This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Geoffrey Edelsten states that the Wikipedia article about him is highly defamatory and damaging. There are a number of defamatory and damaging statements. One in particular as followings;
He subsequently spent a year in jail for hiring an underworld figure, Christopher Dale Flannery, to assault a former patient, and for perverting the course of justice.[5][6][7]
Article found here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Edelsten
- This media statement is greatly different than actual charges seen at
http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf
- The charge was in fact “soliciting” not “hiring” – the use of “hiring” is defamatory, the fact can be found in the charge as follows;
http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf
- The charge does not refer “a former patient” instead referred to as “another” – the use of “a former patient” is defamatory, the fact can be found in the charge as follows;
http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf
- The alleged “another” as seen in the charges stood trial for the attempted extortion of Edelsten. "another" was the man who in 1984 harassed and intimidated Edelsten and his family to extort money with menaces. This other side is not covered, and by its absence presents a highly biased view. “another” was later sentenced to 3 and a 1/2 years prison for fraud of an Australian Government Agency of more than $330,000.
- Flannery was not considered an underworld figure in 1984 – the date as set out in the charges. Flannery was only considered an underworld figure in media reports (seen above) that date from 1987 onward. There is an absence of such information between 1984 and 1987. Flannery was not considered an underworld figure in 1984. Recent attempts to correct/unbias the article have been wholly removed. Geoffrey Edelsten states that the Wikipedia article about him is highly defamatory and damaging. --
Gepa (
talk) 06:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The article relates to an incident in which several members of the Ghaliya family were killed in an explosion on a beach in the Gaza Strip. There is some controversy as to whether the blast was due to a mine, unexploded ordinance or Israeli shelling.
Recently, a few editors added the following text to the lead:
The claim is sourced to a 2006 Ha'aretz report in Hebrew and the claim was repeated, unsourced, in an English-language Ha'aretz article recently. No other major media outlet has picked-up on the story and the quote used in the lead is nowhere to be found by goolge other than the non- WP:RS source to which it refers. This is probably due to the fact that pictures of the father's body (including hands) show him to be rather in one piece, which would be odd if the explosion would have originated from his hands.
The more recent article is mentioned later in the body, together with other media reports, in that context: as a media report.
What makes this a WP:BLP-issue is that a weakly sources " exceptional claim" is reported as fact and being used to blame the family's tragic deaths on the father's curiosity or mishandling of unexploded munition in the close presence of his entire family. This blaming of the victims strikes me as rather impious, especially given the dubious nature of the claim.
I have tried to remove this claim before, and got blocked for WP:3RR as a result, which is why I am bringing this up here. There is some discussion on the article talk page here
Cheers and many thanks, pedrito - talk - 13.01.2009 16:15
It was added and removed a few times. I removed the "decapitated in the blast" portion. Admin Elonka posted a note on the talk page about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. -- Suntag ☼ 13:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Huda Ghaliya's sister Ilham, who was decapitated in the blast,[10] was reported as saying her father caused the lethal explosion when he handled an unexploded ordnance left behind from a previous incident. [3]
Mention of arrestee Kenneth Carrethers's name in this article section is against the spirit of WP:BLP and his name isn't notable either. Is wikipedia in the business of becoming a directory of people who are arrested for minor crimes, or who are the subject of minor news stories. An editor there keeps reverting my efforts to keep the source and material, but delete his name. Critical Chris ( talk) 01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Can we get an admin on this to explain the BLP policy to Chris, so that he stops disrupting the editing of the article? Thank you. THF ( talk) 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I've placed the above template up for TfD (see here), but wanted to get some other eyes on this asap. While I'm sure the intentions of the user who created this are good, this template has been dumped onto a bunch of BLP's of people who would wildly dispute the characterization of themselves as "domestic terrorist." If you check the user's recent contributions here you'll see all of the BLP's (and other articles) that have received this template. It may be obvious to some that Bill Ayers is a domestic terrorist, but he was never convicted of that so he'd have a pretty good defamation case against Wikipedia. Other BLP's which have been hit with this template are similarly problematic.
Since I'm the only one who has had a problem with this so far I don't want to go on a rampage and remove this template from all BLP's without getting a second and third opinion, which is why I'm here. I think this whole template should be deleted, but in the interim I suggest that we need to remove it from all articles where the subject is still alive, if not from all articles period. WP:TERRORIST is obviously quite relevant here. Thoughts?-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the right place for this, but I brought it up on the Village Pump and it was suggested I come here. An anonymous editor, who keeps editing from a different account every time, is repeatedly adding non-notable people to the list of alumni and staff at Clovis High School (Clovis, California). It seems to me, that there should be some proof of notability of these people, by requiring that there be articles on them before they can be listed on a school page, otherwise it's just a sneaky way to avoid WP:BIO by making a big list of people who don't rate their own articles. Otherwise, why not have an article on Bands who play music, and just list every band that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC? I've tried explaining this, but the editor just keeps reverting saying there's no rule against it. Which of us is right in this? AnyPerson ( talk) 02:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I came across this on WP:VPM but think it should be mentioned here. Someone claiming to be Bill Knott has objected to a reference to suicide on the article. It appears to be sourced but the source is offline so I haven't seen it. (The other source mentioons death not suicide) Nil Einne ( talk) 17:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Just bringing attention to this article, about the incoming Prime Minister of Malaysia, which I noticed when following a news story. It seems to repeat itself in parts and make some particularly detailed allegations attempting to link him to murders and political corruption. The talk page is replete of accusations of "UMNO goons" (UMNO being Razak's, and his predecessor's, political party) and various other things. It's not something that would take much background knowledge if someone wanted to take it on (although knowing about Anwar Ibrahim is probably essential - his article isn't too bad, at least in the key sections), but would take time for researching sources that I don't have right now - would someone be willing to look at this? Orderinchaos 21:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Input is needed relating to a blurb in the Anderson Cooper page, located here. The gist of the situation is how other people (not Cooper himself) are commenting on Cooper's alleged homosexual lifestyle. There is an extensive debate on the talk page, but there are only 4 editors involved, and it seems as if there are 3 in favor of removing the blurb; one in favor of keeping. This is a touchy enough subject such that outside input is needed. Tool2Die4 ( talk) 13:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there are at least five editors involved if you count Tool2Die4, although Tool2Die4 has not offered any substantive discussion of the issue. ( Tool2Die4 simply reverted an edit that had been supported by three of the other four editors, and accepted by the fourth.) Also, the quotes do not relate directly to the fact that the subject is gay. Instead, one is a false accusation of hypocrisy, and the other is simply irrelevant. TVC 15 ( talk) 18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
No sock-puppet investigation was ever undertaken. TVC 15 fails to grasp the inner-workings of Wikipedia. Anything not to his liking, he will threaten you with "an RfC". An official investigation has been started here. Tool2Die4 ( talk) 02:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Outdent. I've actually addressed all the relevant concerns already, repeatedly. Cooper has avoided discussing his sexuality. Multiple reliable sources state he is gay, he has never confirmed or denied this. He has been criticized for not discussing the issue while discussing many other facets of his personal life. These are all well sourced facts cited and reported dispassionately. You seem to be wikilawyering against including quotes that have now been left out due to this constant harping on the subject, thus gaming the system. No false statement, as you allege, have been inserted or implied. Those links are actually reliable sources that assert exactly what we stated NPOV in the article. -- Banjeboi 22:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
A user claiming to be Sol Wachtler, former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, has been removing well-sourced background material about the felony charge to which he pleaded guilty, including this citation to a New York Times news article. User claims "...printing them as fact are defamatory and untrue". -- CliffC ( talk) 03:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This editor keeps adding his personal views about the relations between Jews and Palestinians to our article on Theodorakis. One of the sentences he is adding (in all caps) is: HE ANSWERED THE CALL WHEN THE JEWS NEEDED IT HE COULD NOT HAVE FAILED BUT ANSWER THE CALL OF THE PALESTINIANS NOW. Though Theo is known to have colorful opinions in this area, this editor appears to be using a Wikipedia article as a soapbox. Would it be correct to issue him a final warning not to re-add the material? Can he be blocked for vandalism if this continues, or is a wider discussion needed? EdJohnston ( talk) 03:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
A series of recent edits has added a whole bunch of information to this article. They were no doubt made in good faith, but they are all either from unreliable sources or the obvious result of original research. They include data that make it pretty clear that the subject is indeed dead, but since they're not from legit sources, Pedon's technically still subject to WP:BLP. My first instinct is to try to undo all of these edits, but I may be too close to this topic. (See my rant, typed months ago, on the subject's talk page.) Would someone less emotional about this subject look over the edits and decide if BLP, or other policies, require their reversion? Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 16:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Sensory Sweep Studios came to my attention via a notice on the COI board against User:TheOneTrueSweeper and User:Thecitizen22, who (along with IPs) are obvious POV and/or COI editors, blanking material about a wage claim lawsuit from the article. The problem is that the lawsuit's title is one of those et al. titles, which does not mention Sensory Sweep by name, though it does name SS founder Dave Rushton. Does this fall under BLP, since there's no evidence in the link that Sensory Sweep is a party to the suit? -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor claiming to be the photographer (Errol Sawyer) who discovered Brinkley started a COI dispute by repeatedly editing himself into the article in order to verify once and for all my professional legitimacy. Link He is quite open (and hostile) about feeling "slighted" by the lack of credit he receives for Brinkley's success, but laid off after a warning, only to be replaced by his agent/wife, who is using a published book (the only source anyone can find that mentions Sawyer) on modeling to add quotes that don't add important info regarding Brinkley so much as stress Sawyer's role in her discovery and lead to undue weight for the section and possibly a copyright vio. She mainly uses the rationalization that readers will be interested to read the quotes, so they should stay.
Here and here are the versions that are as close as we can come to a compromise after much discussion on my talk page, but I still feel her version (the second link) violates a few policies and I was hoping some editors could offer their opinions. The first link is the current version of the page (at least at the moment). Thanks! Mbinebri talk ← 21:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_G._Roberts&diff=265431947&oldid=265426523
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_G._Roberts&diff=265440377&oldid=265439799 Anastrophe ( talk) 07:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned about a recently created article Aron Bielski and material concerning that person inserted into Bielski partisans. Aron Bielski is 80 years old and the last remaing Bielski brothers, whose World War II activitie are described in the movie Defiance. Bielski has lived in obscurity until the movie, except for an arrest in 2007 for his alleged kidnapping of a woman in Florida. Material concerning that arrest was put in both of these articles and I removed but it was reinstated. Under WP:NPF, I don't see how the arrest can be included because he is notable only because of his participation in the partisan group. That leaves the Aron article with virtually nothing, and I've proposed it for deletion. Editors are insisting upon retention of the arrest in the Aron Bielski article, and unsuccessfully sought to include the arrest in the article on the movie. If the Aron Bielski AfD is not successful, the arrest will comprise approximately one-half on the article. I expert my removal of the arrest from the Bielski partisans article will also be reverted. Stetsonharry ( talk) 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This politician had a sexual affair with a young gay man but I'm looking for advice as I wonder if the young man's name should be left off. It has been reported, but beyond that it's not clear if actually naming them helps the article in any way. Given the young man's age I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to leave it off rather than record them at the center of a gay sex scandal? -- Banjeboi 22:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Current edit war going on the page Ochib ( talk) 23:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The above user is repeatedly inserting poorly-sourced claims about an urban legend concerning Richard Gere placing small mammals in his nether parts. Would appreciate some attention to the article. Kelly hi! 07:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The most recent removals show the information being challenged about this guy:
Can we get more opinions about how to report on these sources? May I recommend that the usual crew from that argument hold off here until we get a few other opinions to work with? Prior attempts to get input here were swamped by the same old same old. Dicklyon ( talk) 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll interpret silence here as an indication that nobody sees any BLP violation in the items linked above, so I can restore them. OK? Dicklyon ( talk) 06:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope. He asked that no one else reply -- your use of the talk page for William Timmons, moreover, and your templating me with a warning of being "blocked fopr vandalism" because I do not feel an article talk page should be used for attacks on editors is, moreover, an issue on which I would like outside opinions. Thank you most kindly. [14] and [15] , and for general use of the talk page [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] etc. from an editor who has not actually edited on the article since Election Day. The "revisions" now in place oinclude cites for pharmaceutical company profits <g> which shows how far afield this article is being pushed. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 11:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
"This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. This burden applies not just to verifiability of sources, but to all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." Collect ( talk) 14:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Collect and User:Rtally3 keep asserting some problems with these well-sourced items; does anyone else see them as problematic? Dicklyon ( talk) 23:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Timmons appears at most to have been a relatively monor functionary. He had ansolutely no connection to the Watergate scandal, and the advice to keep doing his job was not precisely earth-shattering. Re Lennon, he wrote a single memo to a Senator who had asked him to look into something. Absolutely no concrete evidence he was in any loop about Lennon, nor that the Lennon deportation was connected to the 1972 election campaign. As for the F-18 lobbying, there is no evidence that he was directly involved in any improper activity whatsoever. As for pharma profits, that is simply Monty Python time <g>. As for Iraq oil dealings, there is no evidence whatever that he did any crime or intended any crime. Guilt by association, last I looked, was not considered valid in BLPs. He is a "functionary" and not a policy wonk. Perhaps the fact that sources do not give him more than a single sentence is because that is all his actions merit. Collect ( talk) 11:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the article on Alan Shawn Feinstein had once again been stripped of all negative information and the puffery added back in by 70.184.13.225 on January 14th, and then Thingg had kindly reverted it to its previous objective state.
I wondered if I could find out who 70.184.13.225 was, keeping in mind that I am not an IP maven, etc. and also keeping in mind that anonymous people keep turning this article into a puff piece, which I find really annoying. I googled and found a place where 70.184.13.225 existed. Also keeping in mind that I am not an email header maven, it looks to me like it is Feinstein himself.
Here's where I found it: http://webmail.warwickschools.org/Public%20Announcements/FAV1-00016C5B/I00676BD4?ShowInternetHeader=1
"
Trudyjh (
talk) 06:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)"
Will someone please look into this, thank you▪◦▪ ≡SiREX≡ Talk 07:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
One editor continues to try to add allegations and rumors to this article. Some allegations certainly have been made, but no proof of the allegations exist, and no action from an authority have ever been taken. I would appreciate a few more eyes taking a look at the article. Thanks. 2005 ( talk) 03:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
His information is incredibly biased. Unfortunately I do not have much information on him so I'm not qualified to submit an article about him Here are some samples from Agagu's page "Dr. Olusegun Agagu is a man of integrity who fulfills whatever he promises."
"It is the loud noise of the minority (oppositions)who does not like him [Olusegun Agagu] that supports this assertion. These people are mostly politicians and those who are addicted to primordial ethnic sentiments."
"In ICT, Dr. Olusegun Agagu has really done well and make Ondo state to be one of the ICT leading states."
There are many other biased statements like the ones above in the article as well as the occasional grammatical error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadfootb ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The article on Ken McCarthy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a key figure in the commercialisation of the Internet and a well-respected provider of education to small businesses, has been subjected to an onslaught of repeated vandalism by Jettparmer ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
This has been a relentless campaign since the near-dormant account flared into life on 2nd December by posting two unsubstantiated (and actually false) allegations into the article (which had been inserted previously by an anonymous editor a couple of weeks earlier). Diff: [24]
This user has pursued a single-issue onslaught in furtherance of his desire to undermine the reputation of Mr McCarthy by labelling him as a conspiracy theorist despite the lack of reliable verifiable sources to support this thesis, and despite the damaging nature of the epithet.
Numerous attempts by various other editors to reason with him on various talk pages, and point out his numerous policy violations have had no effect on his behaviour. DaveApter ( talk) 14:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Says that he won 64 and lost 15 of 78 fights, that cant be right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.81.192 ( talk) 18:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Possible issue here - see Special:Contributions/Jacoblauren. -- NE2 19:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the questionable content from Nicole Marciano. I have also removed the warning tag placed at User talk:Jacoblauren. Jacoblauren's edits were removing unreferenced, unverified information. The article Nicole Marciano should be monitored closely, and if people continue to re-add this personal information without references, then the article should be protected. Kingturtle ( talk) 22:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
If Sathya Sai Baba is a saint like Jesus, then his actual Wikipedia article is him crucified and bleeding in the cross... like it was wrote by the hands of Pontius Pilate.
The article clearly does not follow the "Neutral Point of View" policy, but worst than that, it does not respect [ Human Dignity]
It states Sai Baba as a criminal - is it enciclopedic? As someone said: "let the police do its job!" And it does it while you can find millions of people thanking him everyday through the whole globe! Why people everywhere is passionately singing his name as if he is God? WHY? Because he emanates ashes from his hand and metal balls from his throat? Of course, not.
I believe his true devotees are busy doing selfless service and none have time or skill to properly edit this article, brutally and "professionally" vandalized as it is by people highly skilled in Wikipedia policies.
Come on! He is teaching and practicing what he teaches: help the needy - there are several hospitals, educational institutions, and huge water purifying projects, offering medicine, education and purified water for free. Anyone can go there and see it with its own eyes: big and excellent hospitals and universities are there!
We can only be sorry for the bad use of the Wikipedia exemplified in this article. I don't know how this can be avoided without breaking the own Wikipedia spirit of letting everyone contribute - there are good contributors, but, unfortunately, bad contributors.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.110.25 ( talk) 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to edit this article, and made several complaints in its discussion page, unsucessfully.
For me, this case is extremely serious: we can feel like the article is "guarded" by "biased POV wiki-policeman", that do not allow the article correction, but as its opinion seems to be endorsed by deeper wiki hierarchy power, we feel our strongest efforts to do something are useless. A team is there ready to maintain status quo.
But, as the lack of NPOV is so crystal clear, I am trying this channel to report it.
Please, help me bringing this case to higher administrators, because it is very serious. You will just spent a couple of minutes to be aware that it is serious (not to resolve it, but only to watch and say: "Oh, my! This is serious!")
In a few words: the article was supposed to be about a saint, and seems to be about a criminal. The wikipedia space is being used by people who wants to promote that Sai Baba is not a saint (in other words: it is biased, not NPOV, etc) But it is worst, because: not only it is sustained in biased sources itself, but also the criticism is not soft, it is a violent agression against Basic Human Dignity.
See: [Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#About_Sathya_Sai_Baba_article_improvement] [Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#What_if_Sai_Baba_is_really_an_Avatar.3F]
I tried editing the article in a soft way, but it was reverted almost instantaneously.
And worst: I tried to find my edition in the archive to paste it here, but I found that... the history is biased! You can't found no trace of my contribution (removed as large scale vandalism! Oh, my...) ... and I tried to find the older version of the article... but the history is such that you can't find traces of the article as it was before the actual "professional vandalism" (I am ironically calling it this way)
Fortunately, we can found better articles in other languages, so you can compare and judge yourself: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba
I had to wrote to another person who manifested insatisfaction and trie to edit (as me):
"It's obvious that the article is clearly biased, but there is nothing you or me can do to change it, since it's edition is not open or free anymore. In short: this Wikipedia article is owned by anti-Baba 'editors', and that's all."
"Ah, another thing: it seems (I am no sure) that user Andries is playing a fake pro-Baba role, while it is another anti-Baba, just faking a pro-Baba attitude, but in reality he is together with user White adept, but only enacting another point-of-view, so they together fill the whole space there." (user Nil Einne may have wrong impression due to "biased history" and "fake pro-Baba")
You see: what is happening there is VERY SERIOUS, something very very very serious.
The anti-Baba power there drives you to read the "Findings" and other anti-Baba violent documents, including the anti-Baba made documentaries. They don't direct you to offical websites, with lots and lots of testimonials and evidences, most of them with its references mentioned:
http://www.srisathyasai.org.in/Pages/SriSathyaSaiBaba/HisWritings.htm http://www.srisathyasai.org.in/Pages/Devotees_Experiences/devotees_exp.htm http://www.radiosai.org/journals/ http://www.sssbpt.org/
In other words: Wikipedia is being criminally used there by this group trying to enforce mere allegations and suppositions as "enciclopedic" - not allowing other POV to be represented.
In short: this article makes Wikipedia a not reliable source for the eyes of millions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.134.138 ( talk) 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this pic a violation of WP:BLP? WARNING violent and may be shocking to someSee User_talk:White_adept Andries ( talk) 23:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about RadiantEnergy history, but his description of actual state of things in Sathya Sai Baba's article, above, describes well what is happening there.
Also, there is mentioned in the own article that there are 6 (six) or 50 (fifty) or 100 (one hundred) million devotees around the world. Among them we can find from poor people, to people that donates around USD 49 million in a single donation... also professionals from every field (lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc.) and religious people from all religions...
For all these millions of people, an article like this in the Wikipedia is very very bad for Wikipedia itself, because, forgive me the hard words, it's a complete trash.
We start wondering this like: "How much was paid for Wikipedia to maintain this user, White adpet, in the control of this article?"... "Is Wikipedia selling its spaces?"... because none can do anything to change this absolutely clear not NPOV, biased article - try it yourself!
But notice that the anti-Baba movement is very strong... I mean, it is not the case of a single lonely user efort... I can't imagine what is really happening behind the scenes, but we start wondering...
For Sai Baba's devotees, He is the own awaited "Jesus second coming" - for many Christians, that recognized their master's return, He is really Jesus promise being fullfilled. But, imagine the great number of Christians who do not agree with this claim - with all the force of heated Christians who doesn't believe that Sai Baba is who He is saying He is... by one hand, they are trying to influence, making everybody read this carefully-but-not-much prepared collection of lies, called "Findings", and thus conquering space, power, influence, adepts of the "anti" movement... by the other hand, even with such a big/strong "force", and so much effort in repeating, repeating, repeating the same few appointments with many new "colours" and "texts", they are not able to do nothing better than this bad written article, now in Wikipedia.
What is umconfortable is that the article is not free anymore - you can't help to revert the not-NPOV, biased, offending Basic Human Dignity and information-supressed state of things. "White adept" is the police - nothing we can do.
Thanks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
189.15.154.139 (
talk) 15:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Again not commenting on the current state of the article but I would point out that anyone who keeps calling Sathya Sai Baba a saint is probably not the best judge of the article's current state. (Nor for that matter anyone who keeps calling him a criminal.) Also it's rather convinient to claim that all people who have behaved poorly are 'fake', you could really well say the same thing for those anti-. The fact is tho, the arbcom in 2 cases found no evidence as far as I'm aware that the pro- or anti- people they banned or otherwise sanctioned were anything but genuine and it would be wise for people to accept that if they want to move on. Pretending that there aren't people on both sides who have behaved unacceptably is not going to help the situation any. P.S. Official sources are highly frowned upon in a case like this, other then to demonstrate the official POV. It doesn't matter whether they proport to have independent testimony. What we need are reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne ( talk) 16:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Andries Andries ( talk) 23:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)The strict fact of his personal biography and manner of life are buried beneath layer upon layer of hagiography. (see esp. the works of Kasturi; also Gokak 1975). As far as I am aware no objective account of Sathya Sai Baba’s life has been written by anyone close to him. Indeed such an account may be an inherent impossibility: it unlikely that anyone who is allowed in to his inner circles would want to write in such a vein. [..]
Thus Sathya Sai Baba himself cannot be the actual subject of an account of his cult. For now, so supposedly ‘real’ Sathya Sai Baba’ can be anymore real than an imagined character in fiction.— Lawrence A. Babb, Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition, (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society, chapter Sathya Sai Baba’s miracles, published by Waveland press 2000 (original publisher is by Oxford University Press 1987) ISBN 577661532, page 160
By putting a link to the "Findings" everytime he mentions it, "White adept" makes it ranks higher in Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.105.206 ( talk) 23:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
user:Radiantenergy wrote "After arbitration this article was maintained pretty well till January 07 2009." Untrue, factual mistakes crept in and remained uncorrected for many months through sheer neglect, in spite of my repeated complaints on the talk page. See
Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Archive_11#Blunder_in_the_summary:_godmen_described_by_his_followers ,
Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Archive_11#This_article_suffers_from_serious_neglect &
Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Another_uncorrected_mistake_due_to_severe_neglect
Andries (
talk) 20:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Luciano Pavarotti ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An anonymous IP recently added this comment [26] to the talk page. Note that the person being referred to is his widow, Nicoletta Mantovani, a living person. Would it be appropriate for me to remove this comment from the talk page, even though it is ostensively about 'improving' the article? Voceditenore ( talk) 06:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There have been concerns expressed recently on WP:AN/I about BLP violations on this article, specifically concerning editors adding material sourced to a personal website, adding unsourced potentially defamatory material, and using the article as a coatrack for quotations that cast the subject in a bad light. I have removed the material that was sourced to a self-published source, but it would be helpful if uninvolved editors could review the article and help to identify and resolve any outstanding issues. -- ChrisO ( talk) 11:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this? It's about an amateur sleuth obsessed with the Zodiac Killer and has a lot of material drawing comparisons between the writing styles, age, appaerance, background etc... of Penn and the killer, who was never caught. These sections seem largely original research or synth, using on line message boards for amateur sleuths and apparent or assumed similarities between the killer and Penn to connect the dots. I should probably just delete it all myself, but have already had a run in with an article owner so it would probably be best for an admin or someone more experienced to take a look; maybe i'm wrong, and it's skirting a BLP-vio rather than an eggregious example of one. (I've edited this article a ton today, take a look if you want at the state it was in before i began). Bali ultimate ( talk) 15:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear me, never mind. I'm gutting it - it looks like 90% of thearticle consists of "Gareth Penn used a pen name (Name) to write Article/Book" and then several paragraphs about the article or book. I've already chased after two of these and found zero reason to think the (name) was Penn. It may be; but it darn well needs to be sourced. KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This article will probably be getting a lot of attention at the moment, but the relevant section, Mark Thompson#Refusal to Air Gaza Appeal post 2009 Israeli attack on Gaza is a complete mess, full of POV statements, a poor tone, and extensive use of quoting. More sources also would be amiss. I have tried to clean it up as best as I can, but it needs a lot more work. J Milburn ( talk) 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I scrubbed most of it as it a) had lots of POV commentary and b) belongs in a BBC specific articles not this summary bio. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 22:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
A recent situation has developed with Dustin Pedroia's brother. I've removed it from the Dustin Pedroia article, it was unsourced and has nothing to do with Dustin anyway. Good to keep some eyes on the article. AnyPerson ( talk) 02:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
There has been a content dispute going on for a long time at William Rodriguez between two-ish editors; both have been reverting one another for ages (they were recently issued 3RR warnings and have now agreed not to edit the article, pending mediation), and both have been accused of being socks or of operating multiple accounts/posting from multiple IPs. Since it has been going on so long and the discussion goes back pretty far, it's impossible for me to get to the bottom of it and figure out who's "right" and "wrong" (although, to be honest, both of the editors appeared to be editing rather tendentiously before some other users intervened), and both editors are repeatedly sending me and others lots of vague attacks about the other (saying the others are socks, POV-pushers, etc., without giving a lot of specifics about anything), which is continuing to muddy the whole picture. If there is anyone who is familiar with this individual and the issues about him, I would appreciate your help in trying to determine the best course of action here—both what to do about the problem editors (one user has suggested blocking one as a sock, and topic-banning the other one since he has been making good copyediting contributions at unrelated articles), and how to clean up the article.
More recent discussion is available at User talk:Manadude2#William Rodriguez page and the section immediately above it.
Thank you, Politizer talk/ contribs 20:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
AndrebernierWJW ( talk · contribs) has blanked Andre Bernier, writing "In order to allow this article to conform to Wiki's NPOV, the subject of this article has withdrawn all of the material." Cunard ( talk) 20:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The section is junk and should be removed on sight (as I have just done). Unsourced editorial commentary of that type does not belong on wikipedia. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if BLP applies here. User:Poeticbent, a notable Wikipedian ( Richard Tylman) is being harassed by an anon 99.242.160.225 ( talk · contribs) (see for example Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Advertisements_with_no_apparent_connection_to_subject) who is questioning his notability. On one level, discussing whether content is encyclopedic is fine, on another, it closely resembles anonymous stalking, and Poeticbent has several times expressed that he is unhappy at anon's behavior, tone and so on. What should we do? As I am a collegue of Poeticbent, and thus possibly biased, I'd like a third opinion before I consider banning the anon for stalking and harassment.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Galassi ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Came to this by way of a photosubmission. This page could really use some extra attention and sourcing fixes please. I will cut it down a bit due to lack of sourcing. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 21:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Earlier today I temporarily blocked Justuniverse ( talk · contribs) for edit warring at Rachel Paulose and removing content from the article. I feel the user may have been concerned about negative material in the article. Though much of the article is sourced, it seems to give undue weight to criticism, particularly in areas such as the "Swearing-in ceremony" section. Could someone with more experience with BLP-type issues please have a look at the article and see if anything needs be done? Thank you. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous poster is consistently adding a line that is not written with a neutral point of view and is not relevant. The user has been warned for vandalism, however they are using multiple IP addresses. Infamousjre ( talk) 22:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a bit of a spat going on the former Polish Prime Minister's page on whether statements/jokes as to his alleged sexual preference made by his political opponents (and political security policy back in the day) should be included or not. An outsider's look would be appreciated. radek ( talk) 09:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Balachandra Rajan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Two apparently unrelated IPs have attempted to record in the last couple of days that Rajan is dead. This is quite possible (he'd be 88), but I've been unable to confirm it. On the other hand, Rajan is not that famous and it wouldn't necessarily show up in Google News right away. Can someone at Western or around London, ON confirm this? There may have been a University announcement. Or can anyone find a reliable source online? For now I've been reverting, given that it seems inappropriate without a source. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous poster (IP 86.133.201.32) is persistently adding material which is essentially childish nonsense intended to reflect badly upon the subject. 32 edits have been made in 3 days. The editor has made no contributions to any other project.
The article is of low importance but nevertheless relates to a living person. Some of the edits have implied malfeasance on the part of the subject relating to business activities which have recently been widely discussed on a gambling website forum.
The user has twice been warned for vandalism.
Can Admin consider appropriate action in this case to (semi)-protect the article or prevent the anonymous editor adding further defamatory material? leaky_caldron ( talk) 23:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I reviewed a pdf file on David Ferguson's bio that was posted in the Discussion Page for the article on January 27, 2009 by 'DameSmartyPants.'
The pdf is of a court document that was unsigned and uncertified by the court. UNSIGNED. Because the document is unsigned and not stamped or certified, it is not a proper document. Not only is it further evidence of the incompleteness of the court record used to validate the inclusion of this case in the Legal History, it also is potentially libelous and represents a larger 'soapbox' campaign primarily orchestrated by user 'uwishiwasjohng' (and supplemented by 'Damesmartypants') to discredit Ferguson and besmirch his professional reputation. More specific details on that this soapbox effort will be posted on this noticeboard in the near future.
But for the time being, please draw your attention to Damesmartypants' pdf document. Its inclusion compromises the integrity of the article by casting an pall of guilt on David Ferguson and his company, Buried Treasure Inc. DrJamesX ( talk) 02:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX
Spotfixer ( talk · contribs) and Teledildonix314 ( talk · contribs) are inserting language about anal sex between teenagers into an article on Rick Warren, via a made-up term that is poorly sourced, contentious, and inflammatory. This clearly violates WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.-- Lyonscc ( talk) 05:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
An IP that resolves to Los Angeles CA has made edits to Edward M. Davis and William H. Parker (police officer). Could someone with familiarity of LA politics and police issues please check over the edits and take action if appropriate?-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 17:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Debate over naming a figure in a scandal. The name isn't in the article, at least not yet. Please opine about whether it should be. David in DC ( talk) 17:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Citation 7: Landau's prophetic 1974 article in The Real Paper [7], wherein he famously claimed "I saw rock and roll future and its name is Bruce Springsteen", is credited by Nick Hornby [8] and others with fostering Springsteen's popularity.
Link does not go to the article named. It goes to a Network Solutions under construction page which contains only general search links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.143.195 ( talk) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Peter Karmanos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — A user continues to add unsourced negative information to this article. A reference has been added, but it is of a message board, which I do not think is a reliable source. Additional conversation about the topic has occurred here: User talk:X96lee15#Peter Karmanos // X96lee15 ( talk) 00:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to be gone through and given a thorough sourcing. The subject is a controversial print columnist and broadcaster. I've removed some of the more outrageous unsourced stuff, but my intense personal dislike of the man probably doesn't make me the ideal person to clean the article up. -- TS 09:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate someone with BLP experience taking a look at Ilchi Lee. I revised a passage in the "criticism" section that directly quoted from and listed several claims made in the plantiff's origal complaint. Another editor attempted to delete it entirely, which was also reverted. The case was dismissed a few months ago, so I believe it is inappropriate to include so many unsubstantiated details, which contibute to a non-neutral tone to the passage, especially the portions that are directly quoted. The adminstrator (Steven Walling, formerly VanTucky) has a history of adding negative content to Dahn-related articles, so I would really like to get a neutral point-of-view. Does anyone know how claims made in a dismissed court case are handled in a BLP? Nicola Cola ( talk) 21:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Page title: Susan Lindauer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindauer
Defamatory and dangerous description in 1st paragraph. Use of term "spy" to describe charges against her. She was not and has never been charged with espionage. Therefore the repeated insertion of the term "spy" reflects at least a lack of information. The repetitive use of "spy" is intentional. At the time of the initial charges, "spy" was used with the most dire consequences for Lindauer mentioned. The federal government dismissed the case "in the interests of justice" on Jan. 15, 2009. In the interests of accuracy, the term "spy" needs to be removed as a description of both her charges and activities. That charge was never made.
1) The biography page for Susan Lindauer has been inaccurate since its inception, as far as I can tell. I see corrections periodically but the original error is recreated and posted.
The opening paragraph states:
"Susan P. Lindauer aka Symbol Susan (born 17 July 1963) is an American journalist accused of conspiring to act as a spy for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and engaging in prohibited financial transactions involving the government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein."
Susan Lindauer was never charged with acting as a "spy." I'll quote no less of an authority than her former Judge on the case, former Attorney General, Michael Mukasey who said in his "OPINION AND ORDER" of Sept. 6, 2006:
"The substantive counts of the indictment charge defendant with acting as an unregistered agent of the Iraqi government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 951 (Count Two); accepting about $10,000 from IIS as payment for "various services and activities," including her trip to Baghdad in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332d (Count Five); and engaging in financial transactions with the government of Iraq in relation to her trip to Iraq in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. (Count Six)." (S.D.N.Y.,2006, U.S. v. Lindauer --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2006 WL 2560622 (S.D.N.Y.) (not available from court online)
She was changed with acting as "an unregistered agent" which is entirely separate from espionage. Therefore the word "spy" is inaccurate. It is also inflammatory and could make her the target of extremists who see her as an accused "spy."
In the same "OPINION AND ORDER" Judge Mukasey explained what may have caused the use of this term. Lindauer was originally indicted with two Iraqi nationals who allegedly collected names for Iraqi intelligence on Iraqi's in the United States opposed to Saddam. Judge Mukasey said: "Their charged conduct, as explained by the government in pretrial submissions, involved principally obtaining the names of expatriate Iraqis in this country who were acting against the interest of the Saddam Hussein regime, and turning them over to IIS. It bears emphasis here that it was never the government's theory that Lindauer participated in such conduct, or indeed that she even knew the Al-Anbuke brothers. Rather, she and they were charged together only because both allegedly conspired with IIS."
In other words, she had nothing to do with these two Iraqi nationals charged with her and nothing to do with them as to their crimes.
Including Lindauer in this indictment without tagging the specific charges for each defendant created the impression that they'd all been involved in the same crime. But Judge Mukasey spelled out what others noticed at the time of indictment -- Lindauer was not accused of the alleged crimes of the Iraqi nationals.
The last sentence in the second paragraph of the biography is both misleading, on one level, and corrective, on another. It states:
"Although news headlines frequently[citation needed] refer to her as 'accused spy', more precise journalists[who?] note that the actual charges carefully avoid accusing Lindauer of espionage."
Even as her case came back to life with the media in the past year, some news groups used the term "spy," while others did not. Instead of "more precise journalists" avoid using "spy," it should read, "Use of the term "spy" by some journalists is inaccurate. Lindauer was never charged with espionage. The continued repetition of this falsehood is an endorsement of it. In this case, the falsehood may turnout out to be dangerous to Lindauer.
2) The federal government dropped all charges against Susan Lindauer on Jan. 15, 2006 giving this reason: "The Government has determined that continued prosecution of this case as to LINDAUER would not be in the interests of justice." This was after five years of Lindauer demanding a trial and the government maintaining that she was not competent to help in her own defense.
I wrote the first news article about this dismissed charges here: "Feds Drop Case Against Accused Iraqi Agent" [3] http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0901/S00210.htm
The link to the dismissal is here: [4] http://electionfraudnews.com/News/sl/Nolle.pdf
While this is posted on a non government web page, its provenance can be determined simply by contacting the federal district court, Southern Manhattan. Lindauer's case is fascinating and important given her confinement for 11 very difficult months for psychiatric evaluation when the basis of her case, that she was a U.S. intel asset, was claimed to be a "delusion."
She fought back, never got the trial that she demanded, but is now recovering at her home. The continued inclusion of "spy," a gross inaccuracy, is not appropriate for the article. It's also not helpful to her.
Thank you for reviewing this. I'd make the edit myself but I think that the edit would just beget another edit to the contrary. This is a chance for reach final accuracy on this question. She was charged with acting as an "unregistered agent," not with spying. This has been the case since the initial indictment years ago.
MichaelCollinsDC MichaelCollinsDC ( talk) 10:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Haaretz2009
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Ricardo Martinelli ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There are zero verifiable sources or external references to the claims made in the article about this candidate currently running for President of Panama. // Panaprog ( talk) 17:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Jonathan Thompson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Why is this man on Wikipedia? He was not a Nickelodeon presenter, as any employee of the TV company will tell you. Please call us. Similarly he is unknown to BBC GMR as we have checked with them too. Furthermore, how can he be listed in Old Mancunians and People From Salford? They are two different cities. Take all these alleged facts away and we are left with a businessman - and an unknown one at that; we have telephoned a couple of the companies the article lists. This article should be deleted to preserve the credibility of Wikipedia and to remove any impression that he has worked for our company and others.
Greg Williams (radio personality) is being hit by several anons and new accounts with nasty BLP violations. AnyPerson ( talk) 01:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC) \
The article looks like it needs some editor attention. For example, it currently has 3 different names for the mother Nil Einne ( talk) 17:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Front page news, alleged murder, no inline citations. Needs to be adopted by responsible experienced editors lest we get Seigenthalered. Skomorokh 13:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the new Prime Minister of Iceland (as of 2009-02-01). She is apparently also the first openly gay head of a national government. There has been some editwaring about whether she is gay/homosexual/lesbian. However I think that this article needs a close eye kept on it for vandalism (of which there has been a little bit already). Martin451 ( talk) 02:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is only being edited by editors with a pro-Rush Limbaugh POV, who typically cite only to Rush Limbaugh's own website as a source. I am posting here to ask for more editors on the article. An example is the I Hope Obama Fails section. The section is written only explaining "Rush's" side ( the editors on the article call him by his first name in the text). This section only presents Limbaugh's statements that he hopes Obama fails, and why he would say that, with no explanation about what made this controversial, or who found it controversial. User:Furtive admirer, backed up by User:Soxwon, are putting in a WSJ op-ed piece that I read and has nothing to do with the "fail" controversy (that also had a race element to it), but Limbaugh continuing to criticize Obama. That's Limbaugh's job - to criticize Obama, and it is distinct from the particular controversy. User:Furtive admirer uses POV language like "The Democrats escalated the issue", and when I revert, I get bizarre talk page messages about how liberal I am and how Obama needs a teleprompter to speak. I'm no longer watching the article, so it could use other editors who care more about WP:NPOV than about their own POV. --David Shankbone 23:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds nore like seeking editors with a specific POV. Last I looked, it was quite replete with criticism of Limbaugh indeed. Collect ( talk) 11:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
See Family of Barack Obama#George Hussein Onyango Obama (talkpage discussion here). An element of "recentism" and a BLP vio, due the nominal level of the charges? Or, properly notable, due its being in keeping with the tenuousness of George's notability, itself? ↜Just me, here, now … 16:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Henry Siegman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I believe the "criticism" section of Henry Siegman's bio needs some serious revision.
Poorly sourced - the whole "criticism" section refers to four articles - 3 of which are editorials and the last is arguably a fringe/extremist publication.
As WP:BLP clearly states, "If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." - from what I can see of the sources, they are quite biased, and not appropriate for a BLP. If the criticism of his work is so widespread and "anti-Israeli" as the sources contend, surely better quality sources can be found? Should a BLP really be using WP:coatrack articles?
Also, WP:UNDUE - This section serves to represent a minority view. The information presented is neither proportional nor neutral. Additionally, no counter-arguments are presented to offer balance.
I really don't have the knowledge to do a major edit of this - perhaps someone can have a quick look-see? GrizzledOldMan ( talk) 19:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, very similar material seems to have been adde to at least two other articles, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) [33] and Rashid Khalidi. [34] I see that there are citations throughout the encyclopedia regarding claims made by CAMERA, and that last year CAMERA was caught in a coordinated effort to plant partisan material into Wikipedia. [35] This brings up an interesting and improtant issue. If a partisan group criticizes a living person on its website, blog, a newspaper op-ed, etc, what if anything would justify adding a statement to Wikipedia that the organization made the attack? What if the group or person issuing the criticism are notable (e.g. a professor, politician, a notable writer)? I'm very uncomfortable that a partisan organization could bootstrap its way into Wikipedia. Do we always need secondary reliable sources of sufficient weight to cover the fact that the organization made the attack in order establish significance and relevance to the living person in question? Are there any other requirements? Wikidemon ( talk) 07:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if BLP can apply to a band, but accusations of plagiarism should apply to the members of the band, and it's being done without sources. All such claims should be removed unless verified. AnyPerson ( talk) 23:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Blatant self promotion: Pages being deleted on wiki on violation of the same rule.
quote "She received a Lifetime Achievement award at Nestle Pakistan fashion awards in 2002. Currently, she's the spokesperson for Pond's in Pakistan". The awards are neither regionally nor globally recognized. The "Ponds" product is not distributed outside Pakistan
"She did her first shoot with Dawn/Herald with Fifi Haroon in 1993. Her style appealed to the elitist fashion industry but not the general public" - Again this is an opinion and NOT a fact
"She remains a popular figure on the social scene & fashion industry due to her positive image and ettiquetes".- I am sorry but what is this?. A school rating report?
In short, the self promoting article does not show that the subject of the article has achieved anything significant in her career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.69.195.220 ( talk) 09:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"Tanya was one of the leading "supermodel" in Pakistani fashion scene during 1994-2006." - Citation needed. Source??
This entire article consists of two parts: (1) a description of the selling of the Steelers, which has very little to do with Dan Rooney himself, and (2) a discussion about a comment he made regarding a Steelers player. Being that the first is irrelevant and the second presents a very biased view of his life (a good overview of him is available on the NYT here), this entire article may be considered questionable. -- 136.142.15.231 ( talk) 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I already mentioned this on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to be on the safe side. I wanted to point out that this article is extremely biased by references from far left websites such as CSN.com, Media Matters, The Huffington Post, and MSNBC.com to name a few. I think somebody like an administrator needs to check it out because the article is just huge with far left references. Thanks. Lighthead þ 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't get it, what do you mean? No, the fact that papa bear is more famous doesn't get to me it's the fact that I checked out Sean Hannity's page just for arguments sake the other day, and it turns out that he didn't have a criticism page (not that he didn't have one, but in the manner that it was done (simply put, he doesn't have one)) like Pappy has. I know that I answered your question with the previous answer but I don't know what to tell you. Lighthead þ 09:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
'uwishiwasjohng' has submitted more than 30 edits since February 1, 2009 on the David Ferguson (Impresario) article. This recent flurry of editing activity is a reaction to the removal of the Legal History section in David Ferguson's article -- a section which 'uwishiwasjohng' crafted and maintained for several weeks, despite his self-admitted COI with the subject David Ferguson. This Legal History section was removed after Wiki Admin Red Pen of Doom and Wiki users Cottonshirt and Orderinchaos challenged 'uwishiwasjohng's reliance on primary source material and criticized the overall defamatory tone of the Legal History section.
'uwishiwasjohng's new strategy is to destroy the David Ferguson bio through relentless editing and unwarranted text removal. Much of the text removed was essential to defining Ferguson's career as a record producer (much of this text was restored on Feb 2, 2009, but these details have previously been removed on multiple occasions). This text was supported by valid citations which were provided in direct response to the terrific number of 'citation needed' requests with which 'uwishiwasjohng' has stocked the article since he taking control of it back in November.
Could an admin please review this abusive editing? Is it possible to take steps to block 'uwishiwasjohng' from editing the article because of his intrusive COI with Ferguson? DrJamesX ( talk) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX
There are editors adding BLP vios. -- Mihai cartoaje ( talk) 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
A NY politician who found himself in an unfortunate situation. The information concerning his situation keeps being removed from his bio, one would assume by himself, his friends, or his staff. The information is accurate, verifiable, public, non libelous etc...How can one stop this from continuing to happen? I have only posted it once but can see that there has been an editing back and forth going on for some time. WNYBuffalo ( talk) 03:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I will correct my cite, I meant to link it to the official sanction letter he received from the Speaker's Office in the Assembly, which apparently is no longer at that link. I will find a better source for the letter and cite it appropriately. Could you advise me on how you request admin to look at it? Please. Thanks. WNYBuffalo ( talk) 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the current references are sufficient - the actual letter doesn't really add anything to the bio. Given that WP:RS seems to have been the reason of the reverts, hopefully that's the end of it. Admin intervention shouldn't be necessary. GrizzledOldMan ( talk) 05:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:COATRACK deletion nomination of extraordinary violation of WP:BLP1E. Systematic misunderstanding of WP:N is being used to argue that single-sentence mention in 32,000-circulation newspaper in different context justifies BLP violation. THF ( talk) 10:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Melanie Johnson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The information added by Shakehandsman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and various other users in the past has not been in concordance with the "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link." For example, adding incorrect information re:illegality of all women shortlists, when in fact they were and are legal ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/nov/15/women.gender, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1398729.stm) Tendentious editing has been carried about by this user. Unnecessary (and incorrect) personal details have been added re:Melanie Johnson's chldren. Shakehandsman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continually edits Women Politician's wiki pages with spurious or incorrect and unsourced information. ARFCRFarfcrf ( talk) 10:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Reply: Shakehandsman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) cites references which are not in the reference list and adds references which when checked are often not relevant to the subject matter at hand! Cruio ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can not have reviewed the history of contributions made to this living biography fully. Please see earlier editions to see the full extent. ARFCRFarfcrf ( talk) 12:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hee Yit Foong ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would appreciate it if one or two editors could help me watch this article. She is one of a number of people involved in a recent political controversy in Malaysia, and the only one with an article, and so anons are making inflammatory and highly POV edits or borderline vandalism. I don't think it's really reached the level requiring semi-protection yet although I'm not going to object if someone does it Nil Einne ( talk) 13:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Nestor Aparicio ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The discussion page for the article ( Talk:Nestor_Aparicio) has become a blog for commentary on Aparicio, sometimes defamatory and anonymous, rather than a forum for discussion of the article. Can these blog-like entries be removed? Mtd2006 ( talk) 16:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I would have thought this to be a no-brainer but apparently another editor disagrees. See specifically this diff and this talk page where the sources were claimed to not meet WP:BLP standards. Oren0 ( talk) 03:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I think its time to get 3rd party input here, since we can alway continue bickering on the talk page. We are obviously of differing opinion - so nows the time for outside input, which is why you posted it here. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 03:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: Cross-posted at WP:RS/N since there doesn't seem to be much of an audience for this matter on this noticeboard. Oren0 ( talk) 03:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If his own words are not reliable sources for his opinion, I'm at a loss about how we can include the skeptic "see also" link. I don't think his attacks on another living person (Hansen) should be in the article, but the rest is the normal sort of SPS background information we allow from the article's subject. The Register and Telegraph articles just show weight to his letters. His skepticism seems to be the only reason he's notable—assuming he is notable, that is. I would as soon delete it. Cool Hand Luke 02:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Geoffrey Edelsten states that the Wikipedia article about him is highly defamatory and damaging. There are a number of defamatory and damaging statements. One in particular as followings;
He subsequently spent a year in jail for hiring an underworld figure, Christopher Dale Flannery, to assault a former patient, and for perverting the course of justice.[5][6][7]
Article found here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Edelsten
- This media statement is greatly different than actual charges seen at
http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf
- The charge was in fact “soliciting” not “hiring” – the use of “hiring” is defamatory, the fact can be found in the charge as follows;
http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf
- The charge does not refer “a former patient” instead referred to as “another” – the use of “a former patient” is defamatory, the fact can be found in the charge as follows;
http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf
- The alleged “another” as seen in the charges stood trial for the attempted extortion of Edelsten. "another" was the man who in 1984 harassed and intimidated Edelsten and his family to extort money with menaces. This other side is not covered, and by its absence presents a highly biased view. “another” was later sentenced to 3 and a 1/2 years prison for fraud of an Australian Government Agency of more than $330,000.
- Flannery was not considered an underworld figure in 1984 – the date as set out in the charges. Flannery was only considered an underworld figure in media reports (seen above) that date from 1987 onward. There is an absence of such information between 1984 and 1987. Flannery was not considered an underworld figure in 1984. Recent attempts to correct/unbias the article have been wholly removed. Geoffrey Edelsten states that the Wikipedia article about him is highly defamatory and damaging. --
Gepa (
talk) 06:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The article relates to an incident in which several members of the Ghaliya family were killed in an explosion on a beach in the Gaza Strip. There is some controversy as to whether the blast was due to a mine, unexploded ordinance or Israeli shelling.
Recently, a few editors added the following text to the lead:
The claim is sourced to a 2006 Ha'aretz report in Hebrew and the claim was repeated, unsourced, in an English-language Ha'aretz article recently. No other major media outlet has picked-up on the story and the quote used in the lead is nowhere to be found by goolge other than the non- WP:RS source to which it refers. This is probably due to the fact that pictures of the father's body (including hands) show him to be rather in one piece, which would be odd if the explosion would have originated from his hands.
The more recent article is mentioned later in the body, together with other media reports, in that context: as a media report.
What makes this a WP:BLP-issue is that a weakly sources " exceptional claim" is reported as fact and being used to blame the family's tragic deaths on the father's curiosity or mishandling of unexploded munition in the close presence of his entire family. This blaming of the victims strikes me as rather impious, especially given the dubious nature of the claim.
I have tried to remove this claim before, and got blocked for WP:3RR as a result, which is why I am bringing this up here. There is some discussion on the article talk page here
Cheers and many thanks, pedrito - talk - 13.01.2009 16:15
It was added and removed a few times. I removed the "decapitated in the blast" portion. Admin Elonka posted a note on the talk page about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. -- Suntag ☼ 13:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Huda Ghaliya's sister Ilham, who was decapitated in the blast,[10] was reported as saying her father caused the lethal explosion when he handled an unexploded ordnance left behind from a previous incident. [3]
Mention of arrestee Kenneth Carrethers's name in this article section is against the spirit of WP:BLP and his name isn't notable either. Is wikipedia in the business of becoming a directory of people who are arrested for minor crimes, or who are the subject of minor news stories. An editor there keeps reverting my efforts to keep the source and material, but delete his name. Critical Chris ( talk) 01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Can we get an admin on this to explain the BLP policy to Chris, so that he stops disrupting the editing of the article? Thank you. THF ( talk) 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I've placed the above template up for TfD (see here), but wanted to get some other eyes on this asap. While I'm sure the intentions of the user who created this are good, this template has been dumped onto a bunch of BLP's of people who would wildly dispute the characterization of themselves as "domestic terrorist." If you check the user's recent contributions here you'll see all of the BLP's (and other articles) that have received this template. It may be obvious to some that Bill Ayers is a domestic terrorist, but he was never convicted of that so he'd have a pretty good defamation case against Wikipedia. Other BLP's which have been hit with this template are similarly problematic.
Since I'm the only one who has had a problem with this so far I don't want to go on a rampage and remove this template from all BLP's without getting a second and third opinion, which is why I'm here. I think this whole template should be deleted, but in the interim I suggest that we need to remove it from all articles where the subject is still alive, if not from all articles period. WP:TERRORIST is obviously quite relevant here. Thoughts?-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the right place for this, but I brought it up on the Village Pump and it was suggested I come here. An anonymous editor, who keeps editing from a different account every time, is repeatedly adding non-notable people to the list of alumni and staff at Clovis High School (Clovis, California). It seems to me, that there should be some proof of notability of these people, by requiring that there be articles on them before they can be listed on a school page, otherwise it's just a sneaky way to avoid WP:BIO by making a big list of people who don't rate their own articles. Otherwise, why not have an article on Bands who play music, and just list every band that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC? I've tried explaining this, but the editor just keeps reverting saying there's no rule against it. Which of us is right in this? AnyPerson ( talk) 02:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I came across this on WP:VPM but think it should be mentioned here. Someone claiming to be Bill Knott has objected to a reference to suicide on the article. It appears to be sourced but the source is offline so I haven't seen it. (The other source mentioons death not suicide) Nil Einne ( talk) 17:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Just bringing attention to this article, about the incoming Prime Minister of Malaysia, which I noticed when following a news story. It seems to repeat itself in parts and make some particularly detailed allegations attempting to link him to murders and political corruption. The talk page is replete of accusations of "UMNO goons" (UMNO being Razak's, and his predecessor's, political party) and various other things. It's not something that would take much background knowledge if someone wanted to take it on (although knowing about Anwar Ibrahim is probably essential - his article isn't too bad, at least in the key sections), but would take time for researching sources that I don't have right now - would someone be willing to look at this? Orderinchaos 21:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Input is needed relating to a blurb in the Anderson Cooper page, located here. The gist of the situation is how other people (not Cooper himself) are commenting on Cooper's alleged homosexual lifestyle. There is an extensive debate on the talk page, but there are only 4 editors involved, and it seems as if there are 3 in favor of removing the blurb; one in favor of keeping. This is a touchy enough subject such that outside input is needed. Tool2Die4 ( talk) 13:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there are at least five editors involved if you count Tool2Die4, although Tool2Die4 has not offered any substantive discussion of the issue. ( Tool2Die4 simply reverted an edit that had been supported by three of the other four editors, and accepted by the fourth.) Also, the quotes do not relate directly to the fact that the subject is gay. Instead, one is a false accusation of hypocrisy, and the other is simply irrelevant. TVC 15 ( talk) 18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
No sock-puppet investigation was ever undertaken. TVC 15 fails to grasp the inner-workings of Wikipedia. Anything not to his liking, he will threaten you with "an RfC". An official investigation has been started here. Tool2Die4 ( talk) 02:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Outdent. I've actually addressed all the relevant concerns already, repeatedly. Cooper has avoided discussing his sexuality. Multiple reliable sources state he is gay, he has never confirmed or denied this. He has been criticized for not discussing the issue while discussing many other facets of his personal life. These are all well sourced facts cited and reported dispassionately. You seem to be wikilawyering against including quotes that have now been left out due to this constant harping on the subject, thus gaming the system. No false statement, as you allege, have been inserted or implied. Those links are actually reliable sources that assert exactly what we stated NPOV in the article. -- Banjeboi 22:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
A user claiming to be Sol Wachtler, former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, has been removing well-sourced background material about the felony charge to which he pleaded guilty, including this citation to a New York Times news article. User claims "...printing them as fact are defamatory and untrue". -- CliffC ( talk) 03:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This editor keeps adding his personal views about the relations between Jews and Palestinians to our article on Theodorakis. One of the sentences he is adding (in all caps) is: HE ANSWERED THE CALL WHEN THE JEWS NEEDED IT HE COULD NOT HAVE FAILED BUT ANSWER THE CALL OF THE PALESTINIANS NOW. Though Theo is known to have colorful opinions in this area, this editor appears to be using a Wikipedia article as a soapbox. Would it be correct to issue him a final warning not to re-add the material? Can he be blocked for vandalism if this continues, or is a wider discussion needed? EdJohnston ( talk) 03:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
A series of recent edits has added a whole bunch of information to this article. They were no doubt made in good faith, but they are all either from unreliable sources or the obvious result of original research. They include data that make it pretty clear that the subject is indeed dead, but since they're not from legit sources, Pedon's technically still subject to WP:BLP. My first instinct is to try to undo all of these edits, but I may be too close to this topic. (See my rant, typed months ago, on the subject's talk page.) Would someone less emotional about this subject look over the edits and decide if BLP, or other policies, require their reversion? Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 16:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Sensory Sweep Studios came to my attention via a notice on the COI board against User:TheOneTrueSweeper and User:Thecitizen22, who (along with IPs) are obvious POV and/or COI editors, blanking material about a wage claim lawsuit from the article. The problem is that the lawsuit's title is one of those et al. titles, which does not mention Sensory Sweep by name, though it does name SS founder Dave Rushton. Does this fall under BLP, since there's no evidence in the link that Sensory Sweep is a party to the suit? -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor claiming to be the photographer (Errol Sawyer) who discovered Brinkley started a COI dispute by repeatedly editing himself into the article in order to verify once and for all my professional legitimacy. Link He is quite open (and hostile) about feeling "slighted" by the lack of credit he receives for Brinkley's success, but laid off after a warning, only to be replaced by his agent/wife, who is using a published book (the only source anyone can find that mentions Sawyer) on modeling to add quotes that don't add important info regarding Brinkley so much as stress Sawyer's role in her discovery and lead to undue weight for the section and possibly a copyright vio. She mainly uses the rationalization that readers will be interested to read the quotes, so they should stay.
Here and here are the versions that are as close as we can come to a compromise after much discussion on my talk page, but I still feel her version (the second link) violates a few policies and I was hoping some editors could offer their opinions. The first link is the current version of the page (at least at the moment). Thanks! Mbinebri talk ← 21:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_G._Roberts&diff=265431947&oldid=265426523
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_G._Roberts&diff=265440377&oldid=265439799 Anastrophe ( talk) 07:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned about a recently created article Aron Bielski and material concerning that person inserted into Bielski partisans. Aron Bielski is 80 years old and the last remaing Bielski brothers, whose World War II activitie are described in the movie Defiance. Bielski has lived in obscurity until the movie, except for an arrest in 2007 for his alleged kidnapping of a woman in Florida. Material concerning that arrest was put in both of these articles and I removed but it was reinstated. Under WP:NPF, I don't see how the arrest can be included because he is notable only because of his participation in the partisan group. That leaves the Aron article with virtually nothing, and I've proposed it for deletion. Editors are insisting upon retention of the arrest in the Aron Bielski article, and unsuccessfully sought to include the arrest in the article on the movie. If the Aron Bielski AfD is not successful, the arrest will comprise approximately one-half on the article. I expert my removal of the arrest from the Bielski partisans article will also be reverted. Stetsonharry ( talk) 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This politician had a sexual affair with a young gay man but I'm looking for advice as I wonder if the young man's name should be left off. It has been reported, but beyond that it's not clear if actually naming them helps the article in any way. Given the young man's age I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to leave it off rather than record them at the center of a gay sex scandal? -- Banjeboi 22:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Current edit war going on the page Ochib ( talk) 23:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The above user is repeatedly inserting poorly-sourced claims about an urban legend concerning Richard Gere placing small mammals in his nether parts. Would appreciate some attention to the article. Kelly hi! 07:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The most recent removals show the information being challenged about this guy:
Can we get more opinions about how to report on these sources? May I recommend that the usual crew from that argument hold off here until we get a few other opinions to work with? Prior attempts to get input here were swamped by the same old same old. Dicklyon ( talk) 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll interpret silence here as an indication that nobody sees any BLP violation in the items linked above, so I can restore them. OK? Dicklyon ( talk) 06:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope. He asked that no one else reply -- your use of the talk page for William Timmons, moreover, and your templating me with a warning of being "blocked fopr vandalism" because I do not feel an article talk page should be used for attacks on editors is, moreover, an issue on which I would like outside opinions. Thank you most kindly. [14] and [15] , and for general use of the talk page [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] etc. from an editor who has not actually edited on the article since Election Day. The "revisions" now in place oinclude cites for pharmaceutical company profits <g> which shows how far afield this article is being pushed. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 11:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
"This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. This burden applies not just to verifiability of sources, but to all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." Collect ( talk) 14:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Collect and User:Rtally3 keep asserting some problems with these well-sourced items; does anyone else see them as problematic? Dicklyon ( talk) 23:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Timmons appears at most to have been a relatively monor functionary. He had ansolutely no connection to the Watergate scandal, and the advice to keep doing his job was not precisely earth-shattering. Re Lennon, he wrote a single memo to a Senator who had asked him to look into something. Absolutely no concrete evidence he was in any loop about Lennon, nor that the Lennon deportation was connected to the 1972 election campaign. As for the F-18 lobbying, there is no evidence that he was directly involved in any improper activity whatsoever. As for pharma profits, that is simply Monty Python time <g>. As for Iraq oil dealings, there is no evidence whatever that he did any crime or intended any crime. Guilt by association, last I looked, was not considered valid in BLPs. He is a "functionary" and not a policy wonk. Perhaps the fact that sources do not give him more than a single sentence is because that is all his actions merit. Collect ( talk) 11:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the article on Alan Shawn Feinstein had once again been stripped of all negative information and the puffery added back in by 70.184.13.225 on January 14th, and then Thingg had kindly reverted it to its previous objective state.
I wondered if I could find out who 70.184.13.225 was, keeping in mind that I am not an IP maven, etc. and also keeping in mind that anonymous people keep turning this article into a puff piece, which I find really annoying. I googled and found a place where 70.184.13.225 existed. Also keeping in mind that I am not an email header maven, it looks to me like it is Feinstein himself.
Here's where I found it: http://webmail.warwickschools.org/Public%20Announcements/FAV1-00016C5B/I00676BD4?ShowInternetHeader=1
"
Trudyjh (
talk) 06:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)"
Will someone please look into this, thank you▪◦▪ ≡SiREX≡ Talk 07:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
One editor continues to try to add allegations and rumors to this article. Some allegations certainly have been made, but no proof of the allegations exist, and no action from an authority have ever been taken. I would appreciate a few more eyes taking a look at the article. Thanks. 2005 ( talk) 03:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
His information is incredibly biased. Unfortunately I do not have much information on him so I'm not qualified to submit an article about him Here are some samples from Agagu's page "Dr. Olusegun Agagu is a man of integrity who fulfills whatever he promises."
"It is the loud noise of the minority (oppositions)who does not like him [Olusegun Agagu] that supports this assertion. These people are mostly politicians and those who are addicted to primordial ethnic sentiments."
"In ICT, Dr. Olusegun Agagu has really done well and make Ondo state to be one of the ICT leading states."
There are many other biased statements like the ones above in the article as well as the occasional grammatical error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadfootb ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The article on Ken McCarthy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a key figure in the commercialisation of the Internet and a well-respected provider of education to small businesses, has been subjected to an onslaught of repeated vandalism by Jettparmer ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
This has been a relentless campaign since the near-dormant account flared into life on 2nd December by posting two unsubstantiated (and actually false) allegations into the article (which had been inserted previously by an anonymous editor a couple of weeks earlier). Diff: [24]
This user has pursued a single-issue onslaught in furtherance of his desire to undermine the reputation of Mr McCarthy by labelling him as a conspiracy theorist despite the lack of reliable verifiable sources to support this thesis, and despite the damaging nature of the epithet.
Numerous attempts by various other editors to reason with him on various talk pages, and point out his numerous policy violations have had no effect on his behaviour. DaveApter ( talk) 14:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Says that he won 64 and lost 15 of 78 fights, that cant be right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.81.192 ( talk) 18:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Possible issue here - see Special:Contributions/Jacoblauren. -- NE2 19:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the questionable content from Nicole Marciano. I have also removed the warning tag placed at User talk:Jacoblauren. Jacoblauren's edits were removing unreferenced, unverified information. The article Nicole Marciano should be monitored closely, and if people continue to re-add this personal information without references, then the article should be protected. Kingturtle ( talk) 22:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
If Sathya Sai Baba is a saint like Jesus, then his actual Wikipedia article is him crucified and bleeding in the cross... like it was wrote by the hands of Pontius Pilate.
The article clearly does not follow the "Neutral Point of View" policy, but worst than that, it does not respect [ Human Dignity]
It states Sai Baba as a criminal - is it enciclopedic? As someone said: "let the police do its job!" And it does it while you can find millions of people thanking him everyday through the whole globe! Why people everywhere is passionately singing his name as if he is God? WHY? Because he emanates ashes from his hand and metal balls from his throat? Of course, not.
I believe his true devotees are busy doing selfless service and none have time or skill to properly edit this article, brutally and "professionally" vandalized as it is by people highly skilled in Wikipedia policies.
Come on! He is teaching and practicing what he teaches: help the needy - there are several hospitals, educational institutions, and huge water purifying projects, offering medicine, education and purified water for free. Anyone can go there and see it with its own eyes: big and excellent hospitals and universities are there!
We can only be sorry for the bad use of the Wikipedia exemplified in this article. I don't know how this can be avoided without breaking the own Wikipedia spirit of letting everyone contribute - there are good contributors, but, unfortunately, bad contributors.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.110.25 ( talk) 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to edit this article, and made several complaints in its discussion page, unsucessfully.
For me, this case is extremely serious: we can feel like the article is "guarded" by "biased POV wiki-policeman", that do not allow the article correction, but as its opinion seems to be endorsed by deeper wiki hierarchy power, we feel our strongest efforts to do something are useless. A team is there ready to maintain status quo.
But, as the lack of NPOV is so crystal clear, I am trying this channel to report it.
Please, help me bringing this case to higher administrators, because it is very serious. You will just spent a couple of minutes to be aware that it is serious (not to resolve it, but only to watch and say: "Oh, my! This is serious!")
In a few words: the article was supposed to be about a saint, and seems to be about a criminal. The wikipedia space is being used by people who wants to promote that Sai Baba is not a saint (in other words: it is biased, not NPOV, etc) But it is worst, because: not only it is sustained in biased sources itself, but also the criticism is not soft, it is a violent agression against Basic Human Dignity.
See: [Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#About_Sathya_Sai_Baba_article_improvement] [Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#What_if_Sai_Baba_is_really_an_Avatar.3F]
I tried editing the article in a soft way, but it was reverted almost instantaneously.
And worst: I tried to find my edition in the archive to paste it here, but I found that... the history is biased! You can't found no trace of my contribution (removed as large scale vandalism! Oh, my...) ... and I tried to find the older version of the article... but the history is such that you can't find traces of the article as it was before the actual "professional vandalism" (I am ironically calling it this way)
Fortunately, we can found better articles in other languages, so you can compare and judge yourself: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba
I had to wrote to another person who manifested insatisfaction and trie to edit (as me):
"It's obvious that the article is clearly biased, but there is nothing you or me can do to change it, since it's edition is not open or free anymore. In short: this Wikipedia article is owned by anti-Baba 'editors', and that's all."
"Ah, another thing: it seems (I am no sure) that user Andries is playing a fake pro-Baba role, while it is another anti-Baba, just faking a pro-Baba attitude, but in reality he is together with user White adept, but only enacting another point-of-view, so they together fill the whole space there." (user Nil Einne may have wrong impression due to "biased history" and "fake pro-Baba")
You see: what is happening there is VERY SERIOUS, something very very very serious.
The anti-Baba power there drives you to read the "Findings" and other anti-Baba violent documents, including the anti-Baba made documentaries. They don't direct you to offical websites, with lots and lots of testimonials and evidences, most of them with its references mentioned:
http://www.srisathyasai.org.in/Pages/SriSathyaSaiBaba/HisWritings.htm http://www.srisathyasai.org.in/Pages/Devotees_Experiences/devotees_exp.htm http://www.radiosai.org/journals/ http://www.sssbpt.org/
In other words: Wikipedia is being criminally used there by this group trying to enforce mere allegations and suppositions as "enciclopedic" - not allowing other POV to be represented.
In short: this article makes Wikipedia a not reliable source for the eyes of millions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.134.138 ( talk) 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this pic a violation of WP:BLP? WARNING violent and may be shocking to someSee User_talk:White_adept Andries ( talk) 23:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about RadiantEnergy history, but his description of actual state of things in Sathya Sai Baba's article, above, describes well what is happening there.
Also, there is mentioned in the own article that there are 6 (six) or 50 (fifty) or 100 (one hundred) million devotees around the world. Among them we can find from poor people, to people that donates around USD 49 million in a single donation... also professionals from every field (lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc.) and religious people from all religions...
For all these millions of people, an article like this in the Wikipedia is very very bad for Wikipedia itself, because, forgive me the hard words, it's a complete trash.
We start wondering this like: "How much was paid for Wikipedia to maintain this user, White adpet, in the control of this article?"... "Is Wikipedia selling its spaces?"... because none can do anything to change this absolutely clear not NPOV, biased article - try it yourself!
But notice that the anti-Baba movement is very strong... I mean, it is not the case of a single lonely user efort... I can't imagine what is really happening behind the scenes, but we start wondering...
For Sai Baba's devotees, He is the own awaited "Jesus second coming" - for many Christians, that recognized their master's return, He is really Jesus promise being fullfilled. But, imagine the great number of Christians who do not agree with this claim - with all the force of heated Christians who doesn't believe that Sai Baba is who He is saying He is... by one hand, they are trying to influence, making everybody read this carefully-but-not-much prepared collection of lies, called "Findings", and thus conquering space, power, influence, adepts of the "anti" movement... by the other hand, even with such a big/strong "force", and so much effort in repeating, repeating, repeating the same few appointments with many new "colours" and "texts", they are not able to do nothing better than this bad written article, now in Wikipedia.
What is umconfortable is that the article is not free anymore - you can't help to revert the not-NPOV, biased, offending Basic Human Dignity and information-supressed state of things. "White adept" is the police - nothing we can do.
Thanks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
189.15.154.139 (
talk) 15:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Again not commenting on the current state of the article but I would point out that anyone who keeps calling Sathya Sai Baba a saint is probably not the best judge of the article's current state. (Nor for that matter anyone who keeps calling him a criminal.) Also it's rather convinient to claim that all people who have behaved poorly are 'fake', you could really well say the same thing for those anti-. The fact is tho, the arbcom in 2 cases found no evidence as far as I'm aware that the pro- or anti- people they banned or otherwise sanctioned were anything but genuine and it would be wise for people to accept that if they want to move on. Pretending that there aren't people on both sides who have behaved unacceptably is not going to help the situation any. P.S. Official sources are highly frowned upon in a case like this, other then to demonstrate the official POV. It doesn't matter whether they proport to have independent testimony. What we need are reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne ( talk) 16:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Andries Andries ( talk) 23:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)The strict fact of his personal biography and manner of life are buried beneath layer upon layer of hagiography. (see esp. the works of Kasturi; also Gokak 1975). As far as I am aware no objective account of Sathya Sai Baba’s life has been written by anyone close to him. Indeed such an account may be an inherent impossibility: it unlikely that anyone who is allowed in to his inner circles would want to write in such a vein. [..]
Thus Sathya Sai Baba himself cannot be the actual subject of an account of his cult. For now, so supposedly ‘real’ Sathya Sai Baba’ can be anymore real than an imagined character in fiction.— Lawrence A. Babb, Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition, (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society, chapter Sathya Sai Baba’s miracles, published by Waveland press 2000 (original publisher is by Oxford University Press 1987) ISBN 577661532, page 160
By putting a link to the "Findings" everytime he mentions it, "White adept" makes it ranks higher in Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.105.206 ( talk) 23:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
user:Radiantenergy wrote "After arbitration this article was maintained pretty well till January 07 2009." Untrue, factual mistakes crept in and remained uncorrected for many months through sheer neglect, in spite of my repeated complaints on the talk page. See
Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Archive_11#Blunder_in_the_summary:_godmen_described_by_his_followers ,
Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Archive_11#This_article_suffers_from_serious_neglect &
Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Another_uncorrected_mistake_due_to_severe_neglect
Andries (
talk) 20:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Luciano Pavarotti ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An anonymous IP recently added this comment [26] to the talk page. Note that the person being referred to is his widow, Nicoletta Mantovani, a living person. Would it be appropriate for me to remove this comment from the talk page, even though it is ostensively about 'improving' the article? Voceditenore ( talk) 06:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There have been concerns expressed recently on WP:AN/I about BLP violations on this article, specifically concerning editors adding material sourced to a personal website, adding unsourced potentially defamatory material, and using the article as a coatrack for quotations that cast the subject in a bad light. I have removed the material that was sourced to a self-published source, but it would be helpful if uninvolved editors could review the article and help to identify and resolve any outstanding issues. -- ChrisO ( talk) 11:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this? It's about an amateur sleuth obsessed with the Zodiac Killer and has a lot of material drawing comparisons between the writing styles, age, appaerance, background etc... of Penn and the killer, who was never caught. These sections seem largely original research or synth, using on line message boards for amateur sleuths and apparent or assumed similarities between the killer and Penn to connect the dots. I should probably just delete it all myself, but have already had a run in with an article owner so it would probably be best for an admin or someone more experienced to take a look; maybe i'm wrong, and it's skirting a BLP-vio rather than an eggregious example of one. (I've edited this article a ton today, take a look if you want at the state it was in before i began). Bali ultimate ( talk) 15:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear me, never mind. I'm gutting it - it looks like 90% of thearticle consists of "Gareth Penn used a pen name (Name) to write Article/Book" and then several paragraphs about the article or book. I've already chased after two of these and found zero reason to think the (name) was Penn. It may be; but it darn well needs to be sourced. KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This article will probably be getting a lot of attention at the moment, but the relevant section, Mark Thompson#Refusal to Air Gaza Appeal post 2009 Israeli attack on Gaza is a complete mess, full of POV statements, a poor tone, and extensive use of quoting. More sources also would be amiss. I have tried to clean it up as best as I can, but it needs a lot more work. J Milburn ( talk) 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I scrubbed most of it as it a) had lots of POV commentary and b) belongs in a BBC specific articles not this summary bio. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 22:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
A recent situation has developed with Dustin Pedroia's brother. I've removed it from the Dustin Pedroia article, it was unsourced and has nothing to do with Dustin anyway. Good to keep some eyes on the article. AnyPerson ( talk) 02:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
There has been a content dispute going on for a long time at William Rodriguez between two-ish editors; both have been reverting one another for ages (they were recently issued 3RR warnings and have now agreed not to edit the article, pending mediation), and both have been accused of being socks or of operating multiple accounts/posting from multiple IPs. Since it has been going on so long and the discussion goes back pretty far, it's impossible for me to get to the bottom of it and figure out who's "right" and "wrong" (although, to be honest, both of the editors appeared to be editing rather tendentiously before some other users intervened), and both editors are repeatedly sending me and others lots of vague attacks about the other (saying the others are socks, POV-pushers, etc., without giving a lot of specifics about anything), which is continuing to muddy the whole picture. If there is anyone who is familiar with this individual and the issues about him, I would appreciate your help in trying to determine the best course of action here—both what to do about the problem editors (one user has suggested blocking one as a sock, and topic-banning the other one since he has been making good copyediting contributions at unrelated articles), and how to clean up the article.
More recent discussion is available at User talk:Manadude2#William Rodriguez page and the section immediately above it.
Thank you, Politizer talk/ contribs 20:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
AndrebernierWJW ( talk · contribs) has blanked Andre Bernier, writing "In order to allow this article to conform to Wiki's NPOV, the subject of this article has withdrawn all of the material." Cunard ( talk) 20:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The section is junk and should be removed on sight (as I have just done). Unsourced editorial commentary of that type does not belong on wikipedia. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if BLP applies here. User:Poeticbent, a notable Wikipedian ( Richard Tylman) is being harassed by an anon 99.242.160.225 ( talk · contribs) (see for example Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Advertisements_with_no_apparent_connection_to_subject) who is questioning his notability. On one level, discussing whether content is encyclopedic is fine, on another, it closely resembles anonymous stalking, and Poeticbent has several times expressed that he is unhappy at anon's behavior, tone and so on. What should we do? As I am a collegue of Poeticbent, and thus possibly biased, I'd like a third opinion before I consider banning the anon for stalking and harassment.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Galassi ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Came to this by way of a photosubmission. This page could really use some extra attention and sourcing fixes please. I will cut it down a bit due to lack of sourcing. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 21:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Earlier today I temporarily blocked Justuniverse ( talk · contribs) for edit warring at Rachel Paulose and removing content from the article. I feel the user may have been concerned about negative material in the article. Though much of the article is sourced, it seems to give undue weight to criticism, particularly in areas such as the "Swearing-in ceremony" section. Could someone with more experience with BLP-type issues please have a look at the article and see if anything needs be done? Thank you. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous poster is consistently adding a line that is not written with a neutral point of view and is not relevant. The user has been warned for vandalism, however they are using multiple IP addresses. Infamousjre ( talk) 22:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a bit of a spat going on the former Polish Prime Minister's page on whether statements/jokes as to his alleged sexual preference made by his political opponents (and political security policy back in the day) should be included or not. An outsider's look would be appreciated. radek ( talk) 09:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Balachandra Rajan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Two apparently unrelated IPs have attempted to record in the last couple of days that Rajan is dead. This is quite possible (he'd be 88), but I've been unable to confirm it. On the other hand, Rajan is not that famous and it wouldn't necessarily show up in Google News right away. Can someone at Western or around London, ON confirm this? There may have been a University announcement. Or can anyone find a reliable source online? For now I've been reverting, given that it seems inappropriate without a source. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous poster (IP 86.133.201.32) is persistently adding material which is essentially childish nonsense intended to reflect badly upon the subject. 32 edits have been made in 3 days. The editor has made no contributions to any other project.
The article is of low importance but nevertheless relates to a living person. Some of the edits have implied malfeasance on the part of the subject relating to business activities which have recently been widely discussed on a gambling website forum.
The user has twice been warned for vandalism.
Can Admin consider appropriate action in this case to (semi)-protect the article or prevent the anonymous editor adding further defamatory material? leaky_caldron ( talk) 23:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I reviewed a pdf file on David Ferguson's bio that was posted in the Discussion Page for the article on January 27, 2009 by 'DameSmartyPants.'
The pdf is of a court document that was unsigned and uncertified by the court. UNSIGNED. Because the document is unsigned and not stamped or certified, it is not a proper document. Not only is it further evidence of the incompleteness of the court record used to validate the inclusion of this case in the Legal History, it also is potentially libelous and represents a larger 'soapbox' campaign primarily orchestrated by user 'uwishiwasjohng' (and supplemented by 'Damesmartypants') to discredit Ferguson and besmirch his professional reputation. More specific details on that this soapbox effort will be posted on this noticeboard in the near future.
But for the time being, please draw your attention to Damesmartypants' pdf document. Its inclusion compromises the integrity of the article by casting an pall of guilt on David Ferguson and his company, Buried Treasure Inc. DrJamesX ( talk) 02:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX
Spotfixer ( talk · contribs) and Teledildonix314 ( talk · contribs) are inserting language about anal sex between teenagers into an article on Rick Warren, via a made-up term that is poorly sourced, contentious, and inflammatory. This clearly violates WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.-- Lyonscc ( talk) 05:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
An IP that resolves to Los Angeles CA has made edits to Edward M. Davis and William H. Parker (police officer). Could someone with familiarity of LA politics and police issues please check over the edits and take action if appropriate?-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 17:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Debate over naming a figure in a scandal. The name isn't in the article, at least not yet. Please opine about whether it should be. David in DC ( talk) 17:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Citation 7: Landau's prophetic 1974 article in The Real Paper [7], wherein he famously claimed "I saw rock and roll future and its name is Bruce Springsteen", is credited by Nick Hornby [8] and others with fostering Springsteen's popularity.
Link does not go to the article named. It goes to a Network Solutions under construction page which contains only general search links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.143.195 ( talk) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Peter Karmanos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — A user continues to add unsourced negative information to this article. A reference has been added, but it is of a message board, which I do not think is a reliable source. Additional conversation about the topic has occurred here: User talk:X96lee15#Peter Karmanos // X96lee15 ( talk) 00:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to be gone through and given a thorough sourcing. The subject is a controversial print columnist and broadcaster. I've removed some of the more outrageous unsourced stuff, but my intense personal dislike of the man probably doesn't make me the ideal person to clean the article up. -- TS 09:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate someone with BLP experience taking a look at Ilchi Lee. I revised a passage in the "criticism" section that directly quoted from and listed several claims made in the plantiff's origal complaint. Another editor attempted to delete it entirely, which was also reverted. The case was dismissed a few months ago, so I believe it is inappropriate to include so many unsubstantiated details, which contibute to a non-neutral tone to the passage, especially the portions that are directly quoted. The adminstrator (Steven Walling, formerly VanTucky) has a history of adding negative content to Dahn-related articles, so I would really like to get a neutral point-of-view. Does anyone know how claims made in a dismissed court case are handled in a BLP? Nicola Cola ( talk) 21:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Page title: Susan Lindauer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindauer
Defamatory and dangerous description in 1st paragraph. Use of term "spy" to describe charges against her. She was not and has never been charged with espionage. Therefore the repeated insertion of the term "spy" reflects at least a lack of information. The repetitive use of "spy" is intentional. At the time of the initial charges, "spy" was used with the most dire consequences for Lindauer mentioned. The federal government dismissed the case "in the interests of justice" on Jan. 15, 2009. In the interests of accuracy, the term "spy" needs to be removed as a description of both her charges and activities. That charge was never made.
1) The biography page for Susan Lindauer has been inaccurate since its inception, as far as I can tell. I see corrections periodically but the original error is recreated and posted.
The opening paragraph states:
"Susan P. Lindauer aka Symbol Susan (born 17 July 1963) is an American journalist accused of conspiring to act as a spy for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and engaging in prohibited financial transactions involving the government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein."
Susan Lindauer was never charged with acting as a "spy." I'll quote no less of an authority than her former Judge on the case, former Attorney General, Michael Mukasey who said in his "OPINION AND ORDER" of Sept. 6, 2006:
"The substantive counts of the indictment charge defendant with acting as an unregistered agent of the Iraqi government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 951 (Count Two); accepting about $10,000 from IIS as payment for "various services and activities," including her trip to Baghdad in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332d (Count Five); and engaging in financial transactions with the government of Iraq in relation to her trip to Iraq in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. (Count Six)." (S.D.N.Y.,2006, U.S. v. Lindauer --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2006 WL 2560622 (S.D.N.Y.) (not available from court online)
She was changed with acting as "an unregistered agent" which is entirely separate from espionage. Therefore the word "spy" is inaccurate. It is also inflammatory and could make her the target of extremists who see her as an accused "spy."
In the same "OPINION AND ORDER" Judge Mukasey explained what may have caused the use of this term. Lindauer was originally indicted with two Iraqi nationals who allegedly collected names for Iraqi intelligence on Iraqi's in the United States opposed to Saddam. Judge Mukasey said: "Their charged conduct, as explained by the government in pretrial submissions, involved principally obtaining the names of expatriate Iraqis in this country who were acting against the interest of the Saddam Hussein regime, and turning them over to IIS. It bears emphasis here that it was never the government's theory that Lindauer participated in such conduct, or indeed that she even knew the Al-Anbuke brothers. Rather, she and they were charged together only because both allegedly conspired with IIS."
In other words, she had nothing to do with these two Iraqi nationals charged with her and nothing to do with them as to their crimes.
Including Lindauer in this indictment without tagging the specific charges for each defendant created the impression that they'd all been involved in the same crime. But Judge Mukasey spelled out what others noticed at the time of indictment -- Lindauer was not accused of the alleged crimes of the Iraqi nationals.
The last sentence in the second paragraph of the biography is both misleading, on one level, and corrective, on another. It states:
"Although news headlines frequently[citation needed] refer to her as 'accused spy', more precise journalists[who?] note that the actual charges carefully avoid accusing Lindauer of espionage."
Even as her case came back to life with the media in the past year, some news groups used the term "spy," while others did not. Instead of "more precise journalists" avoid using "spy," it should read, "Use of the term "spy" by some journalists is inaccurate. Lindauer was never charged with espionage. The continued repetition of this falsehood is an endorsement of it. In this case, the falsehood may turnout out to be dangerous to Lindauer.
2) The federal government dropped all charges against Susan Lindauer on Jan. 15, 2006 giving this reason: "The Government has determined that continued prosecution of this case as to LINDAUER would not be in the interests of justice." This was after five years of Lindauer demanding a trial and the government maintaining that she was not competent to help in her own defense.
I wrote the first news article about this dismissed charges here: "Feds Drop Case Against Accused Iraqi Agent" [3] http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0901/S00210.htm
The link to the dismissal is here: [4] http://electionfraudnews.com/News/sl/Nolle.pdf
While this is posted on a non government web page, its provenance can be determined simply by contacting the federal district court, Southern Manhattan. Lindauer's case is fascinating and important given her confinement for 11 very difficult months for psychiatric evaluation when the basis of her case, that she was a U.S. intel asset, was claimed to be a "delusion."
She fought back, never got the trial that she demanded, but is now recovering at her home. The continued inclusion of "spy," a gross inaccuracy, is not appropriate for the article. It's also not helpful to her.
Thank you for reviewing this. I'd make the edit myself but I think that the edit would just beget another edit to the contrary. This is a chance for reach final accuracy on this question. She was charged with acting as an "unregistered agent," not with spying. This has been the case since the initial indictment years ago.
MichaelCollinsDC MichaelCollinsDC ( talk) 10:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Haaretz2009
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Ricardo Martinelli ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There are zero verifiable sources or external references to the claims made in the article about this candidate currently running for President of Panama. // Panaprog ( talk) 17:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Jonathan Thompson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Why is this man on Wikipedia? He was not a Nickelodeon presenter, as any employee of the TV company will tell you. Please call us. Similarly he is unknown to BBC GMR as we have checked with them too. Furthermore, how can he be listed in Old Mancunians and People From Salford? They are two different cities. Take all these alleged facts away and we are left with a businessman - and an unknown one at that; we have telephoned a couple of the companies the article lists. This article should be deleted to preserve the credibility of Wikipedia and to remove any impression that he has worked for our company and others.
Greg Williams (radio personality) is being hit by several anons and new accounts with nasty BLP violations. AnyPerson ( talk) 01:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC) \
The article looks like it needs some editor attention. For example, it currently has 3 different names for the mother Nil Einne ( talk) 17:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Front page news, alleged murder, no inline citations. Needs to be adopted by responsible experienced editors lest we get Seigenthalered. Skomorokh 13:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the new Prime Minister of Iceland (as of 2009-02-01). She is apparently also the first openly gay head of a national government. There has been some editwaring about whether she is gay/homosexual/lesbian. However I think that this article needs a close eye kept on it for vandalism (of which there has been a little bit already). Martin451 ( talk) 02:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is only being edited by editors with a pro-Rush Limbaugh POV, who typically cite only to Rush Limbaugh's own website as a source. I am posting here to ask for more editors on the article. An example is the I Hope Obama Fails section. The section is written only explaining "Rush's" side ( the editors on the article call him by his first name in the text). This section only presents Limbaugh's statements that he hopes Obama fails, and why he would say that, with no explanation about what made this controversial, or who found it controversial. User:Furtive admirer, backed up by User:Soxwon, are putting in a WSJ op-ed piece that I read and has nothing to do with the "fail" controversy (that also had a race element to it), but Limbaugh continuing to criticize Obama. That's Limbaugh's job - to criticize Obama, and it is distinct from the particular controversy. User:Furtive admirer uses POV language like "The Democrats escalated the issue", and when I revert, I get bizarre talk page messages about how liberal I am and how Obama needs a teleprompter to speak. I'm no longer watching the article, so it could use other editors who care more about WP:NPOV than about their own POV. --David Shankbone 23:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds nore like seeking editors with a specific POV. Last I looked, it was quite replete with criticism of Limbaugh indeed. Collect ( talk) 11:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
See Family of Barack Obama#George Hussein Onyango Obama (talkpage discussion here). An element of "recentism" and a BLP vio, due the nominal level of the charges? Or, properly notable, due its being in keeping with the tenuousness of George's notability, itself? ↜Just me, here, now … 16:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Henry Siegman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I believe the "criticism" section of Henry Siegman's bio needs some serious revision.
Poorly sourced - the whole "criticism" section refers to four articles - 3 of which are editorials and the last is arguably a fringe/extremist publication.
As WP:BLP clearly states, "If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." - from what I can see of the sources, they are quite biased, and not appropriate for a BLP. If the criticism of his work is so widespread and "anti-Israeli" as the sources contend, surely better quality sources can be found? Should a BLP really be using WP:coatrack articles?
Also, WP:UNDUE - This section serves to represent a minority view. The information presented is neither proportional nor neutral. Additionally, no counter-arguments are presented to offer balance.
I really don't have the knowledge to do a major edit of this - perhaps someone can have a quick look-see? GrizzledOldMan ( talk) 19:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, very similar material seems to have been adde to at least two other articles, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) [33] and Rashid Khalidi. [34] I see that there are citations throughout the encyclopedia regarding claims made by CAMERA, and that last year CAMERA was caught in a coordinated effort to plant partisan material into Wikipedia. [35] This brings up an interesting and improtant issue. If a partisan group criticizes a living person on its website, blog, a newspaper op-ed, etc, what if anything would justify adding a statement to Wikipedia that the organization made the attack? What if the group or person issuing the criticism are notable (e.g. a professor, politician, a notable writer)? I'm very uncomfortable that a partisan organization could bootstrap its way into Wikipedia. Do we always need secondary reliable sources of sufficient weight to cover the fact that the organization made the attack in order establish significance and relevance to the living person in question? Are there any other requirements? Wikidemon ( talk) 07:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if BLP can apply to a band, but accusations of plagiarism should apply to the members of the band, and it's being done without sources. All such claims should be removed unless verified. AnyPerson ( talk) 23:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Blatant self promotion: Pages being deleted on wiki on violation of the same rule.
quote "She received a Lifetime Achievement award at Nestle Pakistan fashion awards in 2002. Currently, she's the spokesperson for Pond's in Pakistan". The awards are neither regionally nor globally recognized. The "Ponds" product is not distributed outside Pakistan
"She did her first shoot with Dawn/Herald with Fifi Haroon in 1993. Her style appealed to the elitist fashion industry but not the general public" - Again this is an opinion and NOT a fact
"She remains a popular figure on the social scene & fashion industry due to her positive image and ettiquetes".- I am sorry but what is this?. A school rating report?
In short, the self promoting article does not show that the subject of the article has achieved anything significant in her career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.69.195.220 ( talk) 09:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"Tanya was one of the leading "supermodel" in Pakistani fashion scene during 1994-2006." - Citation needed. Source??
This entire article consists of two parts: (1) a description of the selling of the Steelers, which has very little to do with Dan Rooney himself, and (2) a discussion about a comment he made regarding a Steelers player. Being that the first is irrelevant and the second presents a very biased view of his life (a good overview of him is available on the NYT here), this entire article may be considered questionable. -- 136.142.15.231 ( talk) 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I already mentioned this on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to be on the safe side. I wanted to point out that this article is extremely biased by references from far left websites such as CSN.com, Media Matters, The Huffington Post, and MSNBC.com to name a few. I think somebody like an administrator needs to check it out because the article is just huge with far left references. Thanks. Lighthead þ 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't get it, what do you mean? No, the fact that papa bear is more famous doesn't get to me it's the fact that I checked out Sean Hannity's page just for arguments sake the other day, and it turns out that he didn't have a criticism page (not that he didn't have one, but in the manner that it was done (simply put, he doesn't have one)) like Pappy has. I know that I answered your question with the previous answer but I don't know what to tell you. Lighthead þ 09:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
'uwishiwasjohng' has submitted more than 30 edits since February 1, 2009 on the David Ferguson (Impresario) article. This recent flurry of editing activity is a reaction to the removal of the Legal History section in David Ferguson's article -- a section which 'uwishiwasjohng' crafted and maintained for several weeks, despite his self-admitted COI with the subject David Ferguson. This Legal History section was removed after Wiki Admin Red Pen of Doom and Wiki users Cottonshirt and Orderinchaos challenged 'uwishiwasjohng's reliance on primary source material and criticized the overall defamatory tone of the Legal History section.
'uwishiwasjohng's new strategy is to destroy the David Ferguson bio through relentless editing and unwarranted text removal. Much of the text removed was essential to defining Ferguson's career as a record producer (much of this text was restored on Feb 2, 2009, but these details have previously been removed on multiple occasions). This text was supported by valid citations which were provided in direct response to the terrific number of 'citation needed' requests with which 'uwishiwasjohng' has stocked the article since he taking control of it back in November.
Could an admin please review this abusive editing? Is it possible to take steps to block 'uwishiwasjohng' from editing the article because of his intrusive COI with Ferguson? DrJamesX ( talk) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX
There are editors adding BLP vios. -- Mihai cartoaje ( talk) 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
A NY politician who found himself in an unfortunate situation. The information concerning his situation keeps being removed from his bio, one would assume by himself, his friends, or his staff. The information is accurate, verifiable, public, non libelous etc...How can one stop this from continuing to happen? I have only posted it once but can see that there has been an editing back and forth going on for some time. WNYBuffalo ( talk) 03:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I will correct my cite, I meant to link it to the official sanction letter he received from the Speaker's Office in the Assembly, which apparently is no longer at that link. I will find a better source for the letter and cite it appropriately. Could you advise me on how you request admin to look at it? Please. Thanks. WNYBuffalo ( talk) 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the current references are sufficient - the actual letter doesn't really add anything to the bio. Given that WP:RS seems to have been the reason of the reverts, hopefully that's the end of it. Admin intervention shouldn't be necessary. GrizzledOldMan ( talk) 05:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:COATRACK deletion nomination of extraordinary violation of WP:BLP1E. Systematic misunderstanding of WP:N is being used to argue that single-sentence mention in 32,000-circulation newspaper in different context justifies BLP violation. THF ( talk) 10:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Melanie Johnson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The information added by Shakehandsman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and various other users in the past has not been in concordance with the "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link." For example, adding incorrect information re:illegality of all women shortlists, when in fact they were and are legal ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/nov/15/women.gender, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1398729.stm) Tendentious editing has been carried about by this user. Unnecessary (and incorrect) personal details have been added re:Melanie Johnson's chldren. Shakehandsman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continually edits Women Politician's wiki pages with spurious or incorrect and unsourced information. ARFCRFarfcrf ( talk) 10:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Reply: Shakehandsman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) cites references which are not in the reference list and adds references which when checked are often not relevant to the subject matter at hand! Cruio ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can not have reviewed the history of contributions made to this living biography fully. Please see earlier editions to see the full extent. ARFCRFarfcrf ( talk) 12:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hee Yit Foong ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would appreciate it if one or two editors could help me watch this article. She is one of a number of people involved in a recent political controversy in Malaysia, and the only one with an article, and so anons are making inflammatory and highly POV edits or borderline vandalism. I don't think it's really reached the level requiring semi-protection yet although I'm not going to object if someone does it Nil Einne ( talk) 13:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Nestor Aparicio ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The discussion page for the article ( Talk:Nestor_Aparicio) has become a blog for commentary on Aparicio, sometimes defamatory and anonymous, rather than a forum for discussion of the article. Can these blog-like entries be removed? Mtd2006 ( talk) 16:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I would have thought this to be a no-brainer but apparently another editor disagrees. See specifically this diff and this talk page where the sources were claimed to not meet WP:BLP standards. Oren0 ( talk) 03:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I think its time to get 3rd party input here, since we can alway continue bickering on the talk page. We are obviously of differing opinion - so nows the time for outside input, which is why you posted it here. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 03:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: Cross-posted at WP:RS/N since there doesn't seem to be much of an audience for this matter on this noticeboard. Oren0 ( talk) 03:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If his own words are not reliable sources for his opinion, I'm at a loss about how we can include the skeptic "see also" link. I don't think his attacks on another living person (Hansen) should be in the article, but the rest is the normal sort of SPS background information we allow from the article's subject. The Register and Telegraph articles just show weight to his letters. His skepticism seems to be the only reason he's notable—assuming he is notable, that is. I would as soon delete it. Cool Hand Luke 02:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)