "distancing himself" from the movie. Peter Joseph responded to this via the film's website, saying that he was misquoted and denying that he was distancing himself from the movie.
The addition of Joseph's self-published response (diff above) is the subject of an edit war and a discussion on the talk page. I'm presenting a condensed version of the discussion below (I've made every effort to present both sides without bias. If any involved parties have anything to add, feel free):
I myself am on the side of adding the response, assuming TheMarker's report is kept in the article. Some have suggested removing it altogether, which I would also find acceptable, though that removal has been tried and warred over as well. Equazcion (talk) 13:47, 24 Jul 2013 (UTC)
This list states that certain people are members of organised crime. This is in direct contravention of BLP issues. For such claims to be made the people so listed must, surely, self identify as members of the organisation, if, indeed, organisation it be. Nominated for AfD, but I think there is an urgent issue here. Fiddle Faddle 14:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I have concerns about the appropriateness of some of the material related to scientology that is currently included on Michael Doven's page. Although it's reported in reliable sources, I don't think that mentioning that he was involved in some form of confrontation with someone once is due weight for a BLP. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 22:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Subject of a back and forth with Legal a few months ago, the bio was a mess of OR, primary sources and clever editing by multiple SPAs with what appeared to be an agenda of some sort. The article was protected while the legal issues were worked out and then bounced back to OTRS with the recommendation that we bring it into policy, so that's what I did. I'm hoping I'm wrong, but I'd appreciate a few eyes on this in case the "OMG YOU MUST PUBLISH THIS FOR GREAT JUSTICE" crowd shows up for edit warring without reliable sources and the usual undue weight. I also left a comment on the talk page with more detail about what was wrong with it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The Talk page at Storage Wars contains a troubling comment under the "Dave Hester" section, specifically this thread. It begins "Dave Hester should be removed completely." I won't repeat the rest. What concerns me is that the statement is signed by one user, but a bot has indicated it is an IP that left the comment. Is it possible the registered user didn't make the comment or the IP piggybacked on it? Either way, it looks like a BLP violation. I'd have removed it myself but am unsure of protocol involving talk pages. 70.76.69.162 ( talk) 15:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a heads up, rather than a complaint. I think that I've edited the article so that it's current state is acceptable.
There have been allegations of abuse at Fort Augustus Abbey in Scotland. Understandably, there was quite a lengthy section inserted in the article recently. I'm concerned that while there were a lot of "allegedly"s and "allegations of" in the sources, this was not reflected in the article itself. I have amended the article accordingly, but considering the current newsworthy status of this article then this could become a magnet for BLP issues. JASpencer ( talk) 15:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Question for you BLP warriors. I've been working on the (existing) list of "Misconduct" in this article; I've removed the alleged offenders' names and added some proper citations. But the more I think about it, the more I am coming to the conclusion that such a list of alleged misconduct is not OK in the first place--all of them involve alleged misconduct and they are followed by a resignation. None of those cases (as far as I can tell) went to trial. So it strikes me as similar to the "person X got arrested" kind of thing we see popping up in BLPs (but person X wasn't tried and convicted, where convention (I think) says we don't include such information unless it was hugely important and widely covered. So I think the whole section should go, since it's a variety of name them and shame them (well, I took out the names, since there is no encyclopedic reason to include them--the article is about the MPD, not about individual cops). See also my comments on the talk page.
Anyway, I don't edit a lot of police department articles and I don't know if there are any guidelines and conventions there; in no way does this compare to a section like Los_Angeles_Police_Department#Controversy, for instance. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 17:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so what do we do about the Article Feedback Tool and comments that violate BLP? I had my first look at the system today and, well, there are some issues.
Thoughts? Gamaliel ( talk) 17:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday I posted correct information under the ==Controversies== section on the Monty Roberts page and provided multiple sources for the information. Today I see it has been deleted. I believe the fact that you deleted correct information on this very controversial person is suspicious and that you are being controlled by Monty Roberts himself to have such correct information promptly removed. There was absolutely NO libel involved in the information. I can add additional source material to prove the information true if need be but I am certain you will only delete it again. I have noticed on the talk page regarding this subject that you have elected to avoid all the controversy. Interesting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolidGiver ( talk • contribs)
Gary North (economist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is the section title
proper in the BLP Gary North (economist)? Alternatives were proposed for "Biblical punishments" and "Using biblical standards for capital punishment" as being valid per WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and covering the actual content of that section. Is the wording of that section proper per the requirements of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in general? There is another issue concomitant which is whether a primary source should be used to back a claim made in Wikipedia's voice concerning this controversial person. Collect ( talk) 21:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments by S.Rich – Introduction:
The particular section title posted by Collect is but the latest of a continuing series of BLP problems.
IMO, much of the BLP problem in Gary North (economist) comes from editing efforts by User:Steeletrap. "Steele" has made 79 edits to the Gary North page. See [51] for the stats. Of these, 20 have been to section headings (section titles) and 2 or 3 have been to remove the BLP template. This listing of edits (below) focuses on the section heading changes by Steeltrap. They are listed as follows:
As stated, these diffs focus on the section headings/titles in which Steele has added, IMNSHO, they are POV. Steele has made repeated reverts to non-appropriate headings. Much discussion has taken place on the article talk page (and on User_talk:Steeletrap#North_RFC) about the need to follow NPOV, WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, WP:NDESC, WP:HEADINGS, WP:BALANCE, etc. So, this listing of headings does not include problems in article text where Primary Source into is used (improperly) and templates such as quote, verification, OR, etc. are removed without resolving the problems. In many cases, Steele is responsible for the addition of this material.
Steele has been less than cooperative with very experienced (and previously non-involved) editors who have come in recently to edit the article. E.g., Steele has reverted their edits and argued about the rationale cited by these editors. Indeed, much of Steele's response as been WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. (While I have cited WP policy and guidance, the response has been that I have misquoted policy. And when I've asked for examples, I have not received any meaningful responses.)
@Srich - Srich, this board is to discuss application of policy to content, not editor behavior. Please consider hatting your log of editor actions and your comments about editors, above. Please share your BLP concerns in specific terms that relate WP content to policy. I believe that it's clear that there's been excessive and unresolved revision of these problematic section headings. Part of the problem with this article seems to be that editors have differing understandings of the relevant WP policy statements. Let's try to be clear and specific about our understandings of policy and how policy applies to the text in this article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Proposed section title revisions
Presently the article has the following structure. Headings subject to revision are italicized:
I propose that sections 3 & 4 be combined and revised to read:
Here it is... self-published primary sources usable subject to various limitations which do not pertain to the current iteration of the North article: WP:ABOUTSELF. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for conceding my point and acknowledging the WP policy. I have no further concern. SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I am very distressed to see that my peers Carol, Collect, and Rich have decided to focus on the alleged personal flaws of editors rather than engage in an even-handed policy-based discussion as to why the title may or may not be appropriate. The case for the current title is threefold: 1) that North, as confirmed by numerous RS, supports executing gays and 2) The secondary RS are responding to this very point in their criticism of North. 3) The section as written focuses on North's views about homosexuality. I am deeply disappointed that OP did not note these facts at the top. Steeletrap ( talk) 17:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Would anyone oppose me hatting this and redirecting it back to the Gary North page? It seems to be a continuation of the debate at Gary North's page, so for the long term would be better if this discussion was held there. I think this board can now consider itself to have been notified.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 00:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Huma Abedin has been the subject of Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories advanced by a fringe group of right-wing activists and politicians. Their claims have been widely discredited in mainstream media and are considered false and pernicious. User:BingNorton is attempting to whitewash this fact by removing well-sourced rebuttals and rejections of those conspiracy theories from the Washington Post and Anti-Defamation League, which has the effect of making the conspiracy theories seem more credible and important than they really are. Omitting the mainstream consensus (that the claims are evidence-free, politically-motivated attacks) gives those claims undue weight. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)