This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I am being accused of violating WP:BLP on the subject's talk page by using of the word "grooming". I've provided the WP article defining the term, reliable sources describing the subject's behavior without labelling it (The New York Times and the Oregonian), and sources actually using the word. Nonetheless, I am directed to remove the word. My biggest interest on WP is fixing BLP problems. The accusation rankles. Other opinions would be welcome. David in DC ( talk) 00:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) There is no BLP issue. My proposed language accurately sourced the material. It's legitimate to discuss the issue on the talk page. The Statesman Journal is more notable than the majority of existing sources quoted on the Sam Adams page, so it's a NPOV violation to exclude them. THF ( talk) 20:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
No one is proposing putting the word grooming in the article. But it is not a BLP violation to use it on the talk page. Both the NYT and Oregonian describe grooming. If an editor cannot discuss the grooming angle in a collapsed discussion on the talk page, we've come to a bad place.
Take the controversy out with a hypothetical. The NYT and Oregonian say Sam Adams put a leash on his dog, stepped out his door, rounded the block, and returned home with his dog. It is not WP:SYNTH to say Sam Adams walked his dog and source it to the NYT and Oregonian.
Now, as for the Statesman-Journal editorial using the word grooming, it is true to say that the reliable source rules prevent the use of the opinion piece to assert that Sam Adams groomed this young man. But it is not a violation of WP:RS or WP:BLP to take note of the assertion in deciding whether to name the young man in the article.
Where an editorial board of a reliable source (the gratuitous knocks on the Statesman-Journal's reputation for accuracy and professional standards border on nonsensical) raises this issue, Wikipedia editors must be able to take that into account when excercising editorial judgment about whether to name the young man in the WP article about Adams.
The reason not to name the young man in the article cannot rest on WP:HARM to him; they rest on harm to any minor now or in the future being groomed by any powerful man or woman. Such a minor should be able to count on not being "outed" on wikipedia, no matter the course the affair takes.
Please remember, the underlying talk page discussion, collapsed for reasons of discretion, is not about whether to put "grooming" in the article. It's about whether to name Adams' erstwhile paramour. The consensus seems to be that his name adds nothing important to the article and unduly risks harm to others. Consensus has not yet been achieved, but that's the direction.
The two articles summarizing, and directly quoting from, the radio program where the head of the policeman's union DID use the word "grooming" seal the deal. They both quote the union chief verbatim.
There are sufficient sources for an editor to introduce the issue of grooming and how naming the young man will harm others who find themselves in the same position, in a collapsed but ongoing talk page discussion about whether to name Adams' former inamorata.
Two other points:
1) Libel/slander is a red herring.
WP:BLP rightly imposes a stricter standard than libel/slander law. I'm arguing that I've met that standard on the talk page in my comments about grooming.
2) I've commended aboutmovies on his talk page for his approach here. I repeat that commendation here. It's the mark of an adult to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. I have no monopoly on wisdom and appreciate civil attempts at content dispute resolution. My thanks go out to everyone who is treating this with the seriousness and civility it requires.
David in DC (
talk) 21:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Outdent. I used the word. Aboutmovies asked for sources. I gave sources. Aboutmovies judges those sources to fail WP:RS. I judge them to meet WP:RS. The NYT and Oregonian articles describe grooming, the same way in my hypothetical above the narration describes walking a dog. The Stateman-Journal piece uses the word. The Statesman-Journal is a reliable source. You can call it a duck or a liverwurst sandwich, but that doesn't make it any lerss a reliable source.
The two sources quoting the police union spokesman indicate he used the word on a radio program. While the spokesman's words themselves are a verboten primary source, the radio program is a completely legitimate secondary source, and the articles transcribing the quotes on the radio program are a tertiary source. David in DC ( talk) 16:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Aboutmovies - I'm impressed with your reasoning. Has anyone checked out Factiva or its ilk for a source with a bit more authority? This thread is pretty complex now, but it does seem as though the situation would be solved with an RS using the word "grooming" with relation to Adams. I've got a Factiva account and would be happy to run a search if that would help. User:Aboutmovies, given your thoughtful criteria for the selection of BLP RS, I'd welcome your input on the Michael Wines discussion above. It's a doosie. Richard Cooke ( talk) 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
David J. Schmidly ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article, not noted as a BLP, has a cited criticism section that outweighs the rest by a magnitude. An account, presumably the subject, has removed the section more than once. This appears to have all the ingredients for Oeuf pour le Visage... LessHeard vanU ( talk) 17:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I think this violates the BLP guideline that "criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability" and "The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article" It was not a notable reaction, and it is a opinion not echoed anywhere else so it doesn't have a place in the article. Another issue is that information from the same section was taken from non-English sources [1]. I understand that verifiability is taken more seriously when the article is BLP so I am assuming that this is also a violation of BLP policy. Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 19:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Falastine fee Qalby tried the following tactics"Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted that shortly after the Davos incident, Erdogan hosted Salva Kiir Mayardit, the Vice President of Sudan, who is being indicted for his role in the Darfur genocide. Cagaptay brings up this fact to note that Erdogan's action at Davos were less about humanitarian concern than they are about what Cagaptay calls a "civilizational view." [2]
Repeated vandalism on this page for example http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ger_Brennan&diff=262233020&oldid=261796126 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.192.131 ( talk) 10:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be a fairly undocumented page mainly written by User:jonwiener, which I consider odd. Might someone go there and see if this is a personal puff page or the like? Many thanks! Collect ( talk) 16:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I zapped this down to a sourced stub when this came up at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents#user:Qchristina, legal threat. The complaining editor's apparently legitimate grievance was being reverted as vandalism. This was a classic example of a legitimate complaint about a biography being unheard because the editor was a novice and didn't go about complaining in the correct fashion. I've given some guidance to the editor at User talk:Uncle G#Sanaz Shirazi, and Rjanag is helping out at User talk:Qchristina. We're no longer at the point of blocking a BLP complainant for legal threats and vandalism, I think. But some independent eyes and some extra help to a novice editor at the article and at xyr talk page, even if only a copyedit or a friendly tip here and there, would be appreciated. Uncle G ( talk) 23:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Larry Sanger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We need some people to help with festering conflicts there along with allegations of BLP violations. ScienceApologist ( talk) 05:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
An editor keeps putting in the statement, "She is now a Christian and has become a critic of the porn industry, describing the years of abuse she suffered while involved in it" and cites it to a youtube video of the subject. I've reverted the user twice and gave him BLP warnings. Is this appropriate? I feel that youtube should never be considered a reliable source nor used to support any assertions since youtube doesn't authenticate the content. Furthermore, if we treat the video as an authentic primary source, there should be a secondary reliable source reporting on this. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 08:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I recently made over a hundred edits to the article after an arbitration case. I have focused on fixing structure problems, dealing with undue weight, consolidating sources, and removing unreliable sources so that the content can be reworked or removed if completely unusable. It is apparent that the article is indecently sourced and is in need of some overhaul. The arbitration remedies are outlined here and here. A few editors expressed interest in reverting to an earlier version or even deleting it (both of which I believe to be unsuitable); more input would be appreciated on the matter. ← Spidern → 23:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Doesigewebsite ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has made a threat and placed a notice to take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute regarding the following article:
Right: See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Is_IMDb_a_reliable_source.3F THF ( talk) 02:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody keep an eye on this please? Some IPs keep re-adding a statement Dreher made a while ago about shooting trespassors in order to make him look bad. Hopefully people here agree that cherry-picking something outrageous a person has said, distorting it, and stripping it from its context isn't in keeping with BLP. 70.20.106.127 ( talk) 10:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Anonymous IP Vandal(s) are making seriously flawed and inaccurate statements on the Yasser Latif Hamdani. Yasser Latif Hamdani is not an Ahmadi. He believes in a secular Pakistan and believes that Pakistan was created as a secular state by Jinnah. 125.21.165.158 in particular has been quite belligerant. History can be seen here. [ [6]]
221.132.117.17 ( talk) 15:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a city an LA City Attorney election today and one of the candidates, Jack Weiss, has had some dubious material inserted over the last few days. I've tried to clean it up somewhat but it needs more watchlisting, as might some of the other candidates. These pages will get more traffic than normal today. Phil153 ( talk) 17:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned that a potentially libelous statement accusing Mr. Fuisz of being a CIA operative continues to be re-added after removal, primarily by Richard Norton. The text is sourced from a just published interview with Susan Lindauer (who is Richard Norton's cousin). Ms Lindauer was been found previously to be mentally unfit to stand trial. I think the inclusion of the statement as is with this source violates the guidelines in the living person biography section. Chitownhustler ( talk) 22:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Your standard COATRACK, SYN, POV, and BLP violations on everyone's favorite Berkeley professor. Absolutely no effort in the article to give Yoo's side of the story, even though he has been interviewed and has written about it, and a good third of the references in the footnotes don't even mention Yoo. Lots of original research, too. I'd scrub it, but then I'd get accused of furthering a right-wing conspiracy. THF ( talk) 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I've run into an issue on a specific biography, but it probably has wider implications. For a couple of years I've been monitoring the biography of Mark Steyn, a columnist and author. Now this fellow Steyn apparently has his fans and detractors, and every few weeks I go in and clear out the stuff that violates BLP. Recently I removed the insertion of a quote from one of his hundreds of columns, as a combination of a WP:BLP and WP:NOR violation. I based this removal primarily on the BLP statement "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves." The material was not published by the subject about himself (i.e. it is not a statement like "I grew up in Liverpool and attended Cardinal Heenan Catholic High School"), was based on a primary source (his own writings), was provided was without context, and was clearly inserted as an attempt to discredit him in some way; thus, its removal. As I said on the article's talk page:
Steyn has written millions of words in literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles. Please explain what makes that particular statement notable in any way; in particular, please find reliable secondary sources that have discussed that statement and provided a context for it. Until then, do not re-insert that WP:BLP-violating original research. Thanks.
Since then, the editor who inserted it, and one other editor objected, even restoring the material. When I insisted that they find secondary sources that discussed the statement, they searched the internet, and managed to discover this source, a book review which mentioned the statement in passing. I've continued to remove the statement as an obvious violation of the very principles of WP:BLP; rather than attempt to show what reliable secondary sources have said about the subject, it is an obvious attempt to reflect negatively on the subject, using primary sources (his own writings). I've also warned them that if they continue to restore it, I will block them for doing so. In reply, they have now argued that because I have been removing the material, that means I am now "in a content dispute" with them, and no longer acting in an administrative capacity. I've pointed out to them the absurdity of this claim; it would mean that any admin who removed BLP-violating material was now "in a content dispute" regarding the material, and could therefore no longer act in an administrative capacity, but they are insistent. Given their continuing insistence that the material does not violate BLP, and that by removing the material I have suddenly become "involved in a content dispute", I've come to this board for additional opinions. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
An uninvolved admin – meaning someone who isn't a regular editor of Middle-East related pages, and who is neither friend nor foe of Jayjg – should take this matter out of his hands. I am far from uninvolved by my own definition, but looking closely at the talk pages and the sources adduced thus far, there doesn't appear to be any BLP problem. None whatsoever. There are multiple secondary sources discussing Steyn's statement; all of them are excellent, high-profile mainstream reliable sources. When Jayjg describes an "absence of such reliable secondary sources that actually discuss this statement," he's simply hoping you won't actually check and discover that he's making this up.
The facts here are very simple. In a rather infamous op-ed for a very high-profile newspaper (the Wall Street Journal), Steyn laughingly cheered on the savage mob beating of a very prominent journalist. There are multiple secondary sources discussing the Steyn op-ed – and specifically addressing the very sentence of Stein's that Jay is threatening to block editors for mentioning in the article – including by the victim of the mob beating, the celebrated journalist Robert Fisk. Here's what Fisk has to say about the Steyn quote:
Later reactions were even more interesting. Among a mass of letters that arrived from readers of the Independent, almost all of them expressing their horror at what had happened, came a few Christmas cards, all but one of them unsigned, expressing the writer's disappointment that the Afghans hadn't "finished the job." The Wall Street Journal carried an article which said more or less the same thing under the subhead "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due." In it, Mark Steyn wrote of my reaction that "you'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." The "Fisk Doctrine," he went on, "taken to its logical conclusion, absolves of responsibility not only the perpetrators of Sept. 11 but also Taliban supporters who attacked several of Fisk's fellow journalists in Afghanistan, all of whom, alas, died before being able to file a final column explaining why their murderers are blameless."
Quite apart from the fact that most of the journalists who died in Afghanistan were killed by thieves taking advantage of the Taliban's defeat, Steyn's article was interesting for two reasons. It insinuated that I in some way approved of the crimes against humanity on September 11 — or, at the least, that I would absolve the mass murderers. More important, the article would not have been written had I not explained the context of the assault that was made on me, tiny though it was in the scale of suffering visited upon Afghanistan. Had I merely reported an attack by a mob, the story would have fit neatly into the general American media presentation of the Afghan war with no reference to civilian deaths from US B- 52 bombers and no suggestion that the widespread casualties caused in the American raids would turn Afghans to fury against the West. We were, after all, supposed to be "liberating" these people, not killing their relatives. Of course, my crime — the Journal gave Steyn's column the headline "Hate-Me Crimes" — was to report the "why" as well as the "what and where." Wallis, David ed. Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print. Nation Books, 2004: 371-373.
Jay says of this passage that its "relevance is unclear," and complains that it was "found by googling Google Books."
Other secondary sources specifically discussing the Steyn quote include the London Independent (a major British broadsheet), Salon.com, and the New Zealand Herald. The CBC's Evan Solomon also discussed the significance of the Steyn quote in an interview with Fisk for the television show Hot Type.
Three things are absolutely clear: (1) there are multiple secondary sources discussing this quote; (2) there is nothing here even remotely approaching a BLP violation; and (3) Jayjg is here as a party to a content dispute, in an area of the encyclopedia where he has a known bias. This last issue is the gravest by far. In misrepresenting his own role here, in pretending to be simply an admin safeguarding BLP rather than a party to a content dispute, Jay is trying to justify the use of his admin tools as weapons in order to win that content dispute. Hence all his threats to other editors. This is a very serious form of admin abuse, the sort that might well merit desysoping. At any rate, this entire episode represents not a BLP issue, but an admin-abuse issue, and should be moved, accordingly, to the AN/I page.-- G-Dett ( talk) 15:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You can understand why Mr. Fisk has been in low spirits of late: The much-feared "Arab street" is as seething and turbulent as a leafy cul-de-sac in Westchester County...But last weekend the people finally roused themselves--and beat up Fisky! His car broke down just a stone's throw (as it turned out) from the Pakistani border and a crowd gathered. To the evident surprise of the man known to his readers as "the champion of the oppressed," the oppressed decided to take on the champ. They lunged for his wallet and began lobbing rocks. Yet even as the rubble bounced off his skull, Mr. Fisk was shrewd enough to look for the "root causes."
I have tried to tell the "truth"; that while there are unanswered questions about 9/11, I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent; that I have quite enough real plots on my hands in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc, to worry about imaginary ones in Manhattan. My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?
Can someone take a look at today's activity on this page? I have to leave so I cannot do so myself. The page was semi-protected for a month because of BLP violations. The protection is off, and it looks like the violations are back. The older edits say that the sourcing for the material is not sufficient. The sourcing on the new version needs to be checked to see if it is now sufficient for what the content says, or if it is more of the same that got the page semi-ed previously. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Lois Ayres – Statement ultimately removed from the article as not being notable enough to remain in. – 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
I became involved in this edit because the user asked for help in the mainspace of the article, and I caught it on Huggle. I'm not sure if the source meets the requirements of WP:BLP. The statement in the article that I'm asking about is "Lois is noteworthy for having dated Slash of Guns N Roses, Slash's Snakepit, and Velvet Revolver." The editor that was trying to insert this into the article cited Slash's autobiography as his source. Does this qualify as a valid source, since the statement came from the autobiography of one of the people involved in that statement? Or would it only be valid in an article about Slash? Matt ( talk) 09:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Dan Malloy (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Occasionally, a user (usually an anonymous one) will remove relevant information regarding this Stamford, CT mayor's dispute with the fire department. It is, arguably, one of the defining aspects of his administration, and should not be removed without discussion. The most recent incident was shamelessly motivated by agenda, since the user not only removed every mention of the issue, but replaced it with unbridled praise for the mayor. It should be noted that the language that is repeatedly removed is itself the result of a resolved dispute; both anti-Malloy and pro-Malloy editors have agreed on its neutrality, which makes its removal all the less acceptable.
Minaker (
talk) 15:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Jim Cramer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tycoon24 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.217.9.202 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
These two users have been removing entire sections of the article, claiming that they are portraying Mr. Cramer in a negative light, and therefore should be removed. After several users (including Spitfire, Gnower, and myself) went back and forth with him and reverting his edits, he decided instead to stick to rephrasing one section and removing a couple of statements (and an accompanying source) which he considers "libelous" (see diff), even going so far as to call them a conspiracy theory (see diff). I'm not seeing how these statements would be considered either libelous or conspiracies. Any suggestions? Matt ( talk) 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Can someone who knows more about Sido than I do please check some of the information in there? The article cites no sources and some of the statements in there somehow surprise me. Thank you! darkweasel94 (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Nadya Suleman, Has been legally know or referenced with all the following names: Natalie Doud, Natalie Denise Suleman, Nadya Suleman-Gutierrez, Nadya Suleman Gutierrez Doud, Natalie Suleman-Gutierrez, Nadya Dodd, Nadya Denise Doud, and Natalie Denise Doud. The most common (by far) is 'Nadya Suleman' thus the article is titled that. But there is question as to weather which or any of the other names should also be listed? — raeky ( talk | edits) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Irregardless of the new AfD nomination(which I think is uncalled for) any recommendations on alternative names or rules. I've not noticed anything in policies that directly deals with a person who is known and referenced by this many names. — raeky ( talk | edits) 19:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Charlie Coles ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User talk:Patiotable continues to add unsourced content to the article while also removed correct information. I have warned the user to no avail. The edits have become less-inflammatory over time, but continue to say the person will retire when there is no indication he will. // X96lee15 ( talk) 01:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Your entry on me not only contravenes your guidelines, being biased, hostile, inaccurate and lacking in citations.
It is also libellous, thanks particularly to the most recent addition(s). Please remove it instantly, or remove every error and claim unsupported by citations.
Andrew Bolt
email addy rmv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.17.161 ( talk) 07:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The BLP subject, a controversial South Indian guru, was subject to an apparent attempt on his life in 1993. What are editors' views on including graphic images of Sai Baba's dead assailants in his BLP? It strikes me such images would be okay in an article on that specific incident, but less so in the BLP of the person who was the target of the attack.
Needless to say, the whole Sathya_Sai_Baba#Murders_in_ashram section, starting with the title, appears quite far from balanced NPOV reporting, as does the article overall. Jayen 466 11:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
213.46.9.165 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This user has been warned twice about adding unverified material to articles. They have edited several articles substantially changing facts, or adding potentially libellous material. The IPs edits span over 30 articles, and I'm requesting a joint effort to undo thier work, and a temporary block. - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 07:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This article has received a fair amount of IP attention trying to add that Ms. Williams is dating Chad Gilbert, a drummer from some band. The additions seem to be coming from IPs of various geolocations, and are absolutely never sourced properly. Only two editors and myself are present to remove and fix this assertion, which has been brought up on the talk page but is never discussed by the said editors. I would request semi-protection of the article for a set period of time, or at least some eyes on this article, as I'm tired of coming back after a 3 day break and having to fix vandalism over the entire period. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 12:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Venezuela Information Office ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Should a section listing an organisation's former employees be included, apparently motivated by their failure to disclose their connection with organisation? No notable activity on behalf of the organisation is included, merely the association. Rd232 talk 23:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the idea of creating a third party website and placing it under "external links": That won't work, see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided and WP:EL#In biographies of living people; also if that site were created by an editor we could have a case of WP:COI. Now, to sort things out, we could try to separate different cases; for instance, we could start with the two persons listed as "past employees". Who supports removing this from the article? JRSP ( talk) 13:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is an obvious trouble magnet, and many of the sources don't seem to actually back up the statements in the article. Also, her personal life has been reported on so widely, there may be details slipping into the article that aren't really appropriate. I think if a previously uninvolved party could swoop in and play referee and try to sort the wheat from the chaff in the references it would go a long way towards helping this article not devolve into an attack piece. More detail, way way more than you will want to read, is at the ongoing AfD. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
1- He wrote it himself 2- he exagerates what he has done. 3- His company exists only on paper, the plane and the staff do not exist,impossible to corroborate. 4- The links on his page are 20+ years old,outdated information. 5- Seems to be a narcisisstic monument to own self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thearclight ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
My bio says, "he earned $54,196 and the scorn of many in the NASCAR community". This is untrue. Please remove.
Thank you,
Joe Ruttman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.240.235 ( talk) 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The name is wrong too. I go by Joe Ruttman. My middle name is not Joesph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.240.235 ( talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It's escaped my notice for a while in editing and discussing the article, but it suddenly strikes me that it may well be a case of WP:ONEEVENT. The solution would be an article on the book in question ( The Death of Environmentalism), the co-authorship of which is the only reason he is notable. (His PR work etc, which has been the source of some heat, isn't notable.) Most of the article is about the book, which isn't even sole-authored by him. Comments? Move book stuff to book article and delete the bio? Rd232 talk 22:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Additional: in 2005 (prior to the book publication, but after the controversial essay which preceded it), the NY Times described the authors as "two little-known, earnest environmentalists in their 30's..." [15] Rd232 talk 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The Bill Britt article has some serious unsourced allegations in Bill_Britt#Skaggs_Lawsuit. They were eventually sourced by providing links to court documents hosted on a non-RS site ( http://www.amwaywiki.com - disclaimer, I admin the site). User:Shot Info has stated that such documents are not allowed as sources so has removed them, meaning the allegations are now unsourced. As such I believe they should be removed from a BLP immediately, however he's threatening me with an edit warring report (despite the fact one of my reverts was including the material, the other was removing it!) Additional input requested. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 00:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Potentially libellous and extremely poorly sourced material concerning this finnish metal music artist's ideology. Clear indication of support towards illegal organizations etc. through very vague connections etc. The artist has made it clear in several occasions that his personal beliefs are towards Satanism, yet somehow a lot of bigots try to blame him for nazism for some utterly peculiar reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Warmaster
The "Ideology" chapter is 100% against the biographies of living persons policy.
The only source used is an anarchist extremist propaganda book "unholy allianz" which is a full on attack towards heavy metal culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opferblut ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Joel C. Rosenberg is undergoing some significant edits. IMO the old version was bad, and an editor has made some significant improvements. But both the old version and the new version feel very puffed-up. I tagged the new version as such (after the old version had the tags removed in the latest set of improvements) and the editor and I have had a discussion about some of the issues. That said, I'm going to bow out of the discussion (I really don't know anything about the subject nor am I good with BLPs) and would appreciate it if another editor would be so kind as to look over the article and figure out if A) my tag should be removed or B) how to improve the article. Thanks Hobit ( talk) 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Section looks like a BLP violation to me, esp. in the absence of sources. If I can get a supportive comment from one other editor here, I will go ahead and delete the whole section. Other parts of the article are poor but not libelous as far as I can see. Looie496 ( talk) 23:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to make revisions and additions to Marcellas reynolds. I added a filmography, current career and early life section. I corrected age, took out erroneous and unnecessary information and added tons of current info. All my changes were deleted. I don't know why.
I'm adding a copy of the changes I added and made below.
Any help on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
NickNight Nickknightley ( talk) 02:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice that, among our numerous articles on football referees, a large proportion devote most of their room to material criticizing or selectively reporting criticism of various decisions they've made over the years. This is often in a "Controversy" section or introduced by sentences with such a word. Do we think it is worth enforcing Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise on such articles, or are BLP concerns here mitigated by the fact that such criticisms are taken for granted as the normal course of such careers. I.e. wikipedia's articles on such subjects are 1) unlikely to effect their careers (though I wouldn't take this for granted) in football or 2) their careers elsewhere. Thoughts please. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 03:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The article Tim Footman is unreferenced. According to Citing sources#Dealing with citation problems unreferenced biographies of living persons (which this seems to be) should be referred to administrators for assistance. Thanks 218.14.50.80 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians
I know, they're dead (allegedly) and it isn't an article, but the issues involved overlap with BLP so I'm coming here.
In a recent MfD of this page where the danger of fabrication was a concern (vs the unencyclopedic nature of the page) the consensus seemed to be "keep, but insist on sourcing". Unfortunately, those maintaining the page don't seem to care much about WP:V or the spirit of WP:BLP insisting that internal stuff and unverified e-mails will do as it is not an article.
I have repeatedly removed an entry on Emil Petkov [16] which has a discussion (in Bulgarian) on a wikipage as its sole verification, but I'm being reverted by people insisting that that's sufficient verification. This page is wide open to the possibility of a damaging and hurtful fraud, as it names real-life individuals who happen to be (allegedly) wikipedians, assistance on maintaining this page would be helpful. I'd particularly invite people to check the verification of all other entries, and help me insit that any without hard verifiable corroboration are removed.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 19:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I respect Scott concern, but please keep in mind that most of wikipedians are not celebrities so that their deaths are reported in NY Times. The verifiability rules for discussing of wikipedians in wikipedia pages must be relaxed. If not, we may delete 75% entries from this page, and in completely miss the purpose of this page. Al alternative would be to remove references to real names and use more cautionary phrasing about the external world. - 7-bubёn >t 20:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
There are quite a few people who think quite strongly that death of wikipedians is an internal matter of high notability and irrelevant to all other wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam. Laudak ( talk) 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Scott has a point that we can't label "Mr XYZ" who edited as "User:ABC" as dead without some support. But equally I can't see our WP:OR and WP:RS mainspace policies apply so strictly. Surely best endeavour is sufficent here? Has anyone actually contacted Mike Godwin or the WMF about this? In the example above of Jeffpw we had confirmation via Checkuser and personal email from several long standing editors. It wouldn't stand up to mainspace I agree but so what? If I state on my user page what I do for a living, what my religion is and how may kids I have must I add a good reference? Pedro : Chat 23:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Please stop with the "you can't libel the dead" crap. Maybe you can't, but that's beside the point. There are two problems here: 1) if the entry is unverified then the fact that the real-life person has died is unverified, so you may be talking about the living. Secondly, libel is not the only concern - embarrassing a real person, causing stress, etc to them or their families are also part of "do no harm".-- Scott Mac (Doc) 10:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I find it interesting that the people who previously brought Deceased Wikipedians up for a MfD--where the community decided to keep Deceased Wikipedians--now bring this issue up here without informing people about this discussion. This is not an issue for BLP. As it states on the page, people have to provide information referenced info about the deceased individuals. This page is an important part of the Wikipedia community.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 17:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Speak of the devil --- and he appears. I did nominate JeffPW and Deceased Wikipedians for deletion. Again, Per WP:NOT which explicity states Wikipedia is not a memorial. I got a rapid (5 minute) closure on both nominations and a 3rr notice on my page for contesting. I haven't re-nominated either page because it's clear to me that the community wishes to keep both pages, despite both being against policy. Hey, I respect the consensus and will abide. However, I will suggest that the community then change the line or lines in WP:NOT#MEMORIAL to reflect this consensus. That way, this never happens again. It will be a matter of policy and therefore, beyond refute for anyone. As it stands now, it is now. — Kosh Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 18:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed a single sentence that implied Senator Leahy may have caused someone to die. While a source was cited, there was no context given to the allegation. I left a note on the talk page requesting more information to put this statement into context. The inflammatory line has been re-inserted into the article, and the only comment left on the talk page was:
All the context is provided in the source. CENSEI (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
An accusation of manslaughter, without any explanation of the circumstances, doesn't seem like an appropriate entry in a BLP. Am I correct in my evaluation? Advice welcome, Xenophrenic ( talk) 10:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE:
I have removed the following vague insinuation 3 times now:
CENSEI has now changed the insinuation to an actual manslaughter charge, and cited a 1987 Los Angeles Times article as a source:
I checked the sources, and they do not support the content CENSEI is attempting to repeatedly inject into this BLP article. Quite the contrary, the LA Times source clearly states Lt. Col. Oliver L. North "was subsequently named by Newsweek as the leaker of information on the Achille Lauro hijacking." Someone is playing fast and loose with the facts here. Xenophrenic ( talk) 07:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Need more eyes on this, as there is an editor or two (or perhaps the same one) fighting to include blog criticism and original research through quote-mining. Current version merely violates NPOV. THF ( talk) 13:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
After I recently removed some defamatory, poorly-sourced and irrelevant information about someone else from Lou Pearlman, WeatherFug ( talk · contribs) sent me this somewhat unfriendly note declaring he had reverted and challenging my removal (which I have since reverted myself).
The talk page indicates that this user has a history of this sort of behavior and other editors cannot assume good faith. WeatherFug's edit history shows a heavy focus on Pearlman and related subjects ( Backstreet Boys, etc.) Seems like this situation has been going on for a long time; it's time there were some more administrative eyes on the page and this user. Daniel Case ( talk) 14:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
In reviewing this further, I looked at WeatherFug's earlier edit history. He doesn't edit like a newbie when he starts out, and I wondered if he might be a sock.
I found the possible puppetmaster in the article's history: SooperJoo ( talk · contribs), who edited many of the same articles (and has been accused himself of being Henderson) until he stopped editing last May (a few months after WeatherFug began, and has made similar edits. As soon as I can get the evidence together, I'm going to SPI. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There are some [WP:BLP]] violations going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Klein, including calling the subject an "idiot" ( [17] and [18]). I removed the offending comments but they were reinserted. I removed it again. Am I doing the right thing? -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
In the article Nina Mercedez, in the last line of the awards section, some malicious creature using an IP address has harassed an actual, living junior high school student by identifying him as the child of a porn actress. The child is real or at least his name appears in the junior high school newspaper. This garbage has been sitting untouched in the article long enough to be scraped by Google. I will remove the statement now but it should expunged from the history as soon as someone can. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Created by SPA Angelo Giardini-Naxos ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a subtle attack page on a non-notable 19 year old singer/film maker who at one point had a video on YouTube, since withdrawn by her management. Article made exaggerated and spurious claims about the subject in an attempt to ridicule her. [19] Note that creator has chosen a user name is very similar to hers (Angelo = Angel in Italian; Giardini Naxos = village near Taormina). It's now at AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Taormina). Editors including her management, Officemailrt ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), have removed the claims, but Angelo Giardini-Naxos continues to re-add them, e.g. [20]. AFD has 4 days left to run. Management supports deletion. Can we please have an adminstrator take a look at this ASAP? Voceditenore ( talk) 06:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Needs checking for bias, although good sources are used. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Marcus Evans ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can we bring to the attention of the wiki editors that malicious and unsubtantiated personel and company details are regularly being posted on this article which contravene the biogs of living person policies. we would ask the editors to strike the history of these edits and strike the user from this article. This is also affecting the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpmewi ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
We need to keep an eye on the biography of Charles W. Freeman, Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who has been the victim of a recent online smear campaign in the blogosphere, which cost him a job. He's mentioned in WaPo today complaining about libel as well. [21] Our article contains a great deal of WP:Original Research cherry picking quotes from his speeches, etc. -- Kendrick7 talk 18:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned by Detroidwheel's edits to the article which he have introduced many times now ( diff). I'm not really sure what to say about them or what his goals are, but at the very least is seems he's removing sourced material and adding unsourced and unencyclopedic material... I was hoping to get some though on what should be done about it? -- aktsu ( t / c) 20:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I came across this auto-biography (self-confessed) some days ago and did a large pruning of POV and self-sourced (i.e., "facts" that are cited from the subject's own writings about herself) material. Now, of course, she feels I've been unreasonable and wants it all back, and then some (see my talk page, where she seems to be comparing herself to Maya Angelou). I am starting to wonder whether this article has any justification to remain in Wikipedia at all -- her books are self-published, her career achievements are largely self-proclaimed, she arrogates credit to herself that is elsewhere cited as entirely her husband's work, she's been scrapping elsewhere about a film project that is completely WP:NFF, etc. I think my emotions have been involved and I wonder if I could trouble an impartial third party to assess the article, examine the references, and do what they think is appropriate. Thanks in advance. Accounting4Taste: talk 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Tiramisoo seems to filling up Category:People with OCD quite quickly and in a manner I cannot figure out. Right now, he's added Roseanne Barr and Justin Timberlake among others so does anyone know whether there is some standard about when to include living people into categories like that? Shouldn't it be self-described with a reliable source? Note that there is another discussion about User:Tiramisoo's conduct in general at WP:ANI. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
User is deleting well-cite notable material on Michael Steele ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without specific explanation. 97.117.120.83 ( talk) 22:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
On March 12, 2009, GQ published an interview in which Steele said abortion is "absolutely... an individual choice" to be decided at the state level. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, the Christian Coalition [22], and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council have all issued statements attacking Steele's remarks [23]. Social conservatives also accuse Steele of having "broke a different pledge... a proposed Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage despite a promise that he'd support it if elected RNC chair" [24].
In another interview with conservative Cal Thomas Steele compared some Republican leaders of Congress to "mice" who are "scurrying" because they no longer have access to "cheese", when he lowered the amount of direct RNC campaign contributions to their re-election committees and they reacted with anger [25].
The owner of the AT&L Railroad named it after his three grandsons, Austin, Todd and Ladd. There shouldn't be a problem with noting their first names in the article on the railroad, with a reliable source ( Kalmbach's American Shortline Railway Guide), right? I only ask because it's not necessarily widely known; a 2007 Daily Oklahoman article doesn't mention it, for instance. -- NE2 07:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
A small move-war has erupted out over the title of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I've moved it to what I think is a more descriptive, and less BLP-volatile title, which has a rough-but-not-perfect consensus, but it's disputed. I'd like some input on whether the old title had a BLP problem or not, because no-one's explained to me why it doesn't yet. Sceptre ( talk) 14:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The article has so much negative stuff, but it seems to be true stuff. Could an admin glance over the article? Thanks Rich ( talk) 09:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that there are violations of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:LIBEL, WP:NOR, WP:RS and Burden of Evidence (Burden of Proof which is followed by Wikipedia under WP:BLP) in Hannes Vanaküla.
I have had a debate with other editors for a long time now, but the article, which unrighteously harms the personal life, the reputation, the business, the friends of Hannes Vanaküla and other people in relation with Hannes Vanaküla, is still unchanged. They haven't agreed with my edits and as one of them, user Verbal ( talk) answered me in edit discussion: "If you think there is a BLP issue, take it to WP:BLPN..." [26], I had to come here.
I can not comment violations in a way they could be easily traceable through diffs here, because only few diffs, which reflect single violations exist and the rules of this noticeboard do not allow me to copy and paste any defamatory or libellous information to this noticeboard to comment violations. Just in case I bring out that a diff, which reflects all the violations exists.
So I give You the link to the more detailed description about the violations of policies in the article.
My more detailed description about the violations of policies in the article is situated here on the talk page of the article Hannes Vanaküla under the section Violations of Policies. // WorldReporter ( talk) 01:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is being used as a political football, with each side trying to kick it over to the way they want it. I've tried to create a neutral version, but the more eyes are on it the better. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have had edits reverted by Kim D. Petersen whilst I was trying to remove biasing & irrelevant material against the atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen who believes that 'global warming' is not being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. In the talk page he has just conceded that he has 'perhaps' given 'undue weight' to this material that I say is irrelevant (as have plenty of other editors) but he insists on including the material anyway. This editor has a well-known history of bias on climate change and spends a great deal of time ensuring that climate change articles in general conform with his POV. I need help in getting him to desist. Alex Harvey ( talk) 23:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Pablo Mason ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This gentleman, a pilot, is undertaking action at an employment tribunal in an attempt to get his job back. Various comments, which imply incompetence on the part of Captain Mason, have appeared and are not supported by the sources quoted, therefore this article could be considered libellous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.149.211 ( talk) 20:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This article looks like it is urgent need of attention. As an only occasional editor, I don't have time to sort it out myself - could someone here and more experienced take it on? Chrislintott ( talk) 11:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
On February 24, 2009, leaders of the San Francisco Police Officers Association stated that there is “irrefutable and compelling reasons” that establish how Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, are responsible for the bombing of a San Francisco police station in 1970 that killed Sgt. Brian McDonnell, a 20-year veteran of the department. [1] The San Francisco Police Department’s Park Station was bombed Feb. 16, 1970, killing Sgt. Brian McDonnell. [2] Eight other officers were injured. McDonnell died two days after the bombing. [3] The case has yet to be solved. [4]
It's a bit problematic given the seriousness of the allegation and the weakness of the evidence. A good start would be to avoid pasting this all over the place wherever it seems relevant. There's an article specifically on this bombing ( San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing). Rd232 talk 19:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The statements above, deleted by Wikidemon, are backed by reliable sources, and are stated in a neutral way. Wikidemon has yet to show how any BLP violation ever occured here, in any way. The above articles (Ayers, Dohrm, and the Weatherman) are not about non notable subjects, they are about subjects envolved in bombing campaigns - directly or indirectly. Their past actions, and comments on them by reliable sources, can not be whitewashed away out of Wikipedia. Just because multiple reliable sources have commented on the violent nature of the three subjects above, does not mean that they are violating BLP. The material deleted by Wikidemon is worded neutral and verified by reliable sources - it should not be deleted (especially without any good reason provided). Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 09:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 11:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Many BLPs have far less substantially sourced material in them. The people involved are notable (no issue). The group making the allegation is notable (no issue). The allegations are puvblished in a number of reliable sources (no issue). The only basis would be that the accusation is so far out that the people making the allegation should not be believed (a value judgement which WP guidelines suggest is not in our scope). Since the people involved clearly have reputations consistent with the allegations (anyone demur?), asserting that this particular one is "outlandish" fails. Collect ( talk) 13:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It reports an allegation, and reports it as an allegation. And the issue is not whether it belongs in the Obama article, but whether it belongs in the appropriate articles indicated. Further, last I checked, such issues belong on the talk pages appropriate to the issue. It is not for us to determine whether anyone is a "paid liar" for sure. As for your charge of "edit warring" it appears to me that the purpose of asking here is to make "edit war" an inapt term. As for saying "someone is pushing everything under the sun at Obama" - that is joyfully itrrelevant to the issue at hand, and all we deal wth is the issue at hand. Is reporting an allegation, attributed as an allegation, improper? Nope. Collect ( talk) 14:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this suggestion will please anyone, but as a kind of compromise how about reporting the allegations in the specific article San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing (because they're relevant there, whatever one thinks of them), and nowhere else (because more general articles need to summarise, and this can be left out of the summary). Rd232 talk 03:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I am being accused of violating WP:BLP on the subject's talk page by using of the word "grooming". I've provided the WP article defining the term, reliable sources describing the subject's behavior without labelling it (The New York Times and the Oregonian), and sources actually using the word. Nonetheless, I am directed to remove the word. My biggest interest on WP is fixing BLP problems. The accusation rankles. Other opinions would be welcome. David in DC ( talk) 00:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) There is no BLP issue. My proposed language accurately sourced the material. It's legitimate to discuss the issue on the talk page. The Statesman Journal is more notable than the majority of existing sources quoted on the Sam Adams page, so it's a NPOV violation to exclude them. THF ( talk) 20:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
No one is proposing putting the word grooming in the article. But it is not a BLP violation to use it on the talk page. Both the NYT and Oregonian describe grooming. If an editor cannot discuss the grooming angle in a collapsed discussion on the talk page, we've come to a bad place.
Take the controversy out with a hypothetical. The NYT and Oregonian say Sam Adams put a leash on his dog, stepped out his door, rounded the block, and returned home with his dog. It is not WP:SYNTH to say Sam Adams walked his dog and source it to the NYT and Oregonian.
Now, as for the Statesman-Journal editorial using the word grooming, it is true to say that the reliable source rules prevent the use of the opinion piece to assert that Sam Adams groomed this young man. But it is not a violation of WP:RS or WP:BLP to take note of the assertion in deciding whether to name the young man in the article.
Where an editorial board of a reliable source (the gratuitous knocks on the Statesman-Journal's reputation for accuracy and professional standards border on nonsensical) raises this issue, Wikipedia editors must be able to take that into account when excercising editorial judgment about whether to name the young man in the WP article about Adams.
The reason not to name the young man in the article cannot rest on WP:HARM to him; they rest on harm to any minor now or in the future being groomed by any powerful man or woman. Such a minor should be able to count on not being "outed" on wikipedia, no matter the course the affair takes.
Please remember, the underlying talk page discussion, collapsed for reasons of discretion, is not about whether to put "grooming" in the article. It's about whether to name Adams' erstwhile paramour. The consensus seems to be that his name adds nothing important to the article and unduly risks harm to others. Consensus has not yet been achieved, but that's the direction.
The two articles summarizing, and directly quoting from, the radio program where the head of the policeman's union DID use the word "grooming" seal the deal. They both quote the union chief verbatim.
There are sufficient sources for an editor to introduce the issue of grooming and how naming the young man will harm others who find themselves in the same position, in a collapsed but ongoing talk page discussion about whether to name Adams' former inamorata.
Two other points:
1) Libel/slander is a red herring.
WP:BLP rightly imposes a stricter standard than libel/slander law. I'm arguing that I've met that standard on the talk page in my comments about grooming.
2) I've commended aboutmovies on his talk page for his approach here. I repeat that commendation here. It's the mark of an adult to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. I have no monopoly on wisdom and appreciate civil attempts at content dispute resolution. My thanks go out to everyone who is treating this with the seriousness and civility it requires.
David in DC (
talk) 21:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Outdent. I used the word. Aboutmovies asked for sources. I gave sources. Aboutmovies judges those sources to fail WP:RS. I judge them to meet WP:RS. The NYT and Oregonian articles describe grooming, the same way in my hypothetical above the narration describes walking a dog. The Stateman-Journal piece uses the word. The Statesman-Journal is a reliable source. You can call it a duck or a liverwurst sandwich, but that doesn't make it any lerss a reliable source.
The two sources quoting the police union spokesman indicate he used the word on a radio program. While the spokesman's words themselves are a verboten primary source, the radio program is a completely legitimate secondary source, and the articles transcribing the quotes on the radio program are a tertiary source. David in DC ( talk) 16:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Aboutmovies - I'm impressed with your reasoning. Has anyone checked out Factiva or its ilk for a source with a bit more authority? This thread is pretty complex now, but it does seem as though the situation would be solved with an RS using the word "grooming" with relation to Adams. I've got a Factiva account and would be happy to run a search if that would help. User:Aboutmovies, given your thoughtful criteria for the selection of BLP RS, I'd welcome your input on the Michael Wines discussion above. It's a doosie. Richard Cooke ( talk) 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
David J. Schmidly ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article, not noted as a BLP, has a cited criticism section that outweighs the rest by a magnitude. An account, presumably the subject, has removed the section more than once. This appears to have all the ingredients for Oeuf pour le Visage... LessHeard vanU ( talk) 17:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I think this violates the BLP guideline that "criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability" and "The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article" It was not a notable reaction, and it is a opinion not echoed anywhere else so it doesn't have a place in the article. Another issue is that information from the same section was taken from non-English sources [1]. I understand that verifiability is taken more seriously when the article is BLP so I am assuming that this is also a violation of BLP policy. Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 19:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Falastine fee Qalby tried the following tactics"Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted that shortly after the Davos incident, Erdogan hosted Salva Kiir Mayardit, the Vice President of Sudan, who is being indicted for his role in the Darfur genocide. Cagaptay brings up this fact to note that Erdogan's action at Davos were less about humanitarian concern than they are about what Cagaptay calls a "civilizational view." [2]
Repeated vandalism on this page for example http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ger_Brennan&diff=262233020&oldid=261796126 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.192.131 ( talk) 10:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be a fairly undocumented page mainly written by User:jonwiener, which I consider odd. Might someone go there and see if this is a personal puff page or the like? Many thanks! Collect ( talk) 16:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I zapped this down to a sourced stub when this came up at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents#user:Qchristina, legal threat. The complaining editor's apparently legitimate grievance was being reverted as vandalism. This was a classic example of a legitimate complaint about a biography being unheard because the editor was a novice and didn't go about complaining in the correct fashion. I've given some guidance to the editor at User talk:Uncle G#Sanaz Shirazi, and Rjanag is helping out at User talk:Qchristina. We're no longer at the point of blocking a BLP complainant for legal threats and vandalism, I think. But some independent eyes and some extra help to a novice editor at the article and at xyr talk page, even if only a copyedit or a friendly tip here and there, would be appreciated. Uncle G ( talk) 23:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Larry Sanger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We need some people to help with festering conflicts there along with allegations of BLP violations. ScienceApologist ( talk) 05:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
An editor keeps putting in the statement, "She is now a Christian and has become a critic of the porn industry, describing the years of abuse she suffered while involved in it" and cites it to a youtube video of the subject. I've reverted the user twice and gave him BLP warnings. Is this appropriate? I feel that youtube should never be considered a reliable source nor used to support any assertions since youtube doesn't authenticate the content. Furthermore, if we treat the video as an authentic primary source, there should be a secondary reliable source reporting on this. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 08:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I recently made over a hundred edits to the article after an arbitration case. I have focused on fixing structure problems, dealing with undue weight, consolidating sources, and removing unreliable sources so that the content can be reworked or removed if completely unusable. It is apparent that the article is indecently sourced and is in need of some overhaul. The arbitration remedies are outlined here and here. A few editors expressed interest in reverting to an earlier version or even deleting it (both of which I believe to be unsuitable); more input would be appreciated on the matter. ← Spidern → 23:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Doesigewebsite ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has made a threat and placed a notice to take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute regarding the following article:
Right: See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Is_IMDb_a_reliable_source.3F THF ( talk) 02:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody keep an eye on this please? Some IPs keep re-adding a statement Dreher made a while ago about shooting trespassors in order to make him look bad. Hopefully people here agree that cherry-picking something outrageous a person has said, distorting it, and stripping it from its context isn't in keeping with BLP. 70.20.106.127 ( talk) 10:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Anonymous IP Vandal(s) are making seriously flawed and inaccurate statements on the Yasser Latif Hamdani. Yasser Latif Hamdani is not an Ahmadi. He believes in a secular Pakistan and believes that Pakistan was created as a secular state by Jinnah. 125.21.165.158 in particular has been quite belligerant. History can be seen here. [ [6]]
221.132.117.17 ( talk) 15:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a city an LA City Attorney election today and one of the candidates, Jack Weiss, has had some dubious material inserted over the last few days. I've tried to clean it up somewhat but it needs more watchlisting, as might some of the other candidates. These pages will get more traffic than normal today. Phil153 ( talk) 17:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned that a potentially libelous statement accusing Mr. Fuisz of being a CIA operative continues to be re-added after removal, primarily by Richard Norton. The text is sourced from a just published interview with Susan Lindauer (who is Richard Norton's cousin). Ms Lindauer was been found previously to be mentally unfit to stand trial. I think the inclusion of the statement as is with this source violates the guidelines in the living person biography section. Chitownhustler ( talk) 22:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Your standard COATRACK, SYN, POV, and BLP violations on everyone's favorite Berkeley professor. Absolutely no effort in the article to give Yoo's side of the story, even though he has been interviewed and has written about it, and a good third of the references in the footnotes don't even mention Yoo. Lots of original research, too. I'd scrub it, but then I'd get accused of furthering a right-wing conspiracy. THF ( talk) 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I've run into an issue on a specific biography, but it probably has wider implications. For a couple of years I've been monitoring the biography of Mark Steyn, a columnist and author. Now this fellow Steyn apparently has his fans and detractors, and every few weeks I go in and clear out the stuff that violates BLP. Recently I removed the insertion of a quote from one of his hundreds of columns, as a combination of a WP:BLP and WP:NOR violation. I based this removal primarily on the BLP statement "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves." The material was not published by the subject about himself (i.e. it is not a statement like "I grew up in Liverpool and attended Cardinal Heenan Catholic High School"), was based on a primary source (his own writings), was provided was without context, and was clearly inserted as an attempt to discredit him in some way; thus, its removal. As I said on the article's talk page:
Steyn has written millions of words in literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles. Please explain what makes that particular statement notable in any way; in particular, please find reliable secondary sources that have discussed that statement and provided a context for it. Until then, do not re-insert that WP:BLP-violating original research. Thanks.
Since then, the editor who inserted it, and one other editor objected, even restoring the material. When I insisted that they find secondary sources that discussed the statement, they searched the internet, and managed to discover this source, a book review which mentioned the statement in passing. I've continued to remove the statement as an obvious violation of the very principles of WP:BLP; rather than attempt to show what reliable secondary sources have said about the subject, it is an obvious attempt to reflect negatively on the subject, using primary sources (his own writings). I've also warned them that if they continue to restore it, I will block them for doing so. In reply, they have now argued that because I have been removing the material, that means I am now "in a content dispute" with them, and no longer acting in an administrative capacity. I've pointed out to them the absurdity of this claim; it would mean that any admin who removed BLP-violating material was now "in a content dispute" regarding the material, and could therefore no longer act in an administrative capacity, but they are insistent. Given their continuing insistence that the material does not violate BLP, and that by removing the material I have suddenly become "involved in a content dispute", I've come to this board for additional opinions. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
An uninvolved admin – meaning someone who isn't a regular editor of Middle-East related pages, and who is neither friend nor foe of Jayjg – should take this matter out of his hands. I am far from uninvolved by my own definition, but looking closely at the talk pages and the sources adduced thus far, there doesn't appear to be any BLP problem. None whatsoever. There are multiple secondary sources discussing Steyn's statement; all of them are excellent, high-profile mainstream reliable sources. When Jayjg describes an "absence of such reliable secondary sources that actually discuss this statement," he's simply hoping you won't actually check and discover that he's making this up.
The facts here are very simple. In a rather infamous op-ed for a very high-profile newspaper (the Wall Street Journal), Steyn laughingly cheered on the savage mob beating of a very prominent journalist. There are multiple secondary sources discussing the Steyn op-ed – and specifically addressing the very sentence of Stein's that Jay is threatening to block editors for mentioning in the article – including by the victim of the mob beating, the celebrated journalist Robert Fisk. Here's what Fisk has to say about the Steyn quote:
Later reactions were even more interesting. Among a mass of letters that arrived from readers of the Independent, almost all of them expressing their horror at what had happened, came a few Christmas cards, all but one of them unsigned, expressing the writer's disappointment that the Afghans hadn't "finished the job." The Wall Street Journal carried an article which said more or less the same thing under the subhead "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due." In it, Mark Steyn wrote of my reaction that "you'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." The "Fisk Doctrine," he went on, "taken to its logical conclusion, absolves of responsibility not only the perpetrators of Sept. 11 but also Taliban supporters who attacked several of Fisk's fellow journalists in Afghanistan, all of whom, alas, died before being able to file a final column explaining why their murderers are blameless."
Quite apart from the fact that most of the journalists who died in Afghanistan were killed by thieves taking advantage of the Taliban's defeat, Steyn's article was interesting for two reasons. It insinuated that I in some way approved of the crimes against humanity on September 11 — or, at the least, that I would absolve the mass murderers. More important, the article would not have been written had I not explained the context of the assault that was made on me, tiny though it was in the scale of suffering visited upon Afghanistan. Had I merely reported an attack by a mob, the story would have fit neatly into the general American media presentation of the Afghan war with no reference to civilian deaths from US B- 52 bombers and no suggestion that the widespread casualties caused in the American raids would turn Afghans to fury against the West. We were, after all, supposed to be "liberating" these people, not killing their relatives. Of course, my crime — the Journal gave Steyn's column the headline "Hate-Me Crimes" — was to report the "why" as well as the "what and where." Wallis, David ed. Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print. Nation Books, 2004: 371-373.
Jay says of this passage that its "relevance is unclear," and complains that it was "found by googling Google Books."
Other secondary sources specifically discussing the Steyn quote include the London Independent (a major British broadsheet), Salon.com, and the New Zealand Herald. The CBC's Evan Solomon also discussed the significance of the Steyn quote in an interview with Fisk for the television show Hot Type.
Three things are absolutely clear: (1) there are multiple secondary sources discussing this quote; (2) there is nothing here even remotely approaching a BLP violation; and (3) Jayjg is here as a party to a content dispute, in an area of the encyclopedia where he has a known bias. This last issue is the gravest by far. In misrepresenting his own role here, in pretending to be simply an admin safeguarding BLP rather than a party to a content dispute, Jay is trying to justify the use of his admin tools as weapons in order to win that content dispute. Hence all his threats to other editors. This is a very serious form of admin abuse, the sort that might well merit desysoping. At any rate, this entire episode represents not a BLP issue, but an admin-abuse issue, and should be moved, accordingly, to the AN/I page.-- G-Dett ( talk) 15:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You can understand why Mr. Fisk has been in low spirits of late: The much-feared "Arab street" is as seething and turbulent as a leafy cul-de-sac in Westchester County...But last weekend the people finally roused themselves--and beat up Fisky! His car broke down just a stone's throw (as it turned out) from the Pakistani border and a crowd gathered. To the evident surprise of the man known to his readers as "the champion of the oppressed," the oppressed decided to take on the champ. They lunged for his wallet and began lobbing rocks. Yet even as the rubble bounced off his skull, Mr. Fisk was shrewd enough to look for the "root causes."
I have tried to tell the "truth"; that while there are unanswered questions about 9/11, I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent; that I have quite enough real plots on my hands in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc, to worry about imaginary ones in Manhattan. My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?
Can someone take a look at today's activity on this page? I have to leave so I cannot do so myself. The page was semi-protected for a month because of BLP violations. The protection is off, and it looks like the violations are back. The older edits say that the sourcing for the material is not sufficient. The sourcing on the new version needs to be checked to see if it is now sufficient for what the content says, or if it is more of the same that got the page semi-ed previously. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Lois Ayres – Statement ultimately removed from the article as not being notable enough to remain in. – 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
I became involved in this edit because the user asked for help in the mainspace of the article, and I caught it on Huggle. I'm not sure if the source meets the requirements of WP:BLP. The statement in the article that I'm asking about is "Lois is noteworthy for having dated Slash of Guns N Roses, Slash's Snakepit, and Velvet Revolver." The editor that was trying to insert this into the article cited Slash's autobiography as his source. Does this qualify as a valid source, since the statement came from the autobiography of one of the people involved in that statement? Or would it only be valid in an article about Slash? Matt ( talk) 09:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Dan Malloy (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Occasionally, a user (usually an anonymous one) will remove relevant information regarding this Stamford, CT mayor's dispute with the fire department. It is, arguably, one of the defining aspects of his administration, and should not be removed without discussion. The most recent incident was shamelessly motivated by agenda, since the user not only removed every mention of the issue, but replaced it with unbridled praise for the mayor. It should be noted that the language that is repeatedly removed is itself the result of a resolved dispute; both anti-Malloy and pro-Malloy editors have agreed on its neutrality, which makes its removal all the less acceptable.
Minaker (
talk) 15:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Jim Cramer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tycoon24 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.217.9.202 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
These two users have been removing entire sections of the article, claiming that they are portraying Mr. Cramer in a negative light, and therefore should be removed. After several users (including Spitfire, Gnower, and myself) went back and forth with him and reverting his edits, he decided instead to stick to rephrasing one section and removing a couple of statements (and an accompanying source) which he considers "libelous" (see diff), even going so far as to call them a conspiracy theory (see diff). I'm not seeing how these statements would be considered either libelous or conspiracies. Any suggestions? Matt ( talk) 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Can someone who knows more about Sido than I do please check some of the information in there? The article cites no sources and some of the statements in there somehow surprise me. Thank you! darkweasel94 (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Nadya Suleman, Has been legally know or referenced with all the following names: Natalie Doud, Natalie Denise Suleman, Nadya Suleman-Gutierrez, Nadya Suleman Gutierrez Doud, Natalie Suleman-Gutierrez, Nadya Dodd, Nadya Denise Doud, and Natalie Denise Doud. The most common (by far) is 'Nadya Suleman' thus the article is titled that. But there is question as to weather which or any of the other names should also be listed? — raeky ( talk | edits) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Irregardless of the new AfD nomination(which I think is uncalled for) any recommendations on alternative names or rules. I've not noticed anything in policies that directly deals with a person who is known and referenced by this many names. — raeky ( talk | edits) 19:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Charlie Coles ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User talk:Patiotable continues to add unsourced content to the article while also removed correct information. I have warned the user to no avail. The edits have become less-inflammatory over time, but continue to say the person will retire when there is no indication he will. // X96lee15 ( talk) 01:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Your entry on me not only contravenes your guidelines, being biased, hostile, inaccurate and lacking in citations.
It is also libellous, thanks particularly to the most recent addition(s). Please remove it instantly, or remove every error and claim unsupported by citations.
Andrew Bolt
email addy rmv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.17.161 ( talk) 07:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The BLP subject, a controversial South Indian guru, was subject to an apparent attempt on his life in 1993. What are editors' views on including graphic images of Sai Baba's dead assailants in his BLP? It strikes me such images would be okay in an article on that specific incident, but less so in the BLP of the person who was the target of the attack.
Needless to say, the whole Sathya_Sai_Baba#Murders_in_ashram section, starting with the title, appears quite far from balanced NPOV reporting, as does the article overall. Jayen 466 11:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
213.46.9.165 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This user has been warned twice about adding unverified material to articles. They have edited several articles substantially changing facts, or adding potentially libellous material. The IPs edits span over 30 articles, and I'm requesting a joint effort to undo thier work, and a temporary block. - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 07:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This article has received a fair amount of IP attention trying to add that Ms. Williams is dating Chad Gilbert, a drummer from some band. The additions seem to be coming from IPs of various geolocations, and are absolutely never sourced properly. Only two editors and myself are present to remove and fix this assertion, which has been brought up on the talk page but is never discussed by the said editors. I would request semi-protection of the article for a set period of time, or at least some eyes on this article, as I'm tired of coming back after a 3 day break and having to fix vandalism over the entire period. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 12:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Venezuela Information Office ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Should a section listing an organisation's former employees be included, apparently motivated by their failure to disclose their connection with organisation? No notable activity on behalf of the organisation is included, merely the association. Rd232 talk 23:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the idea of creating a third party website and placing it under "external links": That won't work, see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided and WP:EL#In biographies of living people; also if that site were created by an editor we could have a case of WP:COI. Now, to sort things out, we could try to separate different cases; for instance, we could start with the two persons listed as "past employees". Who supports removing this from the article? JRSP ( talk) 13:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is an obvious trouble magnet, and many of the sources don't seem to actually back up the statements in the article. Also, her personal life has been reported on so widely, there may be details slipping into the article that aren't really appropriate. I think if a previously uninvolved party could swoop in and play referee and try to sort the wheat from the chaff in the references it would go a long way towards helping this article not devolve into an attack piece. More detail, way way more than you will want to read, is at the ongoing AfD. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
1- He wrote it himself 2- he exagerates what he has done. 3- His company exists only on paper, the plane and the staff do not exist,impossible to corroborate. 4- The links on his page are 20+ years old,outdated information. 5- Seems to be a narcisisstic monument to own self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thearclight ( talk • contribs) 08:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
My bio says, "he earned $54,196 and the scorn of many in the NASCAR community". This is untrue. Please remove.
Thank you,
Joe Ruttman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.240.235 ( talk) 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The name is wrong too. I go by Joe Ruttman. My middle name is not Joesph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.240.235 ( talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It's escaped my notice for a while in editing and discussing the article, but it suddenly strikes me that it may well be a case of WP:ONEEVENT. The solution would be an article on the book in question ( The Death of Environmentalism), the co-authorship of which is the only reason he is notable. (His PR work etc, which has been the source of some heat, isn't notable.) Most of the article is about the book, which isn't even sole-authored by him. Comments? Move book stuff to book article and delete the bio? Rd232 talk 22:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Additional: in 2005 (prior to the book publication, but after the controversial essay which preceded it), the NY Times described the authors as "two little-known, earnest environmentalists in their 30's..." [15] Rd232 talk 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The Bill Britt article has some serious unsourced allegations in Bill_Britt#Skaggs_Lawsuit. They were eventually sourced by providing links to court documents hosted on a non-RS site ( http://www.amwaywiki.com - disclaimer, I admin the site). User:Shot Info has stated that such documents are not allowed as sources so has removed them, meaning the allegations are now unsourced. As such I believe they should be removed from a BLP immediately, however he's threatening me with an edit warring report (despite the fact one of my reverts was including the material, the other was removing it!) Additional input requested. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 00:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Potentially libellous and extremely poorly sourced material concerning this finnish metal music artist's ideology. Clear indication of support towards illegal organizations etc. through very vague connections etc. The artist has made it clear in several occasions that his personal beliefs are towards Satanism, yet somehow a lot of bigots try to blame him for nazism for some utterly peculiar reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Warmaster
The "Ideology" chapter is 100% against the biographies of living persons policy.
The only source used is an anarchist extremist propaganda book "unholy allianz" which is a full on attack towards heavy metal culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opferblut ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Joel C. Rosenberg is undergoing some significant edits. IMO the old version was bad, and an editor has made some significant improvements. But both the old version and the new version feel very puffed-up. I tagged the new version as such (after the old version had the tags removed in the latest set of improvements) and the editor and I have had a discussion about some of the issues. That said, I'm going to bow out of the discussion (I really don't know anything about the subject nor am I good with BLPs) and would appreciate it if another editor would be so kind as to look over the article and figure out if A) my tag should be removed or B) how to improve the article. Thanks Hobit ( talk) 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Section looks like a BLP violation to me, esp. in the absence of sources. If I can get a supportive comment from one other editor here, I will go ahead and delete the whole section. Other parts of the article are poor but not libelous as far as I can see. Looie496 ( talk) 23:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to make revisions and additions to Marcellas reynolds. I added a filmography, current career and early life section. I corrected age, took out erroneous and unnecessary information and added tons of current info. All my changes were deleted. I don't know why.
I'm adding a copy of the changes I added and made below.
Any help on this matter will be greatly appreciated.
NickNight Nickknightley ( talk) 02:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice that, among our numerous articles on football referees, a large proportion devote most of their room to material criticizing or selectively reporting criticism of various decisions they've made over the years. This is often in a "Controversy" section or introduced by sentences with such a word. Do we think it is worth enforcing Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise on such articles, or are BLP concerns here mitigated by the fact that such criticisms are taken for granted as the normal course of such careers. I.e. wikipedia's articles on such subjects are 1) unlikely to effect their careers (though I wouldn't take this for granted) in football or 2) their careers elsewhere. Thoughts please. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 03:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The article Tim Footman is unreferenced. According to Citing sources#Dealing with citation problems unreferenced biographies of living persons (which this seems to be) should be referred to administrators for assistance. Thanks 218.14.50.80 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians
I know, they're dead (allegedly) and it isn't an article, but the issues involved overlap with BLP so I'm coming here.
In a recent MfD of this page where the danger of fabrication was a concern (vs the unencyclopedic nature of the page) the consensus seemed to be "keep, but insist on sourcing". Unfortunately, those maintaining the page don't seem to care much about WP:V or the spirit of WP:BLP insisting that internal stuff and unverified e-mails will do as it is not an article.
I have repeatedly removed an entry on Emil Petkov [16] which has a discussion (in Bulgarian) on a wikipage as its sole verification, but I'm being reverted by people insisting that that's sufficient verification. This page is wide open to the possibility of a damaging and hurtful fraud, as it names real-life individuals who happen to be (allegedly) wikipedians, assistance on maintaining this page would be helpful. I'd particularly invite people to check the verification of all other entries, and help me insit that any without hard verifiable corroboration are removed.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 19:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I respect Scott concern, but please keep in mind that most of wikipedians are not celebrities so that their deaths are reported in NY Times. The verifiability rules for discussing of wikipedians in wikipedia pages must be relaxed. If not, we may delete 75% entries from this page, and in completely miss the purpose of this page. Al alternative would be to remove references to real names and use more cautionary phrasing about the external world. - 7-bubёn >t 20:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
There are quite a few people who think quite strongly that death of wikipedians is an internal matter of high notability and irrelevant to all other wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam. Laudak ( talk) 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Scott has a point that we can't label "Mr XYZ" who edited as "User:ABC" as dead without some support. But equally I can't see our WP:OR and WP:RS mainspace policies apply so strictly. Surely best endeavour is sufficent here? Has anyone actually contacted Mike Godwin or the WMF about this? In the example above of Jeffpw we had confirmation via Checkuser and personal email from several long standing editors. It wouldn't stand up to mainspace I agree but so what? If I state on my user page what I do for a living, what my religion is and how may kids I have must I add a good reference? Pedro : Chat 23:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Please stop with the "you can't libel the dead" crap. Maybe you can't, but that's beside the point. There are two problems here: 1) if the entry is unverified then the fact that the real-life person has died is unverified, so you may be talking about the living. Secondly, libel is not the only concern - embarrassing a real person, causing stress, etc to them or their families are also part of "do no harm".-- Scott Mac (Doc) 10:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I find it interesting that the people who previously brought Deceased Wikipedians up for a MfD--where the community decided to keep Deceased Wikipedians--now bring this issue up here without informing people about this discussion. This is not an issue for BLP. As it states on the page, people have to provide information referenced info about the deceased individuals. This page is an important part of the Wikipedia community.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 17:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Speak of the devil --- and he appears. I did nominate JeffPW and Deceased Wikipedians for deletion. Again, Per WP:NOT which explicity states Wikipedia is not a memorial. I got a rapid (5 minute) closure on both nominations and a 3rr notice on my page for contesting. I haven't re-nominated either page because it's clear to me that the community wishes to keep both pages, despite both being against policy. Hey, I respect the consensus and will abide. However, I will suggest that the community then change the line or lines in WP:NOT#MEMORIAL to reflect this consensus. That way, this never happens again. It will be a matter of policy and therefore, beyond refute for anyone. As it stands now, it is now. — Kosh Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 18:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed a single sentence that implied Senator Leahy may have caused someone to die. While a source was cited, there was no context given to the allegation. I left a note on the talk page requesting more information to put this statement into context. The inflammatory line has been re-inserted into the article, and the only comment left on the talk page was:
All the context is provided in the source. CENSEI (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
An accusation of manslaughter, without any explanation of the circumstances, doesn't seem like an appropriate entry in a BLP. Am I correct in my evaluation? Advice welcome, Xenophrenic ( talk) 10:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE:
I have removed the following vague insinuation 3 times now:
CENSEI has now changed the insinuation to an actual manslaughter charge, and cited a 1987 Los Angeles Times article as a source:
I checked the sources, and they do not support the content CENSEI is attempting to repeatedly inject into this BLP article. Quite the contrary, the LA Times source clearly states Lt. Col. Oliver L. North "was subsequently named by Newsweek as the leaker of information on the Achille Lauro hijacking." Someone is playing fast and loose with the facts here. Xenophrenic ( talk) 07:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Need more eyes on this, as there is an editor or two (or perhaps the same one) fighting to include blog criticism and original research through quote-mining. Current version merely violates NPOV. THF ( talk) 13:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
After I recently removed some defamatory, poorly-sourced and irrelevant information about someone else from Lou Pearlman, WeatherFug ( talk · contribs) sent me this somewhat unfriendly note declaring he had reverted and challenging my removal (which I have since reverted myself).
The talk page indicates that this user has a history of this sort of behavior and other editors cannot assume good faith. WeatherFug's edit history shows a heavy focus on Pearlman and related subjects ( Backstreet Boys, etc.) Seems like this situation has been going on for a long time; it's time there were some more administrative eyes on the page and this user. Daniel Case ( talk) 14:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
In reviewing this further, I looked at WeatherFug's earlier edit history. He doesn't edit like a newbie when he starts out, and I wondered if he might be a sock.
I found the possible puppetmaster in the article's history: SooperJoo ( talk · contribs), who edited many of the same articles (and has been accused himself of being Henderson) until he stopped editing last May (a few months after WeatherFug began, and has made similar edits. As soon as I can get the evidence together, I'm going to SPI. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There are some [WP:BLP]] violations going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Klein, including calling the subject an "idiot" ( [17] and [18]). I removed the offending comments but they were reinserted. I removed it again. Am I doing the right thing? -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
In the article Nina Mercedez, in the last line of the awards section, some malicious creature using an IP address has harassed an actual, living junior high school student by identifying him as the child of a porn actress. The child is real or at least his name appears in the junior high school newspaper. This garbage has been sitting untouched in the article long enough to be scraped by Google. I will remove the statement now but it should expunged from the history as soon as someone can. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Created by SPA Angelo Giardini-Naxos ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a subtle attack page on a non-notable 19 year old singer/film maker who at one point had a video on YouTube, since withdrawn by her management. Article made exaggerated and spurious claims about the subject in an attempt to ridicule her. [19] Note that creator has chosen a user name is very similar to hers (Angelo = Angel in Italian; Giardini Naxos = village near Taormina). It's now at AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Taormina). Editors including her management, Officemailrt ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), have removed the claims, but Angelo Giardini-Naxos continues to re-add them, e.g. [20]. AFD has 4 days left to run. Management supports deletion. Can we please have an adminstrator take a look at this ASAP? Voceditenore ( talk) 06:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Needs checking for bias, although good sources are used. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Marcus Evans ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can we bring to the attention of the wiki editors that malicious and unsubtantiated personel and company details are regularly being posted on this article which contravene the biogs of living person policies. we would ask the editors to strike the history of these edits and strike the user from this article. This is also affecting the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpmewi ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
We need to keep an eye on the biography of Charles W. Freeman, Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who has been the victim of a recent online smear campaign in the blogosphere, which cost him a job. He's mentioned in WaPo today complaining about libel as well. [21] Our article contains a great deal of WP:Original Research cherry picking quotes from his speeches, etc. -- Kendrick7 talk 18:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned by Detroidwheel's edits to the article which he have introduced many times now ( diff). I'm not really sure what to say about them or what his goals are, but at the very least is seems he's removing sourced material and adding unsourced and unencyclopedic material... I was hoping to get some though on what should be done about it? -- aktsu ( t / c) 20:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I came across this auto-biography (self-confessed) some days ago and did a large pruning of POV and self-sourced (i.e., "facts" that are cited from the subject's own writings about herself) material. Now, of course, she feels I've been unreasonable and wants it all back, and then some (see my talk page, where she seems to be comparing herself to Maya Angelou). I am starting to wonder whether this article has any justification to remain in Wikipedia at all -- her books are self-published, her career achievements are largely self-proclaimed, she arrogates credit to herself that is elsewhere cited as entirely her husband's work, she's been scrapping elsewhere about a film project that is completely WP:NFF, etc. I think my emotions have been involved and I wonder if I could trouble an impartial third party to assess the article, examine the references, and do what they think is appropriate. Thanks in advance. Accounting4Taste: talk 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Tiramisoo seems to filling up Category:People with OCD quite quickly and in a manner I cannot figure out. Right now, he's added Roseanne Barr and Justin Timberlake among others so does anyone know whether there is some standard about when to include living people into categories like that? Shouldn't it be self-described with a reliable source? Note that there is another discussion about User:Tiramisoo's conduct in general at WP:ANI. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
User is deleting well-cite notable material on Michael Steele ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without specific explanation. 97.117.120.83 ( talk) 22:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
On March 12, 2009, GQ published an interview in which Steele said abortion is "absolutely... an individual choice" to be decided at the state level. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, the Christian Coalition [22], and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council have all issued statements attacking Steele's remarks [23]. Social conservatives also accuse Steele of having "broke a different pledge... a proposed Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage despite a promise that he'd support it if elected RNC chair" [24].
In another interview with conservative Cal Thomas Steele compared some Republican leaders of Congress to "mice" who are "scurrying" because they no longer have access to "cheese", when he lowered the amount of direct RNC campaign contributions to their re-election committees and they reacted with anger [25].
The owner of the AT&L Railroad named it after his three grandsons, Austin, Todd and Ladd. There shouldn't be a problem with noting their first names in the article on the railroad, with a reliable source ( Kalmbach's American Shortline Railway Guide), right? I only ask because it's not necessarily widely known; a 2007 Daily Oklahoman article doesn't mention it, for instance. -- NE2 07:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
A small move-war has erupted out over the title of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I've moved it to what I think is a more descriptive, and less BLP-volatile title, which has a rough-but-not-perfect consensus, but it's disputed. I'd like some input on whether the old title had a BLP problem or not, because no-one's explained to me why it doesn't yet. Sceptre ( talk) 14:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The article has so much negative stuff, but it seems to be true stuff. Could an admin glance over the article? Thanks Rich ( talk) 09:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that there are violations of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:LIBEL, WP:NOR, WP:RS and Burden of Evidence (Burden of Proof which is followed by Wikipedia under WP:BLP) in Hannes Vanaküla.
I have had a debate with other editors for a long time now, but the article, which unrighteously harms the personal life, the reputation, the business, the friends of Hannes Vanaküla and other people in relation with Hannes Vanaküla, is still unchanged. They haven't agreed with my edits and as one of them, user Verbal ( talk) answered me in edit discussion: "If you think there is a BLP issue, take it to WP:BLPN..." [26], I had to come here.
I can not comment violations in a way they could be easily traceable through diffs here, because only few diffs, which reflect single violations exist and the rules of this noticeboard do not allow me to copy and paste any defamatory or libellous information to this noticeboard to comment violations. Just in case I bring out that a diff, which reflects all the violations exists.
So I give You the link to the more detailed description about the violations of policies in the article.
My more detailed description about the violations of policies in the article is situated here on the talk page of the article Hannes Vanaküla under the section Violations of Policies. // WorldReporter ( talk) 01:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is being used as a political football, with each side trying to kick it over to the way they want it. I've tried to create a neutral version, but the more eyes are on it the better. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have had edits reverted by Kim D. Petersen whilst I was trying to remove biasing & irrelevant material against the atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen who believes that 'global warming' is not being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. In the talk page he has just conceded that he has 'perhaps' given 'undue weight' to this material that I say is irrelevant (as have plenty of other editors) but he insists on including the material anyway. This editor has a well-known history of bias on climate change and spends a great deal of time ensuring that climate change articles in general conform with his POV. I need help in getting him to desist. Alex Harvey ( talk) 23:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Pablo Mason ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This gentleman, a pilot, is undertaking action at an employment tribunal in an attempt to get his job back. Various comments, which imply incompetence on the part of Captain Mason, have appeared and are not supported by the sources quoted, therefore this article could be considered libellous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.149.211 ( talk) 20:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This article looks like it is urgent need of attention. As an only occasional editor, I don't have time to sort it out myself - could someone here and more experienced take it on? Chrislintott ( talk) 11:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
On February 24, 2009, leaders of the San Francisco Police Officers Association stated that there is “irrefutable and compelling reasons” that establish how Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, are responsible for the bombing of a San Francisco police station in 1970 that killed Sgt. Brian McDonnell, a 20-year veteran of the department. [1] The San Francisco Police Department’s Park Station was bombed Feb. 16, 1970, killing Sgt. Brian McDonnell. [2] Eight other officers were injured. McDonnell died two days after the bombing. [3] The case has yet to be solved. [4]
It's a bit problematic given the seriousness of the allegation and the weakness of the evidence. A good start would be to avoid pasting this all over the place wherever it seems relevant. There's an article specifically on this bombing ( San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing). Rd232 talk 19:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The statements above, deleted by Wikidemon, are backed by reliable sources, and are stated in a neutral way. Wikidemon has yet to show how any BLP violation ever occured here, in any way. The above articles (Ayers, Dohrm, and the Weatherman) are not about non notable subjects, they are about subjects envolved in bombing campaigns - directly or indirectly. Their past actions, and comments on them by reliable sources, can not be whitewashed away out of Wikipedia. Just because multiple reliable sources have commented on the violent nature of the three subjects above, does not mean that they are violating BLP. The material deleted by Wikidemon is worded neutral and verified by reliable sources - it should not be deleted (especially without any good reason provided). Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 09:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 11:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Many BLPs have far less substantially sourced material in them. The people involved are notable (no issue). The group making the allegation is notable (no issue). The allegations are puvblished in a number of reliable sources (no issue). The only basis would be that the accusation is so far out that the people making the allegation should not be believed (a value judgement which WP guidelines suggest is not in our scope). Since the people involved clearly have reputations consistent with the allegations (anyone demur?), asserting that this particular one is "outlandish" fails. Collect ( talk) 13:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It reports an allegation, and reports it as an allegation. And the issue is not whether it belongs in the Obama article, but whether it belongs in the appropriate articles indicated. Further, last I checked, such issues belong on the talk pages appropriate to the issue. It is not for us to determine whether anyone is a "paid liar" for sure. As for your charge of "edit warring" it appears to me that the purpose of asking here is to make "edit war" an inapt term. As for saying "someone is pushing everything under the sun at Obama" - that is joyfully itrrelevant to the issue at hand, and all we deal wth is the issue at hand. Is reporting an allegation, attributed as an allegation, improper? Nope. Collect ( talk) 14:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this suggestion will please anyone, but as a kind of compromise how about reporting the allegations in the specific article San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing (because they're relevant there, whatever one thinks of them), and nowhere else (because more general articles need to summarise, and this can be left out of the summary). Rd232 talk 03:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)