This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

was born in 1964 - i was in the same year as her in 6th form college - think I would say she was from Ellesmere Park as well not Eccles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.121.37 (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

unfortunately we need external sources for such information, and though I'm not suggesting you are incorrect, we can't really accept statements without verification. Having said that, I'll look into this further though, as the article doesn't seem to cite sources properly anyway. Thanks for raising this, in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the birth date given in the article was also unsourced, I have removed the contested information. Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

• Off-topic on this page, but I think the article is a candidate for deletion. Just because someone works in the entertainment field does not make them "notable" even if they are automatically reported on by "reliable sources." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I followed my own suggestion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pooky Quesnel. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ganas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I been worried about Ganas Article since an ANI where two opposing SPAs were locking horns (Background at MEDCAB case where one is highly distressed). Last Week I finally gotten around to adressing the NPOV issues and have been diving into to it to conform to WP:BLP due to the their meeting the WP:BLPGROUP implications. As a group of a hundred close-knit commune members would feel the impact of our article more than employees of Walmart might feel. The Pro-Ganas ediotr has departed while the other seems to working on Civil POV Push Campaign against Ganas.

The repeated insertion of separate criticism/controversy section (most recent incarnation) is particularly concerning. It duplicates much of the material expanded upon in other sections only repeated more POV language.

My most serious concern is the allegation Immigration fraud that is repeatedly inserted, which even sources cited seemtotreat dubiously writing it to have lawsuits come back on the people they're quoting. Given Immigration fraud is felony and as far as I can tell there has never been a investigation for such allegations (much less a conviction). Which seems make the allegations are the more dubious to me.

SImliar allegations of Rape by a member (who is Living person) is repeatedly inserted as well despite similar circumstances (no investigation, or conviction). In fact these allegation only were reported at trial of a member who had shot one of the core members.

I would like some extra eyes and opinions on this. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Another addition I Just removed was "The 2006 shooting incident at the commune prompted questions about whether Feedback Learning might have the effect of driving some participants "insane" through invasive group examinations of their personal affair. It was not even backed up (or even implied) by the source. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

More Removed quote "Ganas has dismissed its critics as "mentally unstable" and "crackpots" The source London times describes the individual in question as unstable But does no use the term crackpot and while this one doesnt either The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My mistake multi page aritcle but still serious on the first part the sentence The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding The Resident Anthropologist most serious concern: No one but RA has used the term immigration fraud which is only felony if the act is completed. The allegations made are of pressure to engage in green-card marriages, and this allegation is made by 3 separate and named people. Of course there would be no investigation or conviction of pressure to engage in a green-card marriage. WP:BLP requires contentious allegations be well-sourced and these are. Several editors including myself have made a lot of progress with this article with the helpful moderation of WikiDao and we would like to continue doing so. After much hard work reaching consensus The Resident Anthropologist has twice made major revisions without warning or consultation, undermining weeks of toil by others. We would all like extra eyes and opinions on this. Eroberer (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

RA's BLPGROUP concerns are valid, but there is also a lot of well-sourced controversy that merits mention in the article. I do not think those issues should be whitewashed, but presented in a balanced and nonsensationalistic way. There has been a fair amount of COI editing, but that presently seems under control and within reason. The article has been making progress lately, but more involvement by editors experienced with sensitive BLP/BLPGROUP issues would be great. WikiDao ☯ 20:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is being used to post the resume of an individual. It was deleted at AfD, and subsequently overturned at DRV. As the original nominator of the AfD, I will say that borderline notability was shown at DRV, although I'm not entirely convinced it should survive another AfD. Main problem is that photos of buildings he's supposedly constructed are put up on his blog and used as references and so on. Most of the references are local interest pieces in the local section of a regional newspaper, nothing more. But there is claim of an award, the Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award which is referenced. However, I'm not sure receiving this award makes him notable (shouldn't be confused with the Indira Gandhi Prize). But eitherways, I'm bringing it here since basically the same content of spamming his online poetry publications and such is becoming a recurring problem and hopefully someone with some time at hand can clean up the article. —SpacemanSpiff 11:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Are newspaper opinion columns acceptable sources for BLP material, either to support facts or for praise/criticism of the subject? (The articles that prompted me to ask are Peter Munk and Richard Littlejohn). January ^(talk) 13:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Other than the bare facts, which one can usually rely on them to report accurately, no newspaper article is balanced. The way that things are phrased and the choice of words used present a POV. This is particularly true with opinion pieces. OTOH LittleJohn is indeed very effective in presenting himself as an ignorant, xenophobic, nutjob, quite possible the original tw@-O-tron and poster child for all those parodied by it. John lilburne (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Take it easy, attacking living people like that John or you may find your editing privileges restricted. In fact just don't do it again or I will report you and request restrictions on you myself' Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, opinion articles are generally not reliable for facts, and I would say they should never be used to support BLP claims (especially if those claims are the least bit contentious). Here's what WP:RS says on the matter: "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others. When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact." Qwyrxian (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

At the end of the section on Rooney's Personal Life, there are a few lines that do not seem relevant and are also grammatically incorrect. They appear to have been added out of spite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.65.226 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – the usual type vandalism - removed

Michael Gove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Offensive material has been added to introduction

Vandalism, now deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

David Werner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Forgive me if I'm posting this in the wrong place as I'm not super active here and a not positive on the protocols. I'm seeking some help from folks interested in biographies to provide outside input to the David Werner article.

David Werner is an important figure in international health, but a controversial one as he left the organization he founded amid allegations of sexual abuse. When I found his page, it appeared (to me) very promotional in nature and contained no references to these allegations. I updated the page in an attempt to make it more neutral and to provide references regarding the allegations. Someone has come along to remove any references to the allegations, even though these references are cited in mainstream news articles and are also cited using Werner's own writing. I don't think I'm the appropriate person to get into a back and forth with this person as I am connected with an organization that David Werner once was involved with. So I'd be grateful if someone more neutral would be willing to take a look at the history of this article.

An additional note is that the person who most recently edited the article (to remove any references to the allegations) appears to be a staff member at David Werner's organization: (Staff list here: http://www.healthwrights.org/hw/who-we-are)

--Bayradical (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP covers all parts of Wikipedia. Your inclusion of an unsourced accusation against a living person is a serious breach of that. However, sources do exist:[1][2]. DO NOT make such claims, even on talk pages and noticeboards, without a citation to support them! Fences&Windows 23:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the claim belongs in the article. The claim was made in one syndicated Knight-Ridder article and there never seem to have been criminal proceedings. Fences&Windows 23:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not commenting on whether the allegation in the article would be undue weight or not, but I found lengthy newspaper articles detailing the allegations in The San Jose Mercury, The Dallas Morning News (Jan 8 1995) and The Washington Post (Dec 17 1994). Kevin (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are multiple reliable, mainstream sources about his departure from Hesperian. There was a series of articles in the San Jose Mercy in late 1994 and early 1995, some reprints elsewhere, the Washington Post article, and one in the Chicago Tribune in 1999[3] also reprinted elsewhere. I don't think the biography can be complete or NPOV without mentioning this period of his life, briefly and unsensationally. --Slp1 (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed [4] information about Faith Popcorn referenced with a Gawker article (http://gawker.com/news/evil-bosses/new-yorks-worst-bosses-faith-popcorn-242413.php), because Gawker was quoting an anonymous source. In general, I don't think Gawker's coverage of Popcorn (http://gawker.com/news/faith-popcorn/) meets WP:BLP - it's tabloid-style sensationalism.

The article could use a lot of work. Large portions are regularly rewritten based upon Popcorn's own marketing, or based upon attacks by her detractors. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In the 90's, I was in the business world, regularly reading publications which covered her. I think the article as it looks right now gives a pretty balanced impression, given Popcorn's own pronouncements and choices. By the way,. if your main question is whether Gawker is WP:RS, there is a board for that, WP:RSN. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought it best to bring up here given that WP:BLP is policy and is more restrictive on sources than WP:RS, which is a guideline. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How would BLP disqualify Gawker as a source? It's a mainstream media outlet (at least in NYC). Mattnad (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Gawker's coverage in general, and this reference specifically, is sensationalist in the style of a tabloid, and thus not suitable for this BLP article. BLP says, "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." and "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." --Ronz (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If the information comes from someone described as an anonymous tipster, I think that should be enough of a hint that it doesn't belong in a BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(out)The cite given above is absolutely not RS for any BLP claims including the fact that it specifies the material is all anonymous opinion, and written by an unfindable author. IIRC, anonymous rumour does not make for an RS cite in any BLP. Collect (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that there's no by-line doesn't mean it's authorship is unattibuted. The entire editorial staff is on listed to the left of the article that leads with "We". I'm not sure why you would say it's rumor - the article cites an source claims to work there but wants to remain anonymous (for obvious reasons - I imagine Popcorn would have had a negative reaction to anyone voicing that opinon). Other publications take this approach on other wistleblower articles. Now this is not the most savory example of journalism, I'll agree. But it seems to meet the requirements of WP:RS.Mattnad (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing for contentious WP:BLP claims has different sourcing standards. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. According to WP:BLP, Needs to be a RS. To me, Gawker is a published RS and the inline citation was clearly connected to Gawker. You are suggesting (I think) it's not. Hence, I think this is more an issue for the reliable sources noticeboard since it all hinges on whether the cited article is a RS or not. But as a separate item, the Wikipedia article is pretty lousy since there's not whole lot to go on either way. Most of the non-critical material is from PR driven bios that are effectively primary source from Popcorn, or people related to her enterprise (like her publishers). For all of her fame, she's not really covered by anyone serious, good or bad. Mattnad (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This desired addition by user:Mattnad has no actual value at all, its attacking in nature and worthless - this blog post on a drama website said that someone they didn't name said this living person was rubbish - Gawker is not a strong encyclopedic content source, its a titillation location. It isn't a RS noticeboard issue as the content is the issue not the website - for some content there may a case to support using a cite to gawker - personally in a BLP I would never support it, especially for content and claims that are vague and contentious as this is.. 19:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

Support Off2riorob and the non-inclusion. Even if this content had appeared in a source that we will almost always consider a reliable source, such as the NYT or Guardian, the "true sourcing" to "an anonymous tipster" would fail the requirements of BLP content. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't care if the content is in or out, but to say a reliable source does not meet your requirements because they did not disclose a source (which can be done for good reasons) is questionable. I think you're going beyond the guidelines of WP:BLP with this line of reasoning. Mattnad (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How you can claim , "you don't care if the content is in out out" when you added it is beyond me. Actually, your desire to add this worthless weakly cited and poorly claimed attacking content to a wikipedia BLP is the only issue. Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Mattnad, I think Gawker would be a reliable source in many instances, but that doesn't give any source a free pass, especially when it comes to BLPs. You need to read WP:BLP again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record Off2riorob, I did not add the material to the article. It had been there for several years, and I restored it since Ronz removed it with no discussion and in my view an unsupported complaint. And I have read WP:BLP - it's pretty specific about needing a reliable source for contentious material. How is Gawker a reliable source in many instances, but not this one? I'm more concerned at this point about people making up policy to be honest. Mattnad (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record Matt - Contributors are fully responsible for any content they add to an article, this is irrelevant to the fact that it might have been in the article previously - if you replace it that is an addition - you are then the person with the responsible for that content - you added it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Easy on the bold face, you may pop a blood vessel in your finger tips as you stab stab stab stab at the keys in a petulant frenzy. Something that was there for years is not an "addition". However, If you can demonstrate Gawker is not a reliable source, then fine. But the BLP guideline only require a reliable source. You've decided Gawker is not. Then perhaps we should take it up with RSN. Mattnad (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You misinterpret, my emotion regarding this is zero. Your refusal to accept what is and is not clearly an addition is a further example of your refusal to listen and accept policy and guidelines. I bolded it for all readers of the page as that position is one that users often don't understand. I wouldn't recommend forum shopping it to RSN with the same content from a different angle, the content is being resisted here through BLP issues of weak titillating content and a similar citation - You seem to be continuing to insist that you can add any content you want to a BLP because you have a citation from Gawker, that position is the opposite of BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Mattnad, any chance to have another source reporting the information? Otherwise, BLP or not, it doesn't seem more than a tabloid-ish blip on the radar. --Cyclopia^talk 15:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, here's one from the Huffington Post [5], The New York Daily News, [6].Mattnad (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Its just the same valueless content at similar cites, hilariious, some editior somewhere has likely already tried and failed to create a list from it or add it to other BLPs what a non encyclopedia waste of time. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Another more grounded and less fretful interpretation is that other major publications (which are very often cited in wikipedia) with millions of readers felt this is worth publishing. WP:BLP requires us to have reliable source. I have now provided three including one, the huffington post, that is a couple of years after the original Gawker article. That they repeat the same information is not an issue as far as WP:RS or WP:BLP is concerned. Mattnad (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Those sources are even worse than Gawker, for the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we close this? --Ronz (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to use citations to primary sources such as was done in this edit[7]. Is findmypast.com a suitable source? Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a big discussion at the EL noticeboard recently about a similar website Find a grave and the result was no - not reliable for personal details. The discussion might be worth a read Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Find_a_Grave_and_Imbd - As I suspected, its being used quite a bit - 618 links to it, personally I would never use it, IMO it's WP:OR and investigative reporting, with no guarantee that it is actually the subject of the article. Perhaps the question is better at the WP:RSN - Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh this appears to be a very different site. The problem with Find-A-Grave is crowd sourcing, therefore reliability. You are correct of course that using the source properly is important, but that is true of finding (say) new articles about a person and not ensuring that it is the same person. Given a reasonably good combination of age, name and locality it should be a reliable source. For John Smith, London, 1962 no good, but for Tamsin Outhwaite, 1970, Ilford it would be pretty robust source. Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Resolved

 – the section is markedly improved since I raised the issue here and hopefully will be monitored for future issues. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kalimba (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could a couple willing editors take a look at and monitor Kalimba (singer)? An IP is inserting some very contentious accusations only supported by sites such as Hollywood Reporter and Digital Spy. In addition, they are attempting to double the size of the article with the allegations, which even if they were supported by iron-clad sources, would be a case of WP:UNDUE. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Note there is discussion on the talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

contentious accusations? The guy has an arrest warrant, 2 girls have declared he has raped them, every serious newspaper in Mexico is reporting about it, and you still call it contentious? What kind of evidence are you looking for here, sworn statements? I'm adding them back in, Wikipedia Spanish has them, so why shouldn't they be here? 201.174.49.50 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

note Just because the content is on another wikipedia is irrelevant as to whether or not they are included here WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - kind of explains, but basically different wikis have different guidelines and local standards and such. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Update: The information has been added by another IP, sourced only to foreign language websites and the Perez Hilton gossip site. Could the the additions please be reviewed here as I have to log out for (likely) the remainder of the day and won't be able to monitor the content. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's El Universal, the newspaper with the biggest circulation numbers in Mexico, EsMas.com, property of Televisa, the biggest TV empire in Mexico, and CNN.com. It doesn't get more authoritative than that. 201.174.49.50 (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The addition that you made was against at least a couple of our policies and guidelines and I have trimmed the content back a little more also. It's only an arrest warrant - there is easily a case in an encyclopedic life story to wait to see if there are any charges or even actually wait until there is a conviction worthy of actually reporting. As in - in 2011 so and so was accused of rape but it turned out he didn't do it - is the sort of low level reporting we should be avoiding adding to our articles about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – cite replaced with a less bloggy one

In the article Public image of Sarah Palin, there is this statement: "She promoted the Facebook posting with a tweet that urged her followers, 'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!'". The cited source is Talking Points Memo, which says the following about itself:

As far as I can tell, a source like that should not be used to support any statement of objective fact in Wikipedia, never mind a BLP. According to WP:RS:

Editors at the talk page for the Palin image article are insisting on using this source in the way I've described, which seems messed up. Any thoughts?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a Polk-award winning news site. its reliable. Merrill Stubing (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

George Polk Awards - they are not mentioned here? That award seems to for individuals? Josh Marshall was the recipient of the award for reporting of one topic, that does not make him an automatic reliable source - its a blog, an opinionated blog. here it is written by Jillian Rayfield who is not the winner of the Polk award, not that it would make any difference anyways. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

TPM describes itself as: "Commentary on political events from a politically left perspective, by Joshua Micah Marshall." That's not acceptable for a wp:blp, and I don't believe they're a reliable source for anything other than their opinion per wp:rs. jæs (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: if Diane Sawyer spray-paints a message in the subway, that doesn't make the graffiti a RS, even though she's a respected journalist.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case, it might be more productive to find a better source. Here is the BBC, Tucson Citizen (a newsblog), the Washington Post, CBS (though possibly an editorial), and about 8000 more on Google news. It's not worthwhile to debate the quality of sources for widely reported uncontentious facts - just replace a dubious source with a better one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The article needs more eyes, not just to replace sketchy sources with good ones, but to keep NPOV. Right now, we've got editors skewing the article badly, distorting the sources, and even pitting the actor Donald Sutherland against simple news from the Washington Post.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Its there on twitter.com: http://twitter.com/sarahpalinusa/status/10935548053 No need to cite to Talking Points. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The editors there have insisted that TPM is fine, and I'm not going to edit-war about it. I hope others will get involved, because theres a whole lotta POV-pushing goin' on. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actors comments on radio station

Resolved

 – comments removed and replaced with others that had been reported at multiple secondary locations - and as such, asserted independent notability.

Yes, Sarah Palin seems to divide America in half - wiki editors seemingly as well. User:Sayerslle has added this - very accusatory comment from an actor alleging a Palin has committed a crime - at least inciting others to violence is a crime in the UK. - Awful addition imo - are we to quote anything said by such unqualified people? I would also say the citation being used to support the comment is basically a primary as it is Sutherland talking himself and imo unless he has been independently reported the comment has no assertion of notability -

• - A critic, the actor Donald Sutherland, put the deprecative view: "Putting a target on Miss Giffords' district, excuse me, I'm sorry, but there's something called 'inciting to violence'; if you participate in those violent metaphors, you put stuff in a soup, it changes the flavour of the soup." <ref> Sutherland, speaking on the [[Richard Bacon (TV presenter)|Richard Bacon]] Show, BBC 5 Live, 13 January 2011. </ref>

• • (ec)It is a huge leap from what Sutherland said to saying he accused Palin of a crime. "A critic, the actor Donald Sutherland, put the deprecative view:" is not great context though, let his words speak for him, (which they do) not ours, "Actor Donald Sutherland, on the BBC 5 Live Richard Bacon radio chat show said:" gives some context - Sutherland is an actor, not a politician or pundit, it's a chat show, not a serious discussion programme like "Moral Maze". Our only editorial decision should be whether it's significant to the article. Rich Farmbrough, 18:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
    
    • Ohio laws and rules - 2917.01 Inciting to violence - Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what 'unqualified' means - democracy - from the ancient greek demos , people, kratos, power, - power of ordinary, unqualified , people, to speak, argue, say things without fear of being threatened with talk of thought 'crimes' - I prefer it to an endless stream of the demagogue-Palin's propaganda which you probably feel happier with off2riorob. Sayerslle (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I care less either way, but I don't like what appear to me to be opinionated attacking comments from liberal leaning pro obama and pro health care actor on some English radio station in discussion with a comedian type radio host. Its just an educationally and informative valueless attack imo. From your comments the fact that it is attacking Palin appears to be the reason you have added it.Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Has his comment been considered noteworthy enough to have been reported in any independent reports? Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

He only just said it. why do you feel so threatened by this?Sayerslle (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't like to see such opinionated attacking additions added to BLP articles, thats all. It is hard to verify, you just listened to it, so clearly no one else has reported it..apart from wikipedia - what is the content it was said in? The link says he was responding to Obama speech at the memorial service, the program was two hours long, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xcfgl at what time period does he say this? I would like to access the show to listen to the comments. Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If you go to the link you have noted above, and listen from say minute 66 to 74 I think that would cover the interview. The 'soup' quote came at 15:12 hrs UK time, so ,minute 72 of the 120. Theres seven days left it says on the link above to listen to the show. Though Richard Bacon is not a political heavyweight journalist, he is well informed on american politics, not a joker, , he was in Chicago the night Obama got elected. Sayerslle (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Though I personally agree with Sutherland's opinion, I don't think it belongs in the article. Gifford's opinion of the bullseye symbol was relevant, as is a cross-section of political columnists and commentators. An actor has no special expertise. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

the bullseye..I regret dragging his name into it anyhow, people really hate anything said against Palin, I'm never going near those articles again, they are unfree articles, - I still don't like the idea that you need 'expertise' to speak on politics, - informed, yes, is good, - if in 1930s germany, yes sorry to go for the obvious, someone spoke up and said ' i dunno, i don't like whats going on, all them people dragged off to Dachau' - and then someone saying, 'what do we care about that, you have no expertise..' Sayerslle (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

After I listed on the talk page of the Carl Hewitt article, five reliable and quite mainline sources on what is the most widely noted incident in the individual's career, an administrator deleted the material (from talk page) without comment and locked down the talk page from any discussion.

The notion that one should ignore on-going world-wide mainstream news coverage concerning Carl Hewitt over a period of several years-- perhaps because it entails an essentially very minor controversy involving Wikipedia-- may be open to question.

Shutting down discussion of this matter on talk page is especially perplexing.

How does this serve the reader?

Two sources are from U.S., one from UK, one NZ and one from Germany, as follows:

Investment Weekly News January 1, 2011 (online link only available through subscription databases). Also the following with available online links; The US technology news Website "Tech Radar" [[8]] A major UK newspaper, the Guardian, here [[9]] NZ Herald [[10]] The German technology news Website "Heise Online" [[11]]

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing this from memory, and therefore may be wrong in some of the details, but the broad picture is that Carl Hewitt, a retired academic, was banned from Wikipedia after being taken to the ArbCom in 2007. The case was initiated by an editor who was a member of the ArbCom at the time, someone who seemed to have strong personal feelings about Hewitt. I know this from various emails that were flying around at the time. After Hewitt was banned, the same Arb approached a freelance journalist that he knew, and acted as the source for her on a damaging story about Hewitt's banning for the Observer. [12] It was an unfortunate situation BLP-wise, though in fairness to everyone our BLP rules were not as strict back then.

Since then, various IPs and little-used accounts have occasionally tried to add a section about this to Hewitt's bio, thereby completing the circular sourcing. I've resisted these efforts with page protection, including talk-page protection when necessary. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep this out, and off the talk page. Poking sticks in people is not a good idea. The best source is a Guardian Technology column which reports "allegations" of what he did on wikipedia. That hardly belongs in a short bio on his academic position and achievements. See also Wikipedia:ASR. Yes, a case for inclusion on "reliable citations" could just about be made here, but the incident is notable (if at all) in a history of Wikipedia - not in a BLP.--Scott Mac 00:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The incident seems highly notable per sourcing above. I don't know what is the better context to put the information in, but our BLP policy explicitly allows us to report well-sourced, relevant, notable allegations: . If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.. "Relevance" is probably the matter here, but the information should be somewhere. In any case shutting down discussion of a well-sourced fact in a talk page is a shame. --Cyclopia^talk 00:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion can in itself be not a neutral enterprise. Indeed the discussion can quickly, on occasions, become harmful. In this instance the discussion of the article DID and to discuss that discussion is simply adding to the problem. There's a certain vicious circularity here, where the interaction of a subject with Wikipedia is harmful, doubly so because it is reported and thus has real-world effects, and then we report those "facts" harming the reputation of the subject again. Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum where can apply abstractions and forget the consequences. This is one of those cases where experienced admins need to use wise judgement, and I think SlimVirgin has done that. It would be a "shame" if this was now picked up as an in-house debating point to the detriment of the subject. The short version? Cyclopia, please drop it. We can debate Wikipolitics, but not over this.--Scott Mac 01:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Slim and Scott, who see the big picture here rather than concentrating on Wikipedia internals. We are not working in a bubble, where the only considerations that matter are Wikipedia's internal rules. --JN466 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not "Wikipolitics", it's a serious issue that has to do with the integrity of the encyclopedia. What is debated here is not a gossip or doubtful claim, it is a well known incident strongly sourced from multiple sources. It's not a "fact" - it's a fact. Now, respecting living people does not mean removing factual negative information about them. I entirely agree that WP does not exist in a vacuum, but , you know, we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to cherry-pick positive information and leave out negative information. So, while we have to take care of consequences, the point is that we're here to report what reliable sources say -doing that in the least harmful manner is OK, but that's what we're here for. On the precise issue, I fully agree that there could be a problem of relevance, and as such I'm not too disappointed if the info is out of the bio, but again, the fact has to be somewhere in my opinion. I think that who doesn't see the big picture here are instead Scott and Slim -in the long run, do we want to make WP a collection of promotional leaflets on living people or a NPOV collection of sourced information? Since everyone here is concerned with ethics, well, there is a long-run ethical imperative in providing unbiased and complete information as well. We're here to make a service to our readers, before everything else. --Cyclopia^talk 02:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

While not condoning Hewitt's actions, including this in his bio is the type of circle jerk that needs to be avoided. Wikipedia editors sometimes forget that what people do on Wikipedia is remarkably unimportant to those who aren't editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the event is footnote in overall career of the man. Where I diverge from those that favor inclusion is this implicit idea that every sourced fact belongs in a biography. It does not, and it is essential to remember that as editors we have the discretion to leave material out. This need not be censorship, and need not be a BLP issue. It's simply editing. It's permissible to recognize that the man's notability historically is as an academic, and that the wikipedia incident has no lasting significance to that. Having said all that, I'd unprotect the talk page and permit this discussion there. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As much as Cyclopiamay wish to present inclusionism as some type of moral imperative, the fact is that the encyclopedia does not fall down if a minor "fact" is excluded, nor is any harm done. The are places to simply be pragmatic rather than have a Wikipedia Messiah-complex that ends up squashing people. The wise (and gracious) thing is to know when to drop it.--Scott Mac 08:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be dropped. It goes rather to the heart of credibility question.

A particular editor may regard this as a "minor" fact. " I regard the entire article as "minor."

Editorial staff at various media outlets around the world have made independent judgments that the incident was worth reporting on. Indeed it was the only incident concerning Hewitt that excited such worldwide attention.

No reasoned argument has been made as to why it should be excluded.

There is some hearsay that a friend of his wrote the article. But freelance writers don't generally edit or publish their own work.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the news. Simply because something makes the paper does not in any way at all mean that it is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. In the overall review of his life and accomplishments the little hooha about wikipedia is insignifcantly trivial.Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)@Calamitybrook, you wrote No reasoned argument has been made as to why it should be excluded. This is simple not true. User Xymmax maks a very good case, imho, above, which I would endorse/support. A few foreign articles, specific to tech issues and this equals some noteworthy "material"? Still not convienced but willinging to be. --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

COI

Though the COI tag is often abused, it seems possible that the admin "Slim Virgin" has a conflict of interest in participating in this topic. It may be that this person was directly involved in the events in question. If so, this person ought best to abstain from involvement article, rather than placing it under lockup.Calamitybrook (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"it seems possible" - many things are possible. Do you have some evidence, or is this just muck raking?--Scott Mac 22:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

One sees from edit history that Virgin's very active involvement in the page includes the period in question. I am not the supreme judge of these matters, nor have I made a full investigation, but perhaps Virgin can enlighten us about his actual involvement?

Let me also mention that perhaps Wikipedia is not the news. But its editors can't unilaterally determine notability. The sources cited above include one of the largest newspapers in the world located in a country that practically invented modern, responsible journalism.

Heise.com in Germany is also a very major news source. Techradar.com is owned by one of the largest companies in the UK. Large worldwide media sources, in publishing any story, typically employ layers of multiple, highly competent, well-paid & talented journalists as participating editors. Hewitt is only mentioned in any such publication in connection with the incident in question.

So Wikipedia is to instead to rely on the judgment of a single, anonymous administrator, in this instance?Calamitybrook (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You made an allegation. SlimVirgin doesn't need to "enlighten us" - you need to back up your allegation with some evidence or else withdraw it. Slurs and cowardly ad hominem attacks have no place here.--Scott Mac 23:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what it would mean for me to have been "directly involved in the events in question": if CB means the ArbCom case, then no, I wasn't. I made a couple of minor edits to the article over three years ago. [13] [14] Otherwise my only involvement has been as an admin concerned with the BLP violations, and all my posts to talk have made that clear: see here in July 2009 as an example. The effect of the admin action was to calm down a troubled article and talk page, and I'd like to see that period of calm continue. I have no editorial interest in Carl Hewitt, and almost no knowledge of him. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The chatter that caught my notice, though it seems to include a misunderstanding of how news gathering works & also of libel law, is here: [[15]]

If SL has been thus involved in the events at issue, then she ideally ought to recuse herself from the page. I gather that no particular editor has a unique and indispensable role.

Five reliable sources, including one of the largest and most respected newspapers in the world, is ipso facto enough to establish notability.

Instead a few editors seem to be second-guessing the obvious.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

again yes again, just cause something is verifiable dont mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia article. The consensus here is clear that the content does not merit inclusion. how many times are we going to have to repeat that?? Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a viable approach is to look at the talk page before it was shut down by SL.

Many comments suggested that the wide coverage of incident in question is worthy of inclusion. These were obviously ignored.

It's the "elephant in the room" which a few Wikipedia insiders think can be ignored.

But it's still an elephant & any minimally informed reader will immediately recognize the animal as such.

So the insiders are, to use another metaphor, cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Which is very unfortunate (and needless) maiming of both nose and face.

Understand that I've no opinion regarding so-called "controversey" Point is merely that is most widely known & notable fact about the minor technoid known as "Carl Hewitt."

71.235.237.175 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that's me immediately above.

Probably if you want a "vote," the preponderance of comments on now-defunct talk page was to include material --in some neutral form-- from the various reliable sources.

Obviously this won't be possible.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Problems continue

Just noting here Calamitybrook and Arthur Rubin continue to raise this issue on Talk:Carl Hewitt. [16] [17] I've removed their posts, and have asked them to post any further discussion here instead. [18] [19] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Arthur continues to restore a link on the talk page to the Hewitt ArbCom case, [20] a link that John Vandenberg and I removed in 2009. [21] [22] [23] I'm concerned that an admin is reverting this when he's been heavily involved in editing the article. The ArbCom case took place before we had a strong BLP policy, and it's a situation that would likely be handled very differently today. In the interests of keeping the page calm, I'd like to remove that link again. Other views would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with removal. Respecting the subject, and not drawing the casual reader's attention to a bit of internal nastiness that reflects negatively on the subject, is more important than inhouse record keeping. There's enough of us with memories watching the page that we can gently bring the arbitration to the attention of any Wikipedian that starts editing the article. As long as we don't jump on people who are not aware of it, no harm will be done.--Scott Mac 20:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, Calamitybrook may be violating the Arbcom ruling, as well as probably committing BLP violations, and he seems to think that our removal of his comments constitutes "jumping on him", so some clarification is required. However, thinking about it, the Arbcom decision constitutes derogatory information about the subject, so possibly shouldn't appear directly. On the gripping hand, some notice of the additional restrictions needs to be on the talk page. If a non-BLP-violating version can be constucted, the notice should be replaced by that, but I'm OK with removing the notice for the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's try this version of the text of the box:

This article is the subject of an arbitration ruling. It is expected that editors abide by the letter and spirit of that ruling. Those editors who violate the ruling, but are unaware of it, will be informed of the details before any sanctions are invoked.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the point of telling people there's something they mustn't violate, but we're not saying what it is until after the fact. Why not just leave the page as it has been since August 2009? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Or why not simply include the well-sourced material for which Hewitt is most widely known?

Why not include mention of what any Google search will immediately turn up?

To do otherwise is to ignore the elephant in the room, and, consequently, to appear foolish.

Moreover why abuse the talk page in this manner?

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the tag doesn't help Calamitybrook understand what he's doing wrong; either the tag needs to be modified so it can be understood, or Calamitybrook needs to be banned from the article and talk page. I'm not sure whether the latter would help significantly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Links to BLP, the ArbCom case, and an explanation of the circular sourcing haven't helped him to understand either. I suggest the article and talk page be left alone and allowed to settle down again. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

elephant still in room

Wikipedia policies on biographies of living persons suggest that well-sourced material concerning that for which the biography's subject is best known should be included.

The arbitration concerned nothing other than the banning of Hewitt.

Why keep vaguely referring to these two matters as if they were relevant?

The question of "circular sourcing" is simply a red herring.

One of the largest newspapers in the world chose to publish an account of certain events and in gathering information for this, spoke to individuals with first-hand knowledge.

How else on earth would a newspaper gather news?

But this you label "circular sourcing" and claim is therefore illegitimate.

To persist (as you certainly will) would be as if the New York Times published an article on the career of Judith Miller or Jayson Blair and failed to mention that she/he had been employed by the New York Times.

The glaringly obvious omission would make the publisher appear extraordinarily foolish, especially if they tried to justify it by citing internal policies. Of course, such a circumstance could never happen.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolute silly stuff!

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Kate Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Matthew Bellamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After a lot of editing, the last of which was done by me, the following sentence is in the Hudson article: "On January 12, 2011, press reports based on unnamed sources said that Hudson is 14 weeks pregnant and expecting a child with Bellamy." I started a new section on the Talk page because I don't think the sentence should be in the article at all. Two gossip magazines (reasonably reputable, though) report the same thing, but both say it's based on anonymous sources. The story is now in lots of periodicals, but they are all repeating what Us Weekly first said (the LA Times said the US Weekly first reported it) I believe without more concrete information, the sentence should go. I just started the "discussion" on the Talk page, so no one has had an opportunity to respond, but my preference is to remove the sentence pending the discussion rather than the other way around. Am I being too cautious? What do others think?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As such it's a single, short sentence and it is crystal clear that it's press reports based on unnamed sources, if it's in a lot of WP:RS it could stay per WP:WELLKNOWN. --Cyclopia^talk 16:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The press may record sensationalist rumours about celebrities from unnamed sources, encyclopedias do not. There's no rush here. Either the pregnancy will be confirmed, in which the prior rumours will not be notable. Or it will turn out to be false, in which case 10 months from now do you really think we'll say "there were some unattributed rumours of a pregnancy, and they turned out to be false." Either way, these rumours are not notable for an encyclopedia - and we NOT a newspaper that we need to be breaking news, even when the news may be unreliable.--Scott Mac 16:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally support this position, BLP requires a degree of responsibility in what we report, an unnamed claim of such a thing is encyclopedic-ally (long term) totally valueless. As Scott says, she will either have it or not, or she will confirm it or not, until l either of those things happen such speculative personal content is unworthy of inclusion in any BLP. I removed it, also from Matthew Bellamy BLP. Crikey, its getting like a celeb mag here.Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

My position is that if a rumour is covered by many multiple RS (provided they are RS), the existence of the rumour oughts to be reported: putting our fingers in our ears is 1)useless to the protection of the subject (it is already out there and 2)we don't make unencyclopedicity evaluations based on our tastes, we follow the sources. That something is possibly not true is not a reason not to include, provided that it is marked with the correct context; after all we have hoaxes with their own articles. WP:WELLKNOWN covers notable allegations. --Cyclopia^talk 19:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hoaxes are one thing unsubstantiated rumours another, and speculation about a pregnancy something else. If she doesn't have a child there are several inferences to be drawn a) that she was never pregnant in the first place, b) she was, but had a termination c) she miscarried. Having published the rumour and without gynaecological records how are you going to handle that in a NPOV? John lilburne (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. That would have us exercise no editorial judgement at all, and have us reproduce every bit of celebrity gossip and speculation that ever appeared in a tabloid. We need to exercise a bit of common sense and the long-term perspective of an encyclopedia. We are writing biography with BLPs - balanced and thoughtful - we are not just repeating every bit of shit that's caught passing media attention, and recycling third-hand rumours.--Scott Mac 20:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to think that "editorial judgement" in such cases often means "cherry picking according to editors' preferences". Editorial judgement should tell us how to cover what RS say, not if. But we agree to disagree on this, as usual; let's see what others have to say (if any). --Cyclopia^talk 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be utter nonsense to report that "unnamed sources in gossip magazines have claimed that Hudson is pregnant". What next? And frankly, even if WP:RS report that she is pregnant, it isn't our business to print speculation about paternity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Cyclopia, I do not think it would be productive to cast this as a win/lose or right/wrong situation, but my observations suggest that your opinions on BLP matters are rarely if ever shared by the other participants here. At some point it may start to appear to others that you are arguing here for the sake of arguing, not for the sake of reaching consensus. Perhaps your time would be better spent at a different noticeboard. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's better spent here exactly to provide a different view on these issues, a view that I personally feel is more in line with our objectives as an encyclopedia. There is other people that may share the same view or perhaps think about it and find compromises -it wouldn't be the first time I've seen it happening. I am not going to argue more on this specific case -my position is clear-, and I'm not here for the sake of arguing. I say what I think and we'll see what consensus says. Here it seems against me; fine, nevertheless I think that it is good to have a plurality of voices and I am deeply worried by attempts at shutting down polite and policy-compliant opinions. This kind of chilling nudges like "perhaps your time would be better spent at a different noticeboard" are exactly the reason, I suspect, many editors who share views more similar to mine feel they're not listened and feel disregarded by the "BLP regulars" here (no cabal conspiracies intended: it is simply natural that people more concerned with some aspects/interpretations of BLP are drawn to this noticeboard); therefore I more strongly feel the need to state that there's people thinking differently on these issues. I hope it is clearer now. --Cyclopia^talk 21:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a point when repeating the same opinion over and over, despite no one else agreeing with it, becomes WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. I'm not going to comment on how exactly that applies here but just generally speaking, there is a point when the community exhausts its patience with this kind of argument. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but that's not the case here. I'm not repeating anything over and over, and usually I'm not alone in my concerns; when I am, like I was in this thread, I prefer not to insist (I am answering here because I've been directly called into question; otherwise I'd have simply ignored the thread). --Cyclopia^talk 21:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on content. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Cyclopia, the issue at hand is amply covered by the BLP policy. There is nothing ambiguous or vague about this particular case. You appear to be invoking some ill-defined "objectives as an encyclopedia" rather than relying on what the policies clearly state. Leaving aside the question of which encyclopedia would include rumours of pregnancy, if you are arguing contrary to policy -- as you often seem to do -- perhaps you should be attempting to have the policy changed rather than arguing here about its application here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the sources are not the quality that we need for such information. BLP states, "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."--Ronz (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As the editor who started this discussion and then happily signed off Wikipedia and missed all the ensuing entertainment, I would just like to add that it wasn't really reported in lots of sources. It was reported in one source and then other sources kept repeating it, attributing the original source. It's not like information that is independently reported in multiple sources. I realize the information has been removed from the article, which, in my view, is a good thing, but I just thought I'd clarify that issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I will read again BLP policy, then -I thought to be familiar with it but it is possible it's not the case. Thanks to Delicious Carbuncle for the polite and respectful comments. --Cyclopia^talk 17:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dean Alford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nonewcoal (talk · contribs) is adding a weasly-worded claim that the subject has been "in the centre of" criminal investigations, which would probably be read as the subject is being investigated. From what I can see sources only cite that someone associated with the same company as him is being investigated, not the subject. Also some copyvio sentences from this being added. January ^(talk) 21:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Took a look and I agree the edits you reverted were highly problematic. The Atlanta Journal Constitution piece on the criminal investigation does not mention Alford at all. The Flagpole article does assert Alford's conflict of interest in voting for a contract in 1991, but since it is a combination of angry opinion and investigative reporting (a la the Village Voice here in NYC) I would want to see this allegation sourced somewhere else before including it in the bio of a living person. I noted also the user name "nonewcoal" suggests a WP:COI problem depending on organizational affiliation and certainly a lack of NPOV in editing articles about coal industry players and events. The user has so far edited only the Dean Alford article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't connect the username to a particular group so can't prove a violation of WP:ORGNAME, but it does make the intention clear. January ^(talk) 13:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – vandalism reverted

[[24]]

This edit is defamatory to an underage student. If it could please be removed, I'd appreciate it. -danjel (talk to me) 12:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Citations added - cited politician holding or having held notable office, as such passes WP:POLITICIAN - Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the article,Vijitha Ranaweera to be deleted, since the person,supposedly a Member of Parliament in Sri Lanka,has a very less importance.There shall be up to a 1000 people of the same post in the entire country,and upto a 10000 amongst the peoplwe who have been in the same post in the past. in the entire country.So I don't find any reason for the article to continue since its of no importance.$![) 3lmO $#@[)y 17:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Existence of articles is not decided by their importance but by notability guidelines. That said, the bio is currently unsourced and I can't find enough reliable sources to support its existence right now; I suspect it could be brought at articles for deletion. --Cyclopia^talk 17:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

References added. CIreland (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Someone should check the picture, it is a picture of a pussy

I've tried to correct it several times, the same user keeps re-vandalizing it. We need to block him. He repeatedly vandalized Mr. Ben Ali's page as well.--75.66.168.226 (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandal blocked, both images added to the blacklist, hopefully never to be seen again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

Has a picture of a penis, that you may want to replace with an actual picture of the man!

It's been reverted, I've blocked the user who added it and the added the image to the blacklist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Alastair Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am a close associate of Alastair Cook and would be grateful if the following error could be corrected in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alastair_Cook#cite_note-clamour-4

The present text states "His father Graham is an English high street banker and village cricketer."

Can this please be replaced by - "His father Graham is a retired BT engineer and former village cricketer".

The original error is in reference 5 ^ a b Fay, Stephen (2006-04-16). "The clamour grows throughout the land: pick Cook now". London: The Independent. Retrieved 2009-06-01.

The definitive reference is in the book "Starting Out - My story so far" Page 4 - electronically available on Amazon Kindle. Correct Internet references are: http://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/sport/8788534.Cricket__How_a_Cam_baby_became_an_Ashes_hero/ http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/2011/01/07/alastair-cook-the-choirboy-who-slayed-the-aussies-115875-22831427/

I have attempted to correct this error before without success several years ago and more recently through one of your contributors (below).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F2056897?thread=7977665&post=104880615

• - Seems completely reasonable - and cited

Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by CricketMCG (talk • contribs) 10:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Masaaki Hatsumi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gentlemen, The section entitled "Controversy" copied here, has no supporting information. It's content is really gossip and calumny. The four sentences suffer from lack of supporting documentation, are ad hominem remarks, and contain errors of fact. I enjoy Wiki and have tried to correct some of these shortcomings in the threads concerning Dr. Hatsumi and Ninjutsu, but my edits have been removed. I have given up trying to correct some errors of fact and expressions of opinion presented as factual. Be that as it may, this particular section of this page shows one of the glaring weaknesses of Wikipedia. ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ Controversy

In recent years these ties to Ninjutsu have been called into question. There is a severe lack of historical evidence to even suggest that they teach anything remotely Ninjutsu based. Masaaki Hatsumi has even gone so far as to slowly remove all reference to Ninjutsu from the Bujinkan curriculum and have begun calling their style of taijutsu, Takamatsuden implying Masaaki Hatsumi's Sensei Toshitsugu Takamatsu created his own style of taijutsu and simply called it Ninjutsu for commercial gain. ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orovalleydude (talk • contribs) 12:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that unsourced comments of this nature do not belong in any biography, certainly not that of a living person. If reliable sources can be found commenting on the lack of ties to Ninjitsu, the assertions might be retained in some form (but not that "commercial gain" crack).Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As its uncited and contested, User:Demiurge1000 has removed it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Mary Ann Turnbull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I feel that this is a small biography about her and the only reason why it is listed is to add authenticity to the page Turnbull School — Preceding unsigned comment added by 02jtayl (talk • contribs) 14:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• - boldly redirected to the school here - uncited stub of a low notable subject. Feel free to revert and improve if there are any objections. Off2riorob (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin (talk) has replaced WP:BLP/H withy a redirect to the policy section WP:BLP#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia, on the grounds that the old Help page "seems too long to be useful." I strongly disagree: I think the target, with a single, rather curt paragraph headed "Dealing with articles about yourself", is much less useful for the disgruntled subject of an article then the old Help page, which contained useful advice on how Wikipedia works, how to proceed and what to expect and not to expect. I was tempted to revert, but have started a discussion on the talk page: please comment at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Help#Redirect. JohnCD (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

With SlimVirgin's courteous agreement, I have reverted the redirect. The page certainly is on the long side; I will see whether I can suggest any trimming. JohnCD (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool - a couple of thoughts - such users are possibly in need of extra detail, but there is also a case for the position that as involved newbies less is more and that the best thing they could do was request assistance here or contact the foundation and excessive detail may compound the possible problems as regards conflict of interest editing. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead section already has links to here and to the Foundation; perhaps a sentence at the end of that, on the lines of "those links will enable you to get help: read on if you would like to know more about how Wikipedia works and what you should and should not expect." Something to indicate that they can get the help they need without having to read all the rest, but it may be helpful to them. JohnCD (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Wikipedia Editors:

I wish to draw to your attention that Don Calo continues to distort and manipulate the article on Vito Roberto Palazzolo.

As reflected at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito_Roberto_ Palazzolo&action=history, at 4h36 on 10 January, the article was elaborated (revision 407013776), to reflect two December decisions of courts, one in South Africa, and one in Italy, At 13h47 that same day Don Calo undid the change.

As stated in my earlier complaint, Don Calo has effectively taken control of the article and in the course of last year was in the practice of immediately undoing each and every change made to the article. Essentially, Don Calo does not allow any other Wikipedia user to make inputs, which he maintains in a manner that is unbalanced, one-sided and defamatory, contrary to Wikipedia policy. I repeat my request that the articles be, in terms of the Biography of Living Persons policy, deleted until a full investigation is conducted.

Sincerely,

Mallard11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallard11 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This article does look less than neutrally written. Just looking at the lead. The chap was found not guilty of being a member of the Mafia, although he was found to colluded with them. Yet the article seem to spin the sources with "He is assumed" (by whom?) and "he is alleged". The facts may be verifiable and referenced here, but there does look like a degree of negative spin. That's just a cursory look.--Scott Mac 10:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am open to any serious changes that will improve the article. However, changes proposed by Mallard11 do not qualify as such. For instance, I removed his latest edit because it was unreferenced. I think it is best that some neutral editor (preferably not one of Palazzolo's lawyers) has a look at it without interference by either me or Mallard11. - DonCalo (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is now vandalized with comments that belong on the talk page. However, as I said before I am not editing this article anymore until some neutral editor has had a look at it to avoid an edit war. - DonCalo (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A few months ago I posted here regarding persistent vandalism at the article Alan Dubin. I received help and someone filed an SPI report for me (located here) that resulted in an account being banned and another being warned. Recently, it seems as if the vandal(s) are back. I posted an SPI report of my own (here) a few days ago and an account was banned, but today another "new" account has come along to vandalize the article. Is there anything else I can be doing to prevent these vandals other than filing SPI reports? I don't mind reporting them as they spring up, but I'd rather not irritate anyone by continually filing reports.

Basically, what's happening is that a "new" account comes along, adds borderline trivia/nonsense to the article without a source or to an unlikely source that isn't available online, I revert it with a note saying everything needs a reliable source, they undo my revert, repeat until the user is banned, at which point another "new" account comes along, etc. Thanks for any help you can give. Rnb (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You could request protection of the article. That would at least prevent new accounts from editing it until they were auto-confirmed. I'm not sure that would be enough, but it might help.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the solution for now is to keep filing the SPIs if you have good reason to suspect this is a sockpuppet. Some sockpuppeteers are very persistent so I imagine reports being filed within a few days of each other is not unusual. January ^(talk) 09:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks to both of you for your help. Rnb (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Erik Kloeker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on Erik Kloeker has been created and edited by Erik Kloeker himself (User:Erikkloeker and User:Edit_tore_n_chief). Apart from that concern, I'm not sure if the subject in question fits the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. 216.196.139.146 (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A Google search reveals a lack of reliable sources as he mostly is mentioned on self published web sites and social media. A reference in the article which purports to be to the Cincinnati Inquirer is actually to something called speeple.com. I agree he is probably not WP:Notable. The proper course to follow would be to follow deletion protocols by PROD-ing the article and then going to Articles for Deletion if another editor objects. Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is quite likely through the notability guidelines that any kind of Guinness world record claim is like a golden pass to wiki notability - its been rejected for a speedy so there is AFD - its basically a weakly cited low notability promotional article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ron Gluckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello: I don't know how to use Wiki, but I am Ron Gluckman, the subject of this listing. i was told there are problems with it, so I looked, and it's actually all accurate. You can check my website at www.gluckman.com or write me at <redacted> I believe this information is mainly from an interview i did with a young student who mentioned he would add this to wiki. Best wishes....ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.43.99.152 (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion page is blank and there isn't any controversy visible in the edit history. The article has merely been tagged as needing more and better reliable sources and also because it is not linked to by many other Wikipedia articles. However, as you probably know, working on it yourself would not be encouraged here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a few references.Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bio has got serious issues, notability being the first, subject is a journalist who writes a bit, but that is his job, no awards of worth that I can see WP:JOURNALIST doesn't seem to exist WP:AUTHOR - personally imo he isn't notable and the article needs a lot of help. Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This source, an interview by Rolf Potts, seems harmless but it looks self-published by Potts so I don't think it can be used per WP:BLPSPS, unless it's a reproduction of an article published by a third-party source. January ^(talk) 17:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Tanush Shaska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page for this person is repeatedly vandalized. It is claimed there that he has solved the differential inverse galois problem simply to ridicule him. There is no such problem. All the references are made up with malicious intent.

The webpage of this individual is at https://sites.google.com/a/oakland.edu/shaska/home

His resignation as Rector can be found at https://sites.google.com/a/univlora.edu.al/rector/

Either these references must be used or the page must be deleated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Univlora (talk • contribs) 07:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This bio has problems. User Univlora was warned on his talk page in 2008 by an admin who had concerns that the user name does not meet Wikipedia policy, presumably on the grounds that Univlora= University of Vlorë, a page the user actively edits and where Dr. Shaska was rector. I have some concern that the user may have a WP:COI issue. The bio is completely unsourced, and notability is not clear. There are also some unsourced allegations and attacks on the biography talk page which possibly should not remain. Probably worth a look by an admin.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sakher El Materi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor clearly has a hidden agenda behind his contributions. I created this biography with the sole purpose of keeping to the facts about who this guy is. It is clearly a controversial time in Tunisia's history so it is very tempting for these editors to write in a bias fashion and to use 'unreliable blogs' as sources. I would appreciate that somebody intervenes and it may possibly be an idea to freeze this account until Tunisia is no longer in the news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kand1nsk1 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As I believe I am referred to in the above, I would like to point out it is impossible for you to have created the page, unless User:Dirk daenen is a sock puppet of yours.--Banana (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This post was made before this user posted anything on the article talk page. I'm going offline right now, but could any passing admin or user take care of this? --Banana (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The material deleted by User Kandinski about the subject having a home in Canada was reliably sourced to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: "El Materi and his wife...own a home reportedly worth $2.5 million in Montreal's upscale Westmount neighbourhood." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2011/01/13/el-materi-montreal.html Kandinski's edit summary, "He does not own a house in Canada! These are rumors caused by all the rampant speculation that is presently happening!" was not appropriate. However, per the discussion page, the two users have raised these issues simultaneously on the Third Opinion and NPOV noticeboards. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted to Third Opinion because I did not realize Kand1nsk1 had posted here already. I have removed the dispute from Third Opinion. If I believe that Kand1nsk1 is controlling multiple accounts, should I request a sockpuppet investigation or wait to see what other people here think?--Banana (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've opened a sock puppet investigation here.--Banana (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Deleted, feel free to recreate a cited version

Princess Deborah of Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Princess Deborah of Saudi Arabia is a fake profile. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal has never had an American wife or a wife called Princess Deborah of Saudi Arabia. This needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themansaid (talk • contribs) 10:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A Google search finds mirrors of the WP bio and one user-created source which probably also echoes this bio. Candidate for SPEEDY. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The article was created on 8 March 2010 by KHC5 (talk · contribs), who also added her to Al-Waleed bin Talal in September 2009 - note this edit with edit summary "permission granted for first name of most recent wife to be included herein." KHC5 was pretty well an SPA, and was blocked as a role account in March 2010 by Keegan (talk). The only Ghit not an obvious mirror is this, also by "KHC5". If it were true, I'd expect more news hits. This should be easy to check - ask the Saudi embassy? JohnCD (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This Forbes Magazine profile from March 2010 shows Prince Waleed as "married, 2 children", and I think they would get that right; but his WP article had two more children, supposed to be Deborah's added in October 2009 by an IP editing together with KHC5. JohnCD (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have prodded it and removed the disputed uncited, if you can cite it feel free to replace and de prod. - Speedy delete and salt is another option. I have some vague memory of this happening previously... Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it as a hoax. If someone can creat a sourced article that asserts notability then there'd be no problem.   Will Beback  talk  20:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Good; and I have removed from the Prince's article her two children, added by the same dubious source. JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Manfred Eigen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To whom it may concern:

Dear Wikipedians,

I am amazed that, in the very short report on Manfred Eigen's career in Manfred Eigen, almost 25% of the whole text are spent to report on a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany about an habilitation examination where Eigen was an (apparently critical) member of the examination commission, trying to blame him as being "apodictic".

As almost nobody knows about this decision and, except for the people directly involved with it, it is of NO further interest, and it definitely does not represent 25% of the most notable facts of his career, this leaves the impression that here the guy whose habilitation thesis may have been critized by Eigen -- or some of his friends -- might have tried to take personal revenge (mis-)using Wikipedia.

IN the interest of Wikipedia, his should not be permitted, I would think, even if the reported facts might be correct.

With kindest regards, Andreas Dress

Andreas Dress 德乐思 Director em. CAS-MPG Partner Institute and Key Lab for Computational Biology, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of Science

• note - report from User:79.239.123.222

This would require a German speaker, which I am not, to evaluate fully. However, the assertion is sourced to a high German court and what I believe is a well-known newspaper. A sentence or two discussion of negative but well-sourced material in a short article does not violate the WP:WEIGHT standard; if it did, we could never include such information in short articles. Well sourced, relevant but critical information belongs in an encyclopedia; the WP:NICENESS standard does not exist. I will delete the "apodictic" reference; this is (per a Google search, I'd never heard the word before) a technical logic term meaning "Necessarily or demonstrably true; incontrovertible" and doesn't make sense in context. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jon, I use google translate to evaluate foreign sources and find it works well enough for such evaluations. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it - on investigation it is of no value in the subjects noteworthy life. Basically this guy Alfred Fleissner is complaining because he is not being accepted as a professor. the independent article that mentions Eien only once and not central to the issue, and the court doc is the type we are requested not to use as it has addresses and detail and such like. Is the guideline WP:PRIMARY - Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. As our article Federal Constitutional Court of Germany notes, " it is similar to the Supreme Court of the United States". If the subject of any already WP:NOTABLE bio was mentioned in a Supreme Court opinion, certainly if a party to the underlying case, I would include a mention of that in a heartbeat. No personal disrespect as you've done a lot of good work here (and worked very hard at it), but I regard this as an inadvertent, good faith example of WP:NICENESS in action. OTOH, I won't attempt anything so bold as a reversion because its not a bio I much care about or (in this instance) a piece of information worth fighting over. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, its worthless, completely - of no note at all in the subjects life. Have you read the primary court doc? We are directed to para 68 although exactly why I am unsure, but basically as I said, this guy appealed a decision and the subject was one of the people on a committee or made a support vote against the subject that he appealed and it appears to have been overturned - it might be notable in the appealers life story but its not in this subjects life story . Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – updated and corrected

Teresa Scanlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The reigning Miss America is NOT the youngest Miss America ever crowned, many of the earliest winners were younger. The very first Miss America, Margaret Gorman, who is recognized today as Miss America 1921, was 16 years old at the time of her coronation, as was Miss America 1922, Mary Katherine Campbell (the only woman to win the title twice, 1922 & 1923), and Miss America 1927, Lois Delander. The very youngest woman crowned Miss America was Marion Bergeron of Connecticut, who was 15 years old at the time of her coronation as Miss America 1933. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Grossetti (talk • contribs) 14:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you appear to be correct this states that winner was 16. We have the claim in a WP:RS cite but the report appears false, we are not obliged to accept the claim. Perhaps we could change it to - one of the youngest - Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict - I see Off2riorob got here first!) This is possibly a matter for the Miss America talk page, and the Teresa Scanlan talk page. This is a case of conflicting sources. The Reuters article cited in the article lede is certainly a reliable source on its face, and it says she is the youngest ever. But so is the Las Vegas Sun, and it cites these younger winners. Sources sometimes get it wrong. I'm not sure if there's an official way of dealing with that around here. Sometimes it's helpful to see if they may all be right, but simply describing describing the same thing in different ways. For example, the Reuters article proclaims her the "youngest winner ever in the pageant's history"- meaning she was crowned in a pageant version of the contest. Gorman (whose age was not clear according to the New York Times) won a pageant double-billed as "Inter-City Beauties" and "Atlantic City Bathing Beauty", which seems to be a forerunner of the Miss America organization and decided after the fact to call her "Miss America". I don't think it's worth getting into all this here, just pointing out that the Reuters article may be technically correct and just incomplete, or else it may be understandable why they got it wrong. Anyway, if you can find other good sourcing and the weight of the sources shows that Scanlan isn't the youngest, or that the issue of who is the youngest needs some explanation, then I would develop that discussion on the article talk page, see if anyone else has anything to say, and then go for it. I see that User:Off2riorob is working on the article. They're a very experienced editor and should be able to help, if you ask on their talk page. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Silvio Pollio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've notified WT:ATTACK, but this is probably a better forum. This article was tagged as ((db-attack)). I've removed the tag, as the information is referenced by reliable sources. However, the article consists primarily of negative information against the subject of the article (see the section "Criminal Convictions"). Is my approach in this particular matter correct? The article is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvio Pollio. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

After reading the section Wikipedia_talk:Attack_page#Clarification_of_"attack_page" (listed at WT:ATTACK), I'm inclined to remove the information. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For further information, see Talk:Silvio_Pollio#Removal_of_sourced_controversies. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Someone has now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvio Pollio - Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I linked the AfD above :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I missed that, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

William Collum (Referee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article seems to be subject to fairly regualar violation around the times that he officiates at big matches. Some form of protection/semi protection for the article may be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.38.124 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina Totenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A couple of editors at Talk:Nina Totenberg have asserted that opinion pieces are primary sources, plus that opinion pieces need additional sources to establish notability for subjects of BLPs discussed by opinion pieces, even though "notability guidelines do not limit content within an article". An example is an opinion piece by James Taranto in the The Wall Street Journal at [25]. The text that was used to represent the opinion piece was as follows: "Conservative Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto criticized her for "distorting the meaning of a quote by leaving parts of it out", a tactic he attributed to liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd."

If free-standing opinion pieces on BLP subjects can't be used in BLPs, then an awfully large amount of work needs to be done on existing BLPs in removing them. Drrll (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The editors have quoted WP:BLP that criticism and praise may be included but only if it is sourced to "reliable secondary sources". Do you disagree with the interpretation of the policy? Seems pretty clear to me. If there are other articles in which policy is violated, then, by all means, the criticism should be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that sources as the WSJ are reliable secondary sources as far as what WP regards as reliable secondary sources. Drrll (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WSJ can be a reliable secondary source in some contexts, but in this context, the piece in the WSJ is the criticism, making it for this purpose a primary source. That's how I interpret the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a distortion of the policy. An opinion column is a secondary source. Whether it's a useful opinion or not is a matter for WP:UNDUE, not WP:RS. Fences&Windows 19:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you're right, when does an opinion piece come from a primary source?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

An opinion piece could be a secondary source if it's summarizing other opinions. That happens in some columns, so the text of the source would need to be reviewed. But most opinion pieces are primary sources for the opinions of their writers.   Will Beback  talk  20:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:PSTS defines a secondary source as being "one step removed from an event", whereas primary sources are "often accounts written by people who are directly involved" - if the criticism is the actual event being described, then the person making it is directly involved and the source publishing it is not one step removed. I think a source is generally thought of as secondary if it's third-party published, however the example quoted in WP:SECONDARY of a military historian including their own experiences in a book being a primary source (where the book is otherwise a secondary source) seems similar to a journalist describing their own experiences or views in their column. Perhaps wider discussion is needed here, there doesn't seem to be a general consensus on this. January ^(talk) 20:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The WSJ is a valid source. Where opinions are used, the requirement is that the opinions be attributed as such. Collect (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What "requirement"? And does it just relate to opinions generally or to critical opinions about a BLP? No one is saying that WSJ is not a reliable source. That isn't the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably WP:NEWSORG, although that doesn't define them as primary or secondary sources. January ^(talk) 20:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG says: "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others. When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact."

Other than the last part (attributing it to the author), I can see this guideline (it's not a policy) as opening up one humongous can of worms for editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the intent is that the opinions of noteworthy people are worthy of note. In other words, if a very well-known person makes a comment about a lesser-known person then that comment may be worth reporting. But in almost every case, if the specific opinion itself is notable then it will have been repeated or referenced in a secondary source.

Taking information is another matter. For example, if a Nobel Prize winner in economics writes an Op-Ed column on some economic issue, we could assume that the facts are accurate and report then with attribution. If a common pundit asserted the same facts we might feel as confident.   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of confusion here on the subject here but yes, using an opinion piece as a source for the opinions of its author is primary sourcing. It's comparable to citing the bible as a source for the contents of the bible, or citing a piece of music as a source for the notes in the piece. In each case, the issue is not the nature of the piece itself, but rather how it is used. When a Wikipedia editor evaluates the piece and describes it asserts as a fact something said in the article that is primary sourcing. When the piece says the same thing that the article says, that is secondary sourcing. And when the piece asserts that third parties concur with a fact stated in the article, that is tertiary sourcing. So "Nina Totenberg has done X" [cite WSJ] is primary sourcing. "The WSJ says that Nina Totenberg has done X" [cite WSJ] is secondary sourcing.

There is a special provision for using opinion pieces in BLP, and more generally for using opinion pieces to cite the opinions expressed by their author or publisher. In general they do satisfy WP:V if used carefully so as not to claim the truth of what they say, and without editorial interpretation on the part of the author. However, they do not self-confirm that the statements are worthy of note, i.e. that they are of due WP:WEIGHT and relevance to the subject of the article. People say a log of things about each other in opinion pieces, and even experts and highly notable people may have a huge volume of writing output. Not everything said by every notable person or expert is worthy of adding to the encyclopedia. There has to be some reason. Normally, as Will Beback says, if the opinion is that significant then some third party (i.e. secondary) reliable source will report on the opinion. Absent that, one has to evaluate it to see if it belongs in the article and does not violate BLP. In either case, there has to be some consensus that is worthy of inclusion. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• So "Nina Totenberg has done X" [cite WSJ] is primary sourcing. "The WSJ says that Nina Totenberg has done X" [cite WSJ] is secondary sourcing.

I disagree with this analysis. The difference between those two sentences is that one attributes the fact and the other doesn't. A source is secondary or primary regardless of how we refer to it in a sentence. A source can be both primary and secondary. Let's say Maureen Dowd expresses an opinion about Bush and contrasts that with an opinion of another pundit. The article would be a primary source for Dowd's views and a secondary source for the other pundit's views. Not that any of this matters in the question at hand. ;)   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Erick Erickson (the blogger) Article should have warning of it being in dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Erick_Erickson

Properly Sourced Comments, are being removed as Vandalism with no other supporting technicality. Its basically like a blasphemy law where it can be very arbitrary what counts as "offensive" instead of what is actually verifiable and objectively accountable. Even when these quotes are addressed by CNN to Erickson (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003280008). See article history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erick_Erickson&diff=356429048&oldid=356428995

<object width='320' height='260'><param name='movie' value='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf'></param><param name='flashvars' value='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=201003280008'></param><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always'></param><param name='allownetworking' value='all'></param><embed src='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' flashvars='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=201003280008' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' width='320' height='260'></embed></object>

Justinian1979 (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The diff you used is over 8 months old. I'm guessing you're talking about the quotes by Erickson removed by the ip (65...) In this case, the IP was correct. Erickson is a major media personality, and, as such, has made literally hundreds of thousands of "quotable" comments. It is a violation of WP:NPOV to cherry pick a small handful to portray the subject in a negative light. Instead, we need to focus only on those comments that are notable themselves; for instance, the section on Nikki Haley is a good one, because the story was carried beyond Erickson himself to a wider frame.

In any event, it's very difficult for someone coming to the article right now to figure out exactly what it is you want. What I recommend is that you start a new section on the article's talk page, listing specifically which quotes you think are appropriate, why those particular quotes are notable, and what sources you have to show that said quotes are an imporant part of Erickson's career. I'll add the article to my watchlist and see what you have to say on the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

This is an article that has been deleted three times as an attack page. The first time it was deleted, in 2007, a section of the content was included in the edit summary meaning that it can now be seen in the deletion log. Is it possible to remove this entry from the deletion log? -- role^player 14:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it need oversight. Chase Oliver and also Chase oliver. I have protected against recreation meantime.--Scott Mac 14:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd didn't need oversight, only rev deletion. Now done.--Scott Mac 14:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- role^player 00:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Jo Morrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I SAW HER IN AN EPISODE OF THE "LAWMAN" SHE PLAYED THE ROLE OF MELANIE WELLS, 1962 THE EPISODE WAS ENTITLED "THE BRIDE" DR. J. CALVIN ALBERTY JO MORROW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.68.103 (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I can only suggest you add it to the article complete with a WP:RS - this noticeboard is not for requesting such additions to articles, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Douglas Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person doesn't seem notable enough to warrant a biographical entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.60 (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to Douglas Harper? It could maybe do with a better reference or two, but it looks fine to me. -- role^player 13:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. It might be better to merge Harper into Online Etymology Dictionary. From a quick initial glance I don't know that I see notability as an author or historical outside of his work with the dictionary, but someone more knowledgeable might want to tackle this.Griswaldo (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty certain he doesn't meet WP:PROF so that's that out. But as the author of the above dictionary he is cited 139 times at Google scholar and gets 44 hits at Google books. Douglas Harper without reference to the OED gets about 450 and 320 respectively, which alludes to some degree of notability outside the Online Etymology Dictionary. It's pretty near the threshold, but I think there's something there. As I say it needs better referencing. -- role^player 22:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Gillian Gamble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there I am the subject of this article but would rather it was removed as i feel it is irrelevant, not to mention some of the details being inaccurate. I proposed it for deletion but it was reverted. Please can it be deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.74.246 (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you seem to have extended the seven day delete prod by another seven days - the subject has won a couple of awards but is presently of relative minor note - I don't see that article improvement would help much,..thought anyone? The prod doesn't seem to have been contested so it could be speedied without waiting another seven days, unless someone thinks there is value in keeping it? Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete as per user request and because not notable. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have (somewhat boldly) deleted this one. The prod had been up for 10 days with no objection; the article is on the margins of our criteria, and I am assuming GF that this is the subject who is requesting deletion. --Kateshortforbob _talk 11:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Bryna Aisin Gioro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fake Profile: Bryna Aisin Gioro has unverified sources that link to spam sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sn0wTigressJ0 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out: none of the sources appear to be relevant to the subject, so I have gone ahead and proposed the article for deletion. If no sources are found within 10 days, the article should be deleted. --Kateshortforbob _talk 11:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Jon Bakhshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would some folks take a look at this BLP article, please, of a NYC nightclub promotor? Several apparent SPAs keep attempting to add unsourced negative information about the clubs and the person, in the process removing sourced information without explanation, while other apparent SPAs seems as if they might be connected to the subject. I've reverted them so often over the last four months (the article seems to have very few watchers) that the history might give the appearance that I've got ownership issues, whereas I don't really care about the subject much at all, I'm just trying to keep it in line with policy -- I cleared out a bunch of overly-promotional material from it not too long ago.

I've put warning tags on the SPAs talk page, but there's never rarely any response (and they don't use edit summaries) and the behavior continues. Some additional watchers would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Jakartajones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- approx. 24 of 66 edits to this article, remainder to related articles (i.e. Ivy Supersonic)
• Patricknyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- 6 of 8 edits are to this article
• Theparker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- 2 edits, all to this article
• Jjghj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- 5 edits, all to this article
• Stephyu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- 3 edits, all to this article
• Hunter345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- 8 of 24 edits to this article, remainder to related articles (i.e. Ivy Supersonic)
• Debvan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- only edit is to this article
• Editor1398 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- created article, other 2 edits are to the article
• 67.88.44.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- all 2 edits to this article
• 67.88.44.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- all 37 edits to this article
• 67.88.44.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- all 3 edits to this article
• 67.88.44.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- all 6 edits to this article

Taking a closer look, it seems as if there are two blocs here, one pro-Bakhshi (the IPs, Editor1398, Debvan, Patricknyc, Jjghj, Stephyu, Theparker) and one anti-Bakhshi (Hunter345, Jakartajones). One keeps adding info, the other keeps removing it. Between them, they've done almost all the editing to the article, with the exception of myself and some one-off edits from others. [26] I assume Jakartajones has been reverting me because he assumes I'm another in a line of pro-Bakhshi editors.

I'd file two SPIs for this obvious sock- or meatpuppetry, but I believe most of the data would be stale. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

All notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Dido (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trying to follow WP:V and WP:LP, I removed unsourced material (and thereby challenged it) from this article. I did so half a year ago with another BLP, and when other users put it back, my removal was accepted by this admin and the article was protected by another admin at my request. (The next day most content was re-added with sources.)

This time, however, when I asked for protection of the Dido article, the admin instead restored almost all material, including some 1.5-year-old cn-tags and unsourced quotes. Naturally, I find this surprising, and can't help wondering if it mattered to the admin that it was two experienced users, Finn Rindahl and Nymf, who were edit warring against me.

As I understand WP:V and WP:LP, anyone can remove unsourced content from articles, including/especially BLPs. And it's not like it's being deleted; anyone may restore it together with sources. The template uw-unsourced3 says:

Please do not add unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Finn Rindahl had this response: Could you please read WP:LP over again? I'm not adding any unsourced material, only reverting your removal of a third of the content of Dido (singer).

Apparently he thinks there is an importante difference between adding and re-adding unsourced stuff ... In addition, he and Nymf seem to think that the larger the unsourced part of an article is, the less right you have to remove it. Nymf also seems to have some odd thoughts about the importance of WP:REF in this context, and what that policy actually says.

Anyway, if you see someone inserting unsourced info, you can revert and warn the user, but if the unsourced info is already in the article, you can't just remove it? Where's the logic in that?

WP:V says: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed.

So, Wikipedia rules tell me that my edits were OK, but Finn Rindahl, Nymf and admin HJ Mitchell tell me the opposite. Am I interpreting the policy incorrectly? BTW, see this edit by another admin. Dugnad (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Basically it looks like everyone is in their own way following policy and guidelines - HJ Mitchell seems to have restored the content but hidden in preparation for citing and unhiding, this is one used option, another is to move the uncited to the talkpage to allow involved contributors to attempt to cite the content, another method would be to add citation needed to sections of content that require citing. All of these solutions are ok for what we call non controversial uncited content, although if disputed and removed, simple reversion and replacement of the uncited is perhaps one of the least good options. Although a possibilty under BLP to remove anything uncited, that is a pretty extreme solution for non controversial detail, one which is better to avoid imo - just as easy to look for citations and add them or add citation required templates and open a discussion on the talkpage to seek help to find some citations. Discussion is the key to working together here and improving article content, to which I notice you have yet to post on the article talkpage, discuss more there Dugnad as experienced contributors will help and explain their edit and you can also explain your issues with the content. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced content should be removed if it is considered doubtful, dubious, defamatory, libellous, etc. You just removed anything that lacked sources. I quoted WP:NOCITE at least twice, maybe even three or four times in different venues. It is pretty clear on the issue. I doubt you'll find any support for purging 35% of the article here, rather than using CN tags to actually improve the article. Nymf _hideliho! 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Maria Antonia Berrios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't really know what to do with this. An anonymous user 71.156.141.46 (talk · contribs) and a new user Repberrios (talk · contribs) —probably the same person— have been trying to remove sourced content and replace it with unsourced content to BLP Maria Antonia Berrios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User MikeLynch (talk · contribs) and I have reverted and put some warnings on their talk pages. I don't know whether the article violates the policy, or whether the user is trying to violate or "de-violate" it, so to speak. It surely looks like the user is acting in good faith though. Could someone have a look at this? TIA. DVdm (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have left a notice about this entry at user Repberrios' talk page. DVdm (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The content should be removed. The text violates neutrality. "Questions have been raised about the funding Berrios received when running uncontested in 2002". What questions? By whom? And Fox is not exactly a neutral source here.--Scott Mac 16:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott. Your intervention was instructive. DVdm (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Syed Ali Raza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. The gentleman written about in this article -- Syed Ali Raza -- is my uncle. I can therefore say with authority that several of the statements in this article are INCORRECT: His daughter is not named Alisha, and she is alive and well. The article is also highly incomplete and therefore misleading in other ways. On behalf of my family, I request that it be either amended or entirely removed from Wikipedia. Thank you very much.

I've removed some material from the article, on the grounds of the material in question being unreferenced, potentially controversial, and contested. You may wish to suggest references to add accurate material to the article, on the talk page for the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for an editor to refactor a talk page discussion to remove assertions of criminality, when the assertion of criminality is relevant to the discussion? In other words, if he didn't do it, no article, and if he did do it, probably article? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The talk pages in question, so far, are Talk:Jared Lee Loughner and Talk:2011 Tucson shooting. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think at this point stating that is stating fact, which means it cannot violate BLP; otherwise, we would have to remove all references of Charles Manson's crimes from his page, etc. Toa Nidhiki05 22:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Manson was found guilty. Otherwise, his page would say that he was "charged with" x, y and z and the result of the trial. Instead, as a result of the trial, have a look at what Charles Manson actually says. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What you're essentially arguing is that Wikipedia should always trust the court system; if that is so, then we should remove all 'contentious' accusations against ruthless dictators from their pages. This man is guilty, and it is so widely sourced it is ridiculous. Toa Nidhiki05 22:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am saying is that the material is contentious and unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am bowing out of this discussion at this point, unless directly questioned. The material on Talk:Jared Lee Loughner has been restored by another editor. I am leaving it in the capable hands of this noticeboard. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Who's next? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Anybody? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this thing on? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Without a pointer to the specific discussion that was removed, it could be tricky to discuss this in the abstract. Real-world BLP concerns are often a lot more clear than generalized discussions. But overall, as long as the discussion is on topic (cogent and reasonably related to improving the article) there is no BLP rationale for removing it. The guy just killed six people, seems to have planned it out, and people are observing that he is obviously insane and speculating about the broad implications. He is probably the subject of a million different online discussions, most far less respectful than ours here. For us to discuss this on a Wikipedia article talk page frequented by editors and not the general public for purposes of writing encyclopedic content about him is not going to further tarnish his reputation, form the basis for a lawsuit against Wikipedia or its editors, or otherwise hurt him. That he is innocent until proven guilty is a matter of American criminal law procedure, not a question of sourcing or respect for living people. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"people are observing that he is obviously insane and speculating about the broad implications" shouldn't those be your clues? COD psychologists, are no more capable of providing reliable information than the guy on the bus. Armchair pundits speculating about the speculation, in the snug seems a little bizarre. John lilburne (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not saying "The guy just killed six people... (and) is obviously insane". Reliable sources are saying he is suspected of killing six people. There's more than a bit of difference. This is contentious. So what? He's guilty, right? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Afraid that's not the case. The sources do say he was the gunman, and they do say that it is clear he has some severe mental problems. As well as sources can source anything, they've sourced that. When they are talking about the criminal procedure they say he is accused, when they talk about the mental health system they describe his place in it, etc. We would have to be careful in how we describe it in the article. Merely calling him a suspect doesn't cut it. But we cannot say out and out that he did it (it isn't our place to make such a declaration). None of that matters. We're discussing the talk page, and for purposes of improving the article we can discuss his criminal culpability, mental state, etc. Again, I haven't seen the specific material removed, but as a general matter we have to be able to talk about the subject of the article in order to write about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at one of the sources and apparently smoking marijuana most days is common enough pastime in Arizona, really? That article also quotes someone saying "he was really fascinated with semantics and how the world is really nothing" truly fascinating as that sort of think can be heard by most pot smoking 18-22 year olds, and a good number of those in their 30s-90s too. Quite simple that one article is not a reliable source with regards to anything other than what people said, and is probably spun too. John lilburne (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• The question was;"Is it appropriate for an editor to refactor a talk page discussion to remove assertions of criminality, when the assertion of criminality is relevant to the discussion?" In this case it was not appropriate. Maybe this question is better answered on a case by case basis. 1 of my comments was redacted and it really felt bizarre and unexpected; maybe this is something someone should get some kind of consensus agreement before doing (to a lot of different comments)? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", WP:BLP - SummerPhD (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct about the words, but that raises 3 points:

• 1: "contentious"? maybe not.
• 2: virtually none of our language on the talk pages is sourced and thus "unsourced or poorly sourced" is moot,I think
• 3: There are lots of Reliable Sources using the word "murder"(which is what you redacted from my talk page comment).

I am very much with you in principle and I urge you to have a look at [27] which I think is much more relevant to the points you make. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevence to the Assange article to this issue. Allegations have been made about Assange, we report the fact. He denies the allegations, and we report the fact too. We are making no assumptions of innocence or guilt there, per Wikipedia policy (and per libel law, and common sense). What is being asked is that the same thing should be done on the Loughner etc talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The guy is not going to sue Wikipedia for discussing coverage of the event, nor is anything we say on the article talk page going to materially affect his reputation. Getting the article wrong because we cannot have a reasonable discussion about it could actually do some slight amount of harm to the world. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Stating that Loughner has been accused of murder is factual, and cannot be a problem. Stating that he is a murderer is prejudging the legal process, and potentially libellous. It isn't our job to decide innocence or guilt. And neither is it necessary to make such a judgement to write an article. Regardless of how 'clear-cut' an individual case is, once people on Wikipedia talk pages start making such assumptions, they are laying both themselves and the WikiMedia Foundation open to legal action (and incidentally, engaging in WP:OR). Frankly, I think that people who can't understand this simple point would do better to avoid getting involved in articles like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Can we get real for a minute? It doesn't pass the straight face test to think he may not be the shooter, that discussing the obvious on the article talk page could harm him, or that Wikipedia has any legal liability over this. Wikipedia reports sourced information as to all facts about the world, not all facts as filtered through the lens of the American criminal justice system. It serves that aim to discuss article content frankly and openly on the talk page rather than engaging in disclaimers and formalities of avoidance. Original research is not an issue here either. I understand this point just fine, thank you. Again, nobody has pointed out the comment in question so this is all academic at this point. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are the words that were redacted from the talk page. The justifications given here for such unilateral redaction of good faith discussion certainly don't pass the straight face test (that's a good term). On the positive side, I think this episode is a good canary in the coal mine early warning that censorship is creeping into areas of public discourse, like right here on Wikipedia discussion pages, it hitherto feared to tread; so everyone has some time to decide whether or not to be compliant. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP is our policy. You have a choice, comply with it or go somewhere else. If you feel all of the material I removed fails the "straight face test", I invite you to repeatedly add it to the article. It will be repeatedly removed. The idea that talk pages are somehow exempt from WP:BLP does not pass the "reading the policy test". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

ok; I hear you, but,the benign material you removed was reinserted by another Editor and remains there, so I'm not sure what you're talking about with "repeatedly add"; in my case it was the 1 word "murder" on the talk page which you redacted and has since been restored and archived. Also, this disagreement is a matter of interpretation of BLP policy rather than willingness to adhere to it, at least from my end. Its unfortunate if you have a different impression. I am not suggesting that you exit Wikipedia because your interpretation may be different from mine. Also, its important to not misread; I said that the "justifications" for removal didn't pass the straight face test, not "all the material". In re-reading what I said above, I do apologise if my words and tone were combative or annoying in any way(although you graciously didn't say that); that is definitely something I must improve on. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Pradip Baijal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The current version of the page protected is not neutral, and is libelous. It promotes the point of view being pushed by Ashlonerider; who is a politically motivated editor who has a history of working on biographies of Indian politicians and government officers. Please revert back to a more neutral version which does not promote a view on Mr.Baijal and sticks to facts. He is one of the most distinguished and successful officers of the Indian Administrative Service. While some controversies have happened recently, none of the conclusions are correct. Let us not try to destroy the reputation of an officer who has served the country for 40 years - based on a Wiki editor's view on what is a very complicated issue in India. I would suggest introducing a neutrally worded protected page; as the current version is biased and defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.75.195.178 (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The reference to pradipbaijal.com should also be made, as it at least lays out all the achievements and history regarding Mr Baijal's biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.75.195.178 (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I left user Ashlonerider a note to let him know his additions have been mentioned here. I had a look at his contributions and they do appear to have been adding a lot of accusatory speculation. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. First off I am amused by the references made by the original unidentified IP complainants about my editing other political articles. That has no relevance to this debate because the Pradip Baijal is not a politician but retired as a civil servant. It is important to remember, that the said article on Pradip Baijal has been the target of repeated vandalism by 2 users and a number of IP-based users. The attempt each time was to eliminate the controversies section and focus ONLY on the positive aspects. Further the users in question refused to come on the talk page or to respond to queries raised on their talk pages and instead resorted to edit wars forcing me to apply for a lock: the second of which expires today. The reference to "juniors like us" in one of the vandalised edits is I believe a give-away on who these individuals may be. As for the controversies section: The said individual has had an illustrious career and this has been CLEARLY mentioned in the "Accomplishments" section. However the end of his career has been controversial. And this is not opinion but fact backed up by the fact that the individual has been the subject of investigation by agencies investigating into the Telecom and other scams. I believe in the interest of neutrality and indeed of completeness, an article on an individual must mention both the accomplishments as well as controversies if any without attempts to justify either. All the controversies mentioned, have been backed up with with the relevant links provided to media coverage of the incident and so does not constitute grounds for either libel or defamation. If anything, similar references need to be provided for many claims being made in the "accomplishments" section. The fact remains that the individual remains deeply mired in controversy at this point and is the subject of an investigation by authorities and has been questioned repeatedly as well had his houses raided. This is not "speculation" but reality known to everyone and backed up links to media articles. Are we saying that this entire part should be ignored and edited out and the focus should be on the positives only? Would this be neutrality? There has been a sustained attempt on the part of some individuals to edit out these negative references. Such attempts are clearly vandalism and should be penalised not condoned. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that your addition imo have been to add such speculative allegations that has created the reason for users to come and reduce the speculative content, your suggestions that it is all the others are vandals is undue, the content looks to me like it needs a NPOV write as soon as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The additions made are not speculative, but taken from published articles from reputed media houses. It is NOT Original Research. Details of this discussion can be found on the talk page of the said article. I am calling it vandalism because the edits being made are selective (again details clearly mentioned on the talk page). Further the users in question have consistently ignored the requests to sort out the matter on the talk page and instead resorted to edit wars as soon as the locks were removed. Infact 2 such selective edits have happened on the page today after the lock was removed: both by unidentified IP's. I think a NPOV edit can be done, however there should be no deletion of valid content unless it can be proved that the content put there is illegal or libelous in any manner. Negative aspects of an individual need also to be covered as long as they are not speculative but backed by reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 10:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Charles Phu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Poorly referenced article indicate that the biography could be promotion or marketing related. A wider search on Charles Phu on the internet does not indicate that a biograpy is useful or required on Wikipedia. Could moderators please take a look at the article to verify if it is self-promotion. (unsigned report was from User:1981editor - added by Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

A quick Google search finds some mentions of him as architect and set designer which suggest he meets minimum notability requirements. "Only a few days ago, the Russian media reported that RMJM architect Charles Phu mentioned at a public meeting that the firm is in regular receipt of ‘memoranda’ from Vladimir Putin personally, ‘encouraging’ them to go ahead with the project despite the controversy." http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/pavel-stroilov/lebedevs-tangled-web Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Battenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about a living person, and presently lacks any reliable sourcing, while making extreme claims. It says the subject is Irish nobility, in contrast to what the Sydney Morning Herald says:[28], [29], [30] and the Scotsman:[31]. Presently it is a BLP lacking a neutral point of view and lacking reliable sourcing (by Wikipedia standards). Someone has Prod'ed it since I began this post, so that would take care of it unless the Prod is removed. Edison (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have reduced the article to a stub due to the presence of controversial statements about living persons that were incoherently referenced or unreferenced. It would be great if you or someone else could use the references you list to try to improve the article, rather than leaving it to its likely fate of imminent deletion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The creator of the article - User:Letshavethetruestory2011 replaced the content - theres a fair bit of attacking content - basically uncited as the couple of blogspots were not reliable, I left the only really reliable cite and stubbed it back to almost nothing. If I was an admin I would speedy delete it, as an unremarkable person but that does not actually describe him. The first section of this http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653853635.html tells you all about this person. I left it as a prod, if a passing admin doesn't speedy it, the more or less uncited content attacking judges and and some club in Sydney reporters/the press should really be reverted on sight. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Igor Morozov (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm unable to link the article to the Russian, German and French articles about this artist. I'm also unable to wikify it in the correct way (in the other languages it was no problem, but as the English spelling is different, it's too complicate for me.I need help! Thank you very much!Angelika-Ditha (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – sockpuppets blocked

Kenneth O'Keefe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Starting with this last AFD there has been a number of single-purpose-accounts, that have repeatedly tried to keep and reinsert content, that is all poorly sourced, and sometimes promotional. Some were proven socks, though not all. But all have a common purpose. Semi-protection reduced it, but Anna O'Leary (talk · contribs) has been the most recent violator. Anna O'Leary was blocked for 48 hours for violating WP:3RR, but as soon as the block lifted, has done it again. The user has made some non-O'Keefe AFD contributions, but those seem to be a token attempt to not appear to be a SPA. I think a longer term block of this user is warranted. --Rob (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Content inserted by user Anna O'Leary seems argumentative, not neutral or encyclopedic. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

An admin has blocked User:Anna O'Leary and User:Katie Sweetmore indefinately for being sockpuppets. --Rob (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack Gerard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was the last line on Mr. Gerard's biography: "Personal: Jack Gerard has committed his life to serving others and his family as vigorously as he defends the petroleum industry. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#37408577"

I'm not sure how the link "http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#37408577" corresponds to the line about Jack Gerard committed his life to serving others and his family.

Please see the CCAIN Institute page on Jack. There is better biographical information on that page: http://www.ccainstitute.org/who-we-are/our-board-bios/jack-n-gerard.html

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.20.210 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Thanks I added that citation to the article about his company API. The article has been prodded, really a bold redirect to the American Petroleum Institute might be a good idea, noteworthy CEO, major company ? Off2riorob (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

John Etnier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SHOULD BE TAGGED FOR SPEEDY DELETION? Is a possible autobiography w/COAs - see edits by John Etnier as well as IP addresses close to this one (from Maine on Road Runner ISP) (NPOV)- Neutral point of view is NOT maintained - (NOR)- Appears to possibly contain Original Research - Notes are presented as part of References and NONE of the notes/references can be verified. The single reference/note that appears to be verifiable is a link to music store site ecstaticpeace.com - Byron Coley, one of the owners of the store is also quoted in the main body. That link takes the reader to another link . (V)- Verifiability is NOT present - The other reference/notes have no verification or site OCLC Online Computer Library Center, but follow-up reveals none of the material is available... "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." A7. No indication of importance. There are MANY musicians in and from Maine and the US who have as much or more published material. Volume of work is not indicative of importance. Neither is being from wealth and having a famous and talented father. The inclusion in WIKI is what is most notable about this particular person for the average American reader... A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings). "The Same Band" ?? G11. Contains Unambiguous advertising and self-promotion. See ALL of the EXTERNAL LINKS -74.75.249.135 (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• - The article has been tagged for speedy, seems a bit extreme to me, its been around for a year, a prod might have been better to allow anyone interested to address the problems raised.a local band with a small degree of note - Maine - if anyone is interested enough to remove the speedy. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty sure it's not a WP:CSD#G11 because it doesn't come across as unambiguous advertising, and WP:CSD#A9 doesn't apply here because the article isn't about an album or musical recording, it's about a person. The problem with proving or disproving WP:CSD#A7 is that none of the references are easily verifiable. But there are references and claims to notability, and speedy deletions have been turned down in the past on a lot less. I too would support swapping the speedy tag for a prod. -- role^player 14:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully: There needs to be some discussion before a perfunctory fundamental change this edit!

We are an IP but certainly familiar with this. Again, most every guideline regarding what WIKI is and does is violated here. Several criteria for speedy deletion have been very clearly demonstrated. This article has no reasonable chance of surviving unbiased discussion. "In this context, "speedy" refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created."

• This is an autobiography. Please review WIKI guidelines Regarding This Topic specifically:"Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted."
  

• I also would refer you to the WIKI policies on Biographies of living persons [[32]]. This article violates most if not all of the major guidelines listed there. The autobiography is presented as a hybrid of topics--

• WP:CSD#G11 is at least germane as this is clearly a "self-promotion" Conflict of Interest. Please refer to the WIKI Guidelines on [COIs ].
  
• WP:CSD#A9 is also germane as the article is primarily about an obscure discography. There is not a clearly specific tag for this particular instance, and remember that, there are no rules only guidelines and common sense.

• WP:CSD#MULTI is correct and the deletion of that tag should be reversed.
  

• Because this has been around for some time is actually MORE cause for speedy removal, certainly not less!! The author/subject is a marketing professional as per information he's provided in the article and in sites to which he has provided as "outside links". All 3 of these links are sites directly selling his personal goods and services.
  
• This is a clear and substantial COI - He actually uses the WIKI article he created as a reference for potential customers Right here.. If this was an organic incarnation of the page, created because there is merit, support and verifiable documentation for such, that would be one thing, but this is simply another page he has created and is using to self promote.
  

This should have been posted as a proposal before being written by the original author/editor ABOUT himself! This article has no chance of surviving reasoned and unbiased discussion, demonstrating not one, but several clear criteria for speedy deletion. Further, it serves to imbue undue importance upon a single individual who holds no significant place even in the relatively small, but coherent community of the music industry from the Southern Maine area. In this way it has also become a well-promoted disparagement of the real depth of that community. To that point speedy deletion is also harm reduction. We're reinstating speedy deletion tag based on the above and the hope is that this proper WIKI procedure will not again be interrupted, it means that there will be correct process and if there is deletion, we know that it is not necessarily permanent. 74.75.249.135 (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A few points that you need to bear in mind:

• At Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion it states: Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page. - As I'm a registered editor who patrols recent changes regularly I know the speedy deletion criteria quite well, and therefore am within my right to remove the speedy tag if I think the article doesn't fit the category.
• The wording of WP:CSD#G12 states: Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. - that doesn't cover this article, which is written in an encyclopedic style. Someone may have been using it to promote themselves, but that doesn't mean it's promotional.
• The wording of WP:CSD#A9 states: An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist (both conditions must be true). - this article is not solely about a musical recording and it is about the artist so it doesn't satisfy this criteria either.
• The wording of WP:CSD#A7 states: An article about a real person... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources - this article does say why the subject is significant, it just can't back it up with verifiable sources. As the text says that is outside the bounds of this criteria also.

Therefore the article does not meet the speedy deletion criteria. However that doesn't mean it should be kept, which is why I have proposed the deletion of the article, and have warned the creator of the article that I have done this. I will also continue to watch the article, and will follow the deletion process through according to Wikipedia policy, meaning that if the prod notice is removed without changes being made to the article to my satisfaction, I will nominate it through afd instead.

However as it stands it does not qualify for speedy deletion, and any reviewing admin would have seen that and turned your nomination down. You need to understand that, and the reasons why. -- role^player 00:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your points to remember Roleplayer- This seems to be looking like a struggle of personalities of sorts or perhaps an edit war, and that is not productive. We should try for some resolution here. While we wait for that, here is a different position, again submitted respectfully in disagreement with yours.
Your rights are certainly acknowledged, but sometimes exercise of such rights are counter-productive.

• Please be assured, there are rights on this side that have not been exercised because these may be counter to the intent and spirit of WIKI-
  
• There has been and will continue to be restraint on this end.
  
• Please, do not instruct as to what is "needed" to be understood. This is your understanding and it is acknowledged as legitimate, but most often a point of view is not a singularity.
  
• There is no fundamental lack of understanding demonstrated on either side, there is however a difference of opinion - it will be more productive to work with that in mind.
  
• You have pointed out guidelines(rules) to support your position, but let's not forget the 5th pillar-
  
• Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule...
• It is still believed that the criteria have been more than met- an autobiographical article of this nature should not have been permitted to start, and being used as it has been it should not exist. There certainly exists a good deal of precedent and guidelines to support these assertions. More importantly, the spirit and intent of WIKI has been transgressed in several important ways, as pointed out.
  
• The article in question is not solely about any one thing, and looking at the 5th pillar, there are no rules. Common sense, and the intent of WIKI, not the letter of guidelines must prevail.
  
• No matter the formatting, the article was created for and is being used as; promotion for personal services, vanity and monetary gain!
  
• Please point out the indication of significance? It seems to be based on recordings presented in the article. What are the particular and specific assertions of significance?
  
• It all seems quite common from the view point of persons who have direct experience and a deep understanding regarding the music industry in Maine over the last 40 years. Do you have this? If so why do you not reveal that connection? If not, perhaps you might consider deferment to a much more authoritative source? What he lists as accomplishments have been superseded by many in the same environment and time period and are not considered of note by the local, regional or national community. Seriously, where is the significance in any of the material presented?
  
• The article could have been deleted or stripped of much of the content, but has not been and will not from here. We have at least 2 well established accounts that could do so, but because this is coming from a location and knowledge base that could be construed as having a COI - it is preferred to have ADMIN take a look.
  
• Unfortunately, this process seems to have been subjugated for whatever reason(s). On the talk page, comments have been compressed with formatting stripped- this renders the text much less accessible and readable. To that point- the rational has not been clearly read even once by that editor, (or perhaps any?)- "it" posts an internal link suggesting this IP should review the contents of such... That same link is posted as reference in the very text being changed, challenged and critiqued. Seems to perhaps be less than good faith-
• The same approach, style and actions as have been used by this Roleplayer account here...
  
• Let's try to be productive, if you must change formatting by someone who is more concerned with progress than prettiness, please do not simply strip spacing thus rendering solid blocks of text making the information much less accessible for readers. Consider insertion of a couple of symbols- take the same effort. This exact same reformatting has been done on the talk page- by what is apparently a different and unconnected editor? Let's try to stay with the intent of WIKI and not the letter- to be productive.
  

Putting the editing contention aside, Why do you think this article belongs on WIKI for even another day? Thanks for your productive reply to this question. 74.75.249.135 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you now appear to be accusing me of something and I'm not even entirely sure what I'm being accused of: The same approach, style and actions as have been used by this Roleplayer account here... I'm taking the same stance as User:Off2riorob: WP:TLDR. It would take up way more of my time than I am willing to forego in order to understand what your problem is with me so I'm going to watch the article, follow proper process until it's either vastly improved or deleted, and that's my involvement in this situation ended. Thank you. -- role^player 12:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review these comments you apparently see as TLDR. It is unfortunate that it's felt your reply needed to focus on a single point near the end of this TLDR... Least germane to the real issue here. Please accept all apologies for any impression you may have that there was implied criticism. This is only accurate observation, it is quite direct and pointed and requires no time to understand- your procedure/methods are questioned. Seriously, how can you conscientiously edit, post or even comment if you don't have time to read a couple of paragraphs?

From the top of the page ["TLDR Page"]: " As a label, it is also effective as a tactic which thwarts the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing. TL;DR is a shorthand observation very much like the complaint that Mozart's music has too many notes. The label is used to end discussion rather than engaging it. "
It has thus been used by both of you.

This particular log seems to be drifting away from proper ["Wikiquette"] on both sides. Proactively, let's try to focus on a few of those points;

• Work towards agreement.
• Argue facts, not personalities.
• Do not make misrepresentations.
• Do not ignore questions
  

You stated "this article does say why the subject is significant" could you please elaborate- where and how is this accomplished?
Again, Why do you think this article belongs on WIKI for even another day? Thanks for your productive F/U to these questions.--74.75.249.135 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the ongoing dispute over the name and scope of this article, one protagonist now claims that the state of Israel " is a legal personality in international law, and any unsourced claims of a crime committed by this legal person would, or should, from legal point of view, also come under the same WP:BLP policy."[33] Would a regular of this page care to disabuse her/him of this absurd notion? RolandR (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• - its completely ridiculous at least here at wikipedia the country Israel is not for the benefit of BLP policy a person. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that individually living persons are not to be slandered in Wikipedia because they may take that to court, but when taken collectively as a country, Wikipedia editors can slander as many people as they want with no fear of legal repercussions? The Wikipedia legal representatives do not recognise international law as binding? And yet Israel has same legal rights in national law also, and can be taken to court. I'd like a comment from the Wikimedia Foundation. I should also note that the policy is in fact in plural Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, so I gather it applies to groups of notable living persons also, for example Nobel Prize winners, and since the Government of Israel has a number of such persons, and therefore constitutes a group, they are in fact being collectively accused of apartheid crime using contentious material that is...poorly sourcedKoakhtzvigad (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP applies to living people, and to no other entity or thing. It does not apply to dead people, fictional people, companies, or nations. All articles, regardless of topic, should comply with the core content policies of NPOV, NOR, and V. Unverifiable material does not belong in any article.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing that repeatedly causes great surprise, is that the primary purpose of WP:BLP (a policy) is not to protect the Wikimedia Foundation, or individual Wikipedia editors, from litigation. So Koakhtzvigad's point is confused in that respect at least (and probably in other respects). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And if we go to WP:BLPGROUP, it says there "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." Now the "Israel" in the article is really the Cabinet of Israel, which consists of a fairly small group of 30 ministers and nine deputy ministers, all living. At some stage editors need to realize that the allegations made in the article ultimately link to these living people. So what is going to happen when I start adding names to supposed apartheid policies? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is now to exclude any negative commentary about any government, on the basis that it violates international law? Are we going to extend this to non-government organisations too? The Tea Party? WikiLeaks? Hamas?... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just asking if editors realise that behind corporate entities there are living people. It seems unavoidable to mention at some stage the people who are claimed to have instituted and perpetuated apartheid in Israel in the article in question. And, this spans several decades. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ashanti (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Entry is biased, serves subject's commercial gain, and is outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.182.175 (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The article contains a couple of questionable statements but otherwise seems par for the course for a pop star in detail and sourcing. Perhaps if you mentioned specific assertions that bother you, you would get more feedback? Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Binayak Sen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone please take a look at this? Indian doctor found guilty of sedition last month. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Detailed discussion of criminal case against individual who has wide support in the international human rights community, sourced to BBC, Human Rights Watch press statements, and to several Indian newspapers. The article may be somewhat sympathetic to Sen but doesn't seem like a puff piece, as it lays out the charges against him and quotes various government officials who believe he is guilty. Did you have more specific concerns? Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Alan Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am concerned that there are a number of unsourced negative statements throughout this biography. I also think that the section concerning his time as Shadow Chancellor would not be neutrally weighted even if were sourced. Because Alan Johnson has very recently resigned as Shadow Chancellor, this biography may receive more attention in the near future than it typically might.

I have a conflict of interest in this subject area (and a particular conflict with regards to this article) and so I would be grateful if someone else could review these issues.

CIreland (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The editing history shows that a couple of the regulars here have now done some editing on the article as a result of your post. It looks to me as if there are not WP:RS problems, as everything seems to be sourced to BBC, the Guardian, etc. The "Shadow Cabinet" para may still violate WP:UNDUE. It would probably best be repaired by someone who follows British politics, though. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Connelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is http://www.starlounge.com/index.cfm?objectid=101881 a good enough source to assert that Jennifer Connelly has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say no for this assertion. It's a BLP issue and I'd like something from a more mainstream source. You'd think if this is true it could be easily found. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, stating that a living person has an illness should require a quality citation - preferably a comment from the subject themselves - there are also a few un reliable looking cites supporting some of the names here List of people diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder such as www.celebretieswithillnesses.com and www.popdirt.com Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Marcel Rodriguez-Lopez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article does not meet notability guidelines and reads more like an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.190.177 (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A decent article will be beneficial to the subject. - he does look of limited note, music experts? - the content isn't controversial or contentious just weakly cited, perhaps he is not individually notable yet and a redirect to his brother ... I have tagged it as BLP reference improve. Feel free to add some improvements yourself, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – 17:27, 21 January 2011 User:JohnCD deleted "Euan Semple" ‎ (Wikipedia:CSD#A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Euan Semple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is just a self-congratulary advert for someone who works in social media and wants to promote their company and blog. He worked on the BBC Intranet, not even the public facing social media areas, so I don't think that this qualifies him for a wikipedia article about himself. He's not important or famous enough, just another social media dude trying to get his name out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helen Edwards (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Mechele Linehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are serval issues incorrect in the Mechele Linehan file. Nurmerous times they have been changed and continuously reverted back. Specifically in the early years, marriage and education. More importantly for the wiki folks is the litigious material referring to disdproved via trail(already litigated) information. Please correct the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechelelinehan (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to read WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Then, rather than editing the article yourself, you can suggest changes to the article based on reliable sources on the article's Talk page. And you should be specific as to what changes should be made. Even here, you don't specify precisely what is incorrect and why. In any event, it's better to do this first on the Talk page of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like some third, fourth, and fifth opinions on the notability of this journeyman boxer, esp. since WP:ATHLETE has no guidelines for boxers. In other words, I can't establish if the guy fought at the highest level, which is one of the rules of thumb for athletic notability. The article is currently up for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Rumbolz, and I am putting my delete vote on hold until one of you experts can have a look at the article. Note: I am not trying to canvass one way or the other--I don't care so much about this particular article. Please weigh in--and maybe someone smarter and more pugilistically inclined than me can add something to WP:ATHLETE. Thanks in advance! Drmies (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Katie Puckrik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please delete the date of birth because of identity theft / privacy issues. It's been deleted before but a user keeps re-posting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doowylloh (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you already did it. We don't have a rule that would prevent the info being re-added on those grounds specifically, but you're within your rights unless a citation with a reliable source is provided. --FormerIP (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DOB permits the subject of an article to complain about including the person's date of birth based on privacy. If you are not the subject, though, you have no basis on which to complain. Your edit summaries seem to indicate that you are removing the DOB, not because of "identity theft" but because of lack of sources ("Removed birthdate. Not verifiable content."), which is a wholly separate issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

From WP:DOB: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth where these have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". I'd say this is the principle we should apply here - anyone wishing to include Puckrik's DoB should be required to provide WP:RS that meets this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

MSNBC just announced his contract is over; there's very little official info and I'm already seeing the OR come in. Perhaps someone who actually cares about Olbermann could watch his article? :P /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Steven Rattner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am concerned that some of the information in Steven Rattner violates WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, and WP:BLP. Specifically, it's the last two sentences of the Personal section, which specifically calls out the person who introduced him and his current wife, as well as one particular person he used to date. It is my belief that this information is being included to imply an improper relationship, because of their relationship to the New York Times. I'm especially concerned that there is simply no reason to mention that he "briefly dated" someone, given that said someone is a person with a highly negative reputation as a journalist. Another editor states (see Talk:Steven Rattner) that because the information is verified, it should be included. Thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If a person briefly dates someone unless there are additional details that specifically effect their life it is not notable - lists of the dates people of had etc, of no note in their biography, engagements and established relationships of note get a mention but less than that is trivia - As is who they were introduced by cited to some obscure book, with no added detail, so? What is notable about that? It hasn't been reported anywhere in the press? It asserts something that is not written - some kind of unspoken conspiracy issue which readers can only imagine. User:Joysent explains the unspoken conspiracy WP:SYN in an edit summary it's important, especially considering Times coverage of Rattner pension pay-to-play scandal. - User:Becritical removed the briefly dated comment and on investigation I removed the obscurely cited introduced by content as trivia.Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

These verifiable facts illustrate Rattner's strong social ties to the New York Times. Perhaps this would be better accomplished with a sentence such as "Rattner is a close friend of Arthur Sulzberger, Jr, the publisher of the New York Times." The Washington Post sees fit to cite this information in its profile on WhoRunsGov, yet illustrative details are called unimportant trivia here. Your allegations of a "conspiracy theory" are also bogus. There is nothing secret about Rattner's friendship with Sulzberger, and saying this is important when considering coverage of the pension scandal is not implying that there was any conspiracy at the Times. On the contrary, I though the Times' frequent front page coverage of the issue was remarkable, considering these institutional ties to Rattner. But that is just my personal opinion. You can conclude whatever you like, I'm just trying to put relevant facts out there. Joysent (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks for commenting Joysent, it still sounds like trivia and unspoken synthesis to me that WT article is about 4 pages long, I struggled to find the name you mentioned I imagine he has lots of friends and I just don't see that its worth adding in his notable details of his life story, like its his friend, so ? do they go on holiday or something at least to explain what is noteworthy about it. It sounds like investigative journalism to me when you say your desired addition serves to, "illustrate Rattner's strong social ties to the New York Times" - I am even less impressed with the desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Sulzberger friendship is already noted in the Rattner article. Yes, I'm sure he has many friends, but his friendship with Sulzberger has been noted by numerous publications, including, as it turns out, Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you have become so absorbed by this, as you seem to have very little familiarity with this topic. I'm also not sure what you are advocating for and on what grounds. Joysent (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Louis Zorich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - Is this enough detail to assert that the subject is an ethnic Croatian, although it isn't clearly stated and requires a smidgen of OR, or at least a combination of sources. If it is, is anyone experienced with footnotes to add the detail and the combined citations, or perhaps the details would be better added in the body of the article? This is a bit of a lingering long term back and forth between Croatian and Bosnian although the ip that is adding Bosnian has made no attempt to explain his reverts. Presently I added Yugoslavian in an attempt end the issue because when the subject was born the country was under that name but apparently this is also incorrect as they would be more accurately described as Austro-Hungarian immigrants, another pair of eyes would be appreciated - Can we use the comment below to assert the subject is an ethnic Croatian? Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Chris Zorich is half Croatian and half African American - his mother was therefore a Croatian - Zora Zorich http://www.chriszorich.org/biography/ - Zora's sister in law was Olympia Dukakis - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4034185.html - Sometimes Chris Zorich's Uncle Louis and his Aunt Olympia--Olympia Dukakis helped pay Zora's rent http://articles.latimes.com/1991-05-12/sports/sp-2728_1_chris-zorich ... so Zora is the sister of Louis http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20114272,00.html making Louis Zorich ethnically Croatian. .... Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• - I would be grateful if the editors could make a ruling on this topic, please. Many thanks. Grabovcan (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

John Cornwall (South Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The section about legal claims by Dawn Rowan (headed Controversy) is inaccurate and libellous. Cornwall as Minister convened a panel to report to him about claims of maladministation at the shelter, a quite legilmate and propoer thing for a Minister to do. He released the report once it was completed. Rowan pursued claims in defamation and misfeasance against 10 defendants, inlcuding Cornwall, but she was ultimately unsuccessful (not acknowledged in the entry). The entry implies the case (Cornwall's career was overshadoed by...) was of much greater significance to Cornwall's career and reputaion than it was in fact. The entry should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exhibition08 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Exhibition08 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The text in question appears to be based on two reliable sources: ABC and The Age. Are there any sources to refute those two news organizations? —C.Fred (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The story in The Age says "Justice Debelle found that the accusations were a "shocking libel" motivated, in the case of some defendants, by malice (which removed the defence of parliamentary privilege) and found Dr Cornwall guilty of misfeasance (releasing the report under parliamentary privilege knowing it was false).[34] That appears to support the claims that Cornwall was found guilty. —C.Fred (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The best additional information I've found so far is the Diamond Valley News (local paper) which states:

JUNE 21, 2002: Supreme Court Justice Bruce Debelle finds the governments, Network Ten and the ABC guilty of defamation and awards Ms Rowan a total of $585,000. He finds Ms Roberts and two other review committee members acted with malice, and Dr Cornwall guilty of misfeasance.

NOVEMBER 2004: The Full Court of the Supreme Court overturns Justice Debelle's finding of defamation against the television stations and the federal government. The ruling of defamation against state government defendants is upheld, but the finding of malice is overturned.

I'll see if I can find some more, but my question concerns "...but the finding of malice is overturned". Would this mean that the finding of "misfeasance" was overturned, as my understanding from The Age was that this was possibly dependent on the "malice" finding? anyway, I'll check press reports from 2004. Maybe something will be clearer. (I do remember the case, but it wasn't something I closely followed). - Bilby (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Two more, if it helps: The Advertiser, 2 April 2005, in relation to the second court decision "Although it upheld the earlier rulings against Dr Cornwall and committee member Judith Roberts, it dismissed the earlier finding the other committee members had acted with malice." And The Advertiser, 25 November 204, "Ms Rowan took legal action in the Supreme Court, which found Dr Cornwall had acted with misfeasance and the committee with malice. Yesterday, the Full Court of the Supreme Court upheld those findings, despite an appeal by many of the 13 defendants. However, Justices David Bleby, Anthony Besanko and John Sulan reduced the amount of damages for which Dr Cornwall was liable to $305,000." It seems he was still found guilty, irrespective of the "malice" issue. At least according to the newspaper sources. I can't find anything else post 2004 in Newsbank that adds any more to the account. - Bilby (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Exhibition08 appears to be a single purpose account who has repeatedly removed sourced information from the article. Edward321 (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)