This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Rick Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Under Governor, Paragraph 7 indicates that Perry's tort reform reduced medical malpractice insurance costs by 30%. The New York Times article cited lists the decrease as 21%. Additionally, the article doesn't offer the 21% as fact, but rather quotes a known tort reform advocate who offers the number without citing his source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjustmenthandle (talk • contribs) 00:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Paul London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The last line of of Paul London's biography, in the section titled "personal life" alleges Mr. London "has admitted to having a affair with Brian Kendrick". This phrase was added to a sentence about his having a romantic relationship with Ashley Massaro (a female), and the cite was for a note about Ms. Massaro.
This "addition" appears to be malicious - there is no source cited, and no indication elsewhere in the article that Mr. London was romantically involved with Mr. Kendrick or any other man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.36.24.77 (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Death of Mark Duggan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Mark Duggan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A significant number of both delete and keep !vs are referencing BLP1E. How does BLP1E relate to a dead person?--Cerejota (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Mohamed Farrah Aidid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Presidents of Somalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
somalia has never had a president since mohamed siad barre (1991) - ali mahdi mohamed was a self-declared one but for a short period of time between january and june 1991. Please remove mohamed faarax aidid and hussein mohamed faarax aidid from somalian presidents' list. There is no somalia central state since 1991. Merci
(Undent)You make a good point. I have left a note at the list's talk page, pointing here to BLPN. Following are excerpts from the Concise Encyclopaedia of World History by Carlos Ramirez-Faria (Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 2007):
Somalia fragmented into warlordist fiefs in 1991 and Barre had to leave the country....Since 1995, Somaliland [northern Somalia] has been stable with its own president, Mohammed Haji Ibrahim Egal....Elections gave the presidency of Somaliland to Dahir Rayale Kahin, re-elected in 2003....A count by a reporter in November 2003 put at five the number of would-be presidents of Somalia.
So, it looks like you're correct that Barre was the last president, and the others should come off the list.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Topic has become a long magnet for trolls coming simply to complain. Content is being discussed on the talk page and looks to have some resolution. Closing to prevent further descent into chaos --Errant (chat!) 11:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Luke Evans (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User "Acerroad" keeps deleting properly sourced and verified information regarding the personal life of this individual. The section should read: Luke Evans came out as gay in an interview with The Advocate in 2002.[3] In September, 2010, however, it was reported that he was dating a woman, Holly Goodchild, the former personal assistant of singer Charlotte Church.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe1958 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I have received a warning for engaging in an "edit war" and for making more than three revisions in a 24-hour period, which is untrue. I did not make more than 3 revisions in a 24-hour period. And the revisions I made were mostly to add proper references and citations to make the "Personal life" section conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Someone keeps deleting any reference to a publicly available interview that Mr. Evans did with The Advocate in 2002. The article is from a reputable source and verifiable. The article is only one of several magazine articles that Evans did over a period of several years in which Evans spoke at great length about being a publicly out gay actor. I don't understand why this information keeps getting removed when it is public record, quotes Evans himself, and comes from verifiable sources.JoeBotX (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This is not a BLP issue. We have two very reliable sources where Evans says he is gay and furthermore, links its strong relevance to his acting career. We have another reliable source (Wales Online) reporting that he is in a heterosexual relationship; WalesOnline is reliable, even if they are clearly publishing churnalism floated by a publicist (but this is not relevant to the strength of the citation). AfterElton are also very reliable, and have published a synthesis of this discrepancy and a reliably-attributed comment from Evans' management where they more or less admit to telling him to keep quiet about being gay. However, that inference is for the reader to draw. As of my last revision, the article is entirely factual and not contestable by crying BLP.Zythe (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
the addition
In 2002 interview with The Advocate, Evans identified himself as an out gay man and stated "I knew that even though my part was a straight character everybody knew me as a gay man, and in my life in London I never tried to hide it.... So I thought, 'Well, I'm going to have to be open. It's who I am. And if people don't like it, then I don't want their jobs.'" In September 2010 however, WalesOnline reported Evans as dating "fashion industry marketing expert" Holly Goodchild AfterElton.com contacted Evans' management, who declined to clarify his sexuality and stated "I do not comment on my client's personal lives in the media. As for Luke, he did so once, a long time ago when he was an inexperienced, young actor and now with maturity and hindsight, he has learned not to engage the press in his personal life again comments as regards the notability /privacy issues of the subjects sexualityCorrected. Because it's annoying the hell out of me and betrays some bias/perceptions here. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC) add comments here please. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS only relate to categories, as does the 'only mention sexuality if it's notable to the subject's public life' clause. I don't think any of this is notable to Luke Evans public life, even if he is publicly out. I really don't see how its any business of Wikipedia if someone like Duncan James is bisexual, essentially coming out before being outed by for at the hands of The News of the World. That someone's private sexual preferences can be discussed at length in BLPs seems very off to me. This applies to content and cats. If a subject is a LGBT advocate, that is one thing. If they are LGBT person going about their private business, that is another. How not? Span (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Ugh. Evans is quoted as saying how it is VERY important to him to be out at an early age and to not have this skeleton in his closet. No one is trying to pigeonhole him or for that matter Duncan James as a gay activist. (Duncan James' outing does have added notability given it was by NoTW who probably hacked him, but that's a side-issue.) You're two editors who are determined to make it so that these people's personal lives which they have adamantly disclose openly should be kept hidden, and you're keen to malign someone like me as a myopic gay activist when I am in fact just a stickler for policy which states three issues: WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.Zythe (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that saying being gay is not "notable" is a blatant double standard given how most biographies of straight people mention things down to who was dating whom (e.g. Alanis Morisette). We don't mention they're straight because it's pretty damn obvious and it's the default, isn't it? By simply mentioning who they're dating, you are already actually divulging their sexuality. It's also their own private romantic lives and not actually "encyclopedically notable", so why can they be mentioned? Because it's actually an intrinsic part of a person's life, whether it actually has anything to do with their notability or not. Same thing with being gay. The incessant refrain of 'we don't say someone is heterosexual' is becoming ridiculous. It's not like we're accusing them of being axe-murderers. In cases where it's clearly noncontroversial and freely admitted (e.g. Neil Patrick Harris where being gay is also not central to his life), it can obviously be mentioned in the same way that we can mention where Actor X went to high school. But I digress... In this case, I also think it should not be mentioned. AfterElton and The Advocate, etc. are not quite neutral sources. And given the actor's apparent reluctance to clarify things on why he's dating a woman these days, it's best to assume he doesn't want to talk about it. Bringing attention to it strikes me as forced outing and scandal-mongering, sorry. It's all speculation at this point, so unless he reaffirms his earlier statements in previous interviews, it is quite controversial and falls under WP:BLP.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Here's my summary of the arguments so far, with a few additions of my own:
--Merrywanderer (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Abuse of processOff2riorob (talk · contribs) has unofficially "locked" the page on his preferred version for the past 6 months and has made 4 reverts which have repeatedly removed NPOV/RS information and re-inserted BLP-violating unsourced information. My good faith is waning. I believe Off2riorob wants to stall the discussion indefinitely by repeatedly asserting that it's "irrelevant" (an irrelevant assertion itself, huzzah!) and ignoring all challenges to his idea. He is repeatedly warning of a need for a "consensus" which is not the process with regards to a clear application of policy. Where BLP is not being violated, it is not a BLP issue. In light of that, I see these nonconstructive edits as blatantly disruptive. I think the BLP noticeboard is itself being abused to actually lock the page to suit an editor's personal preferences (irrespective of policy) and in fact, ironically, for some reason to keep unsourced information frozen on the page. Because a BLP discussion is going on doesn't give Off2riorob the right to maintain a personal version of the right page under the mistaken opinion that this is a "consensus" issue when it is a policy one.Zythe (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I saw this comment higher up: "Peoples sexuality is rarely notable at all." That seems extraordinarily incorrect. The people whom biography subjects marry, an expression of their sexuality, is almost always included in an article if known. Likewise, when those who have sexual orientations different from the standard it is routinely a significant part of the coverage of them. While I don't think that every gay person who sings should be categorized as an "LGBT singer", neither should we go out of our way to exclude that information from the article text simply because it isn't the thing they are best known for. Otherwise, leading to the logical conclusion, we'd have to begin deleting from articles those spouses who are not "central" to the subjects' notability. Will Beback talk 23:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Luke Evans disputeComments posted at the LGBT studies talkpage by User:Zythe - Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC) An attempt to de-gay openly gay Luke Evans (actor) and freeze the page that way is under way at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luke Evans (actor). Please comment.
Use of "Notability" Violates Wikipedia's Own Policy - Not That It Matters to This Phony "Encyclopedia"Once more, Wikipedia shows itself to be a pack of fools for whom facts mean nothing and Wikipedia's own policies can be blithely ignored by any ad hoc flashmob that comes along. Is it any wonder that serious authorities on a wide variety of subjects routinely ignore Wikipedia, and no respectable academic institution anywhere in the world will permit a student to use Wikipedia as a source? Notability does not apply to material in an article. It applies only to whether the subject is notable. Therefore, to censor information in an article on grounds that it's not "notable" violates Wikipedia's policy. Here is Wikipedia's policy on notability: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." I don't expect this fact to carry any weight whatsoever here. You see, Wikipedia doesn't care about facts. Its rules are a joke. All that has ever mattered at Wikipedia is the whim of whatever flashmob will enforce whatever version it can agree on, without regard to what's true, or what conforms to Wikipedia's rules. People, you're a joke. You write, and edit, a children's book that no one in his or her right mind should, or will, ever take seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Good JobIt's always nice to see Wikipedia in the news for doing something like this. Having more people laugh at how idiotically bureaucratic our policies are. See Gawker for details on that. I know that people might want to be participating in bisexual erasure or something to that effect, but if Evans is truly dating Holly Goodchild, then he's bisexual. We're not going to call him that, of course, but it's annoying to see all of the arguing above being about how he's gay or straight and that there's no middle option. Now, about the actual subject at hand. The information that was included in the article before was fine. Citing a statement from a BLP subject cannot violate BLP. Because the information is coming directly from the subject. Thus, if he directly stated that he was gay in the past in a reliable source, then we should include that statement. We should also include the well-referenced fact that he is dating Holly. Maybe even include a bit of Holly's quote from that source as well. But we shouldn't be whitewashing his BLP because he is dating a girl now. Without a direct statement from him one way or the other, we should be including both sides of the issue. As for those talking about notability in terms of the gay information, the fact that in the past, him being gay played a large part in his acting career, as explained in references given above, shows that it is important to include his statement in his article. SilverserenC 06:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Problem is that only gay publications ever posted articles on his sexuality - the interview was some time ago (even if current articles relying on the one interview are found in a number of current gay publications) and the issue of WEIGHT is always present when categorizing people as to sexual orientation. Current feelings on BLP/N appear to indicate that categorizing people where the issue is not part of their notability in any way may well violate WP:BLP. If his notability is dependent on his sexual orientation, then a good cite would be from a mainstream reliable source, which hasnot been given thus far. This same discussion has been made anout nationality and religions of people, with the same position being taken that unless the matter is of some substantial improtance that such matters should (must) have strong mainstream reliable sourcing. Thus a magazine aimes at Gnarphians is a poor source for asserting that John Doe is one of that group, sect or nationality, even if it publishes an interview apparently saying John Doe is a Gnarphian. If a mainstream reliable source publishes it as a fact, then that would far better meet the strictures of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:CANVASS violationsHave occurred with non-neutral canvassing being done on a LGBT project page etc. All those who come here as a result may well be disregarded as solicited !votes (sigh). BTW, the fact that a young person said he was gay, and later in life shows up with a girlfriend and with a publicist saying he will not comment on his sexuality now seems to me to indicate that the "gay" adjective may well be misplaced at this point in time. [3], [4], [5], seem to belie "gay" as a utile term for the person. Frankly if a person appears to change orientation, it is not WP job to freeze them into a category of sexuality. Anne Heche is a great example. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Is It Notable Enough Yet?This whole debacle showed up on a national cable television show (Chelsea Lately) earlier this evening. They mentioned The Advocate interview and how bad Wikipedia is coming off over this. I expect there will only be more coverage from here. So is it notable enough yet? Or are we going to continue to ignore Wikipedia guidelines in order to perpetuate homophobia? 184.9.212.12 (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)— 184.9.212.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Wikipedia can't even follow its own rules. "NOTABILITY" is not something to be applied within an article, as per the Wikipedia guideline on the subject: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Yet this is why the article has been censored. No wonder Wikipedia is so widely scorned. Not only do facts not matter here, but this place can't even follow its own rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Policy versus editorial judgmentI haven't participated in this discussion, nor even read all of the back-and-forth here, but can we at least agree that there is no violation of WP:BLP involved here and that the argument is about exorcising editorial judgment? If there is a violation, can someone please explain in short sentences with direct reference to policy? This isn't going to end well. It is probably in Wikipedia's best interests to reduce the protection level on the article and work this out on the talk page with less polarized editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk)
This section starts with a false premise: All policies require editorial judgement. BLP requires more editorial thought, not less. I'm also not seeing any compelling evidence that the material in the "personal life" section is anything other than trivia. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI: topic ban proposalI have requested that Off2riorob be topic banned from articles like this at WP:AN. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
|
Paul Lendvai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Very biased 'biography' and potentially libellous.
It reads as if it has been created entirely to serve the poltical views of the Hungarian right (who are doing their best to publically discredit PL at the moment).
It should be removed asap, if it cannot be rewritten from a more neutral POV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.12.90 (talk • contribs)
Amy Goodman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Mathsci has removed some sourced criticisms form the Amy Goodman article claiming BLP violation: [7] Original source: http://www.jewishpress.com/printArticle.cfm?contentid=17410 The Jewish Press is a reliable source. Feedback if this is a BLP violation would be appreciated. Miradre (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
James O'Keefe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I believe that the lead sentence of James O'Keefe is a violation of BLP as stated here.
James E. O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is a conservative American activist who has produced videos, which were recorded secretly and heavily edited before release, of public figures and workers in a variety of organizations. He came to national attention after publishing video and audios of workers at Planned Parenthood in 2008 and at ACORN in 2009. O'Keefe has altered recordings to portray his subjects as unethical, criminal, irresponsible and/or racially biased. Such secret recordings are illegal in California and Maryland, which are among the states where he staged encounters.
There seems to be a desire to drive home the fact that he edited videos and recorded them secretly by basically stating the same information twice in the lead paragraph. I have tried to present a more neutral presentation without any success. My current attempt at compromise here
James E. O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is a conservative American activist. He came to national attention after secretly recording and then releasing edited video and audio of workers at Planned Parenthood in 2008 and at ACORN in 2009. O'Keefe edited the recordings to portray his subjects as unethical, criminal, irresponsible and/or racially biased. Such secret recordings are illegal in California and Maryland, which are among the states where he staged encounters.
One of my main contentions is the use of the weasel word "heavily" in the lead sentence. This comes from the point of view of the DA assigned to look at the videos relating to ACORN in CA. However, it is applied as a blanket statement of fact, which I believe to be a violation of BLP. My version clearly states that the video was edited, the degree of editing is arbitrary and meaningless other than to push the case. My other main contention is the insistance to include the statement in the first sentence. While he is known for the second part of the sentence, it is not the way you define a person. For the record I don't approve of his actions in the least, but he is a living person and BLP must be applied equally to all. Additionally, I am not sure the last sentence should stay either since it is accusatory that he has committed a crime, which to my knowledge he has not nor has he been convicted of one relating to the videos. Arzel (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The above grossly misstates reality: ...the word "heavily" ... comes from the point of view of the DA assigned to look at the videos relating to ACORN in CA. That is simply not true.
"Heavily edited videos" is the conclusion of a 5-month investigation by the Brooklyn (not 'CA') District Attorney's Office — not the "point of view" of an individual. Heavily edited. The California Attorney General's Office further investigated more videos, and found those, also, to be "severely edited". Later, even more videos were examined and found to be heavily edited, and described as editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented.
There is nothing "weasely" nor "unduly attacking" about the reliably sourced descriptions of O'Keefe's editing jobs from literally dozens of high-quality reliable sources. The extent to which he has edited his videos (heavily, severely, and selectively to deceive) is not "arbitrary and meaningless" as Arzel asserts; they are his hallmark. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, O'Keefe is in the news again for applying for Medicaid in Maine while claiming to be a drug smuggler. http://bangordailynews.com/2011/08/11/politics/secret-video-alleges-possible-medicaid-fraud/?ref=mostReadBox --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
section collapsed. This rant contains serious BLP problems itself. User has been blocked | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Aris Poulianos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dear Mms./Sirs: Bellow you shall find my completed report to Ting Chen and Jimmy Wales about articles on pseudo-scientist Aris Poulianos, a LIVING known Greek Supremacy advocate who appears to have written, or contributed to the Greek article on your Greek Version himself. However, I am asking you, in good faith to mediate with admin "Future Perfect at Sunrise" (FPS). FPS decided to remove an edit I did pointing to dubious education information about Poulianos on the English Poulianos article. Being that I was given the boot by the Greek admins on your Greek version for fowl language, which they started first with racist remarks, I am asking you to mediate. My allegation against FPS in specific is, while she removed my edit, she also vandalized the article by removing the year when Poulianos had "supposedly" graduated, which was contributed, I presume, by another reader who contributed part about his education. Instead, she replaced it with an error, which again points to Poulianos and his family making the revision. In her comments about the deletion of my contribution she made the same "Queen's" College mistake Poulianos seems to make on his biography, on his own association's webpage, which should not be used for verification of Wikipedia articles on Poulianos. FPS wrote "Cited source says it was Queen's College, New York (which became part of City University when that was established later) explaining the deletion. But by deleting the date of 1948-1962, she VANDALIZED the article raising further suspicion she is an alias or an agent for Poulianos and his accomplishes. Kindly advice and pursuant to regulation I want to discuss this with FPS, if you deem it appropriate, via emails because I have heard enough accusations from the Greek admins thus far. In the alternative, I ask you deleted all Poulianos's articles, pursuant to your rules because Poulianos is a living person embroiled in controversy and nonsense theories of Greeks being 700,000 years old! Thank you in advance for your timely attention and response.
Aris Poulianos Evidence and Wikipedia Regulations Support My Claims against the Article1. Even under your theory, "Queen's" is wrong. See disambiguation about Queens College on Wikipedia. See also external website of Queens College, New York. The apostrophe is an error. 2. Wikipedia, Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." The dates of when Poulianos studied in the U.S. were removed. This is vandalism, unless you are basing it on the source of the bio which indeed, does not mention dates. Accordingly, see further below. 3. Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist." Claims of Greeks being 700,000 years older than modern man is sensationalism. 4. Wikipedia: "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself." The referenced bio is at www.aee.gr/english/2apoulianos_biogr/apoul_biogr.html The site and bio belongs to the ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF GREECE. Its home page at www.aee.gr states clearly a "Non profitable scientific society, founded by Dr Aris N. Poulianos." The biography is published or is under the control of the subject himself. As such, it must be scrutinized and be held to a higher standard. 5. Wikipedia: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as [...] personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; the article is not based primarily on such sources." The bio states "Since 1983 he becomes a target of cruel assaults by organized unscientific and anthellenic cycles, mainly acting through various state services." Self-serving and involves claims against and Greeks and the Greek government. Further, nothing is referenced in that bio and descriptions are generic. 6. Beyond, see footnote 12 on Wikipedia article, it states "ΣΤΗΝ ΤΡΙΓΛΙΑ ΧΑΛΚΙΔΙΚΗΣ ΒΡΕΘΗΚΕ Η ΑΠΟΛΙΘΩΜΕΝΗ ΚΝΗΜΗ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΥ 11 ΕΚΑΤΟΜΜΥΡΙΩΝ ΧΡΟΝΩΝ," no translation, it means "The Petrified drumstick of an ELEVEN (11) MILLION YEAR OLD Human was found In TrigLIa of Chalkidiki(!)" It is a tabloid story, humans did not exist 11 million years ago. You will not locate the article in the referenced link as it is written in a confusing manner, with English Characters but in Greek. Its translation by Google almost impossible. Conclusion: I have done nothing wrong. I deny your allegations and I ask that the article is immediately removed or you permit me to ad the note that the validity of the article is in dispute. Are you O.K. with that? I am O.K. with (and I would actually prefer) you add the validity question. Thank you. Greek Mitch (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
A. "The article does not make that claim; it merely reports that Poulianos made claims similar to that." HOWEVER, Poulianos has based his ENTIRE career on the fraudulent and racist claim. This is Poulianos's claim to fame, he created the sensationalism. Can you find any other other scientist advocating the 700,000 year old Greek? Because of this central theme, Poulianos BLPs in the various versions of Wikipedia are sensationalistically self-serving and ought to be fixed, if not deleted. B. "Reliable independent sources would indeed be preferable." The only reliable, independent source I found on Poulianos is because of the Article, see footnote 2, "Pontikos, Dienekes. Racial Type of the Ancient Hellenes. September 2006." I went looking in it. It is very well written in English, it will take you 2 minutes to look up "Poulianos." Poulianos is mentioned 3 times over 16 pages as a antrhopologist who had conducted metrics on a wide sample of Greeks. Based on that paper, Poulianos's did not even use the term "Greek" for ancient Greeks but calls us a mix of "Aegeans" and "Epirotics" which means a mix of people of the "sea" and the "land." Is this a new discovery about Greeks? However, he found a mix of other populations up to 20-30% among us. Why is not this mentioned? Racist Greek Supremacy perhaps? And what do Poulinos's metrics have to do with his fictional 700,000 year old Greek? If Poulianos was impartial, I would consider him reliable. Having watched him ranting for an hour against the government in a documentary (see Greek version article but documentary is Greek), he is not. By the way, the top Greek Court finally ruled against him recently. Hence, we must use reliable sources. C. "The claims about "state services" are too vague to be of much concern." Read his bio again. He started his not-for-profit during the Greek Military Junta years in 1971. See Wikipedia article "Greek military junta of 1967–1974." He was supported by them. Now, he is fighting with a government democratically elected by the people. He claims the Junta prosecuted him but I can find any support for this claim as well besides Poulianos's own bio. However, all the extreme blogs that seem friendly towards the Junta regime and revising modern history, seem to support him. The same entities are also extremely anti-semetic. You have to take the bias into account because it is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Instead of deletion, I want you to mentor and help me rewrite it using impartial sources. Let's make it impartial. Then I shall take that result to the Greek and the other versions of Wikipedia. The people have a right to know about the controversy, particularly Greeks like myself. This can be the only objective source about Poulianos AND IT IS NEEDED!!! Your assignment, if you accept it, is to protect me when I am assailed. Because I am certain I will as I have already. Then, I can help with the Greek Wikipedia, where you guys need help desperately. As for the reference about his education has to go. At least the part about being educated in the U.S. It is in doubt. Simply, the article can state "he is an anthropologist that has studied a wide sample of Greeks." Further, " Poulianos claims Greeks are older than Cro-magnon and Neanderthal while no other scientists are reported to support Poulianos's view." I am o.k. with just these two lines! Is this a deal? Greek Mitch (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
the other is the one from Ponticos, Footnote 2, see above. also http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030544038290005X "An early hominid skull found in Petralona Cave in Greece has been widely quoted by the archaeologist now excavating the cave as being about 700,000 years old. A recent volume of the journal Anthropos (Athens) carried several papers dealing with uranium series, thermoluminescence, ESR and palaeomagnetic studies on material from Petralona. Careful reading of these papers shows that there are problems with all these methods when applied to material from this site and that it is not possible at present to give an age for deposits in the cave. In this paper we discuss each technique in the light of current knowledge."
what is reported must come from objective sources and entities outside Poulianos's control. Further, a Greek user alleged I cannot use articles from international versions of Wikipedia. ("Επιπλέον, η έκδοση του Γκρίκ Μίτς δεν έχει καθόλου πηγές για τα λεγόμενα της (οι άλλες βικιπαίδιες δεν αποτελούν πηγές) και δεν έχει καμία θέση σε άρθρο,"). This statement does not sound right but the 4 Greek admins involved did not object to it (that is why I question their impartiality). Is this correct, that I cannot reference other, international Wikipedia articles? I would like to reference the predominant theories on Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal through Wikipedia articles, always in an impartial way. In other words, the bios must be stripped of anything that is irrelevant and under the control of Poulianos and radical bloggers. However, most of bloggers quote your Poulianos's articles now! This is why the article must become objective. Poulianos is questioning the evolution of the human race. How scientific is that? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html "Petralona 1, Homo sapiens (archaic) Discovered by villagers at Petralona in Greece in 1960. Estimated age is 250,000-500,000 years. It could alternatively be considered to be a late Homo erectus, and also has some Neandertal characteristics. The brain size is 1220 cc, high for erectus but low for sapiens, and the face is large with particularly wide jaws. (Day 1986)"
and "In 1960, Greece joined in the panoply of European archaic human sites, with the discovery of a robust but large cranium in a cave at Petralona. Dating this fossil has long posed a challenge, but most recently it has been estimated to be 200,000 years old. (See figure 28.9.) " Lewin, Human Evolution. All these studies that seem impartial do not mention Poulianos. Your call if it should be deleted, although you will be doing us a service if the article gets stripped of information provided by Poulianos. Certainly, the 700,000 year claim is not supported in these sources, unless 1. they quote Poulianos, or 2. they are written from a creationist point of view to contradict Darwin. But Wikipedia cannot rely on those sources.
A. Eliminate the sentence explaining in a note this is a fictitious entity within UNESCO. Or B. make a note the point is in question. Can I do either? HOWEVER, what I can do for certain is bring to the attention of UNESCO's that Poulianos uses Wikipedia to replicate the fabrication. It turns out the only sites that mention the "Council of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences" are the ones mentioning Poulianos's Wikipedia Biography! Greek Mitch (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Final Entry on PoulianosBy now you should have taken the initiative and changed the apostrophe. You admitted it. But you did not. This is 1 indication you will not upset other admins even if they are wrong. I have forwarded this case to the associate counsel of Wikipedia, besides a direct email to Jimbo because I believe Wikepedia is denigrated by fraud perpetuated through Wikipedia and replicated throughout the web, while Wikipedia admins propagated it actively or by remaining indifferent. Further appropriate course is that am alerting UNESCO as I was told by UNESCO to do, being that they do not have a "council" as Poulianos alleges and they are actively fighting scams involving their good reputation. Which means, they will ask Wikipedia about it. I presume the same applies to Queens College. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia reeks with fraud that people like Poulianos create articles on Wikipedia to create a mythology about them for their own financial benefit. I remind you what happened on the Steven Colbert show, where Steven demonstrated how easy it was to pervert Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia administrators suspend anyone who brings all this to their attention. Signing off suspended or not. Your loss, I save time.
Oooh, serious case of tl;dr here (and I wasn't notified). Just for the outside readers: the biography of Aris Poulianos has in the past repeatedly been a BLP problem. The subject of the article is a archaeologist/palaeontologist of, let's say, unorthodox views, and the article has oscillated between glorification and ridicule at several points. Currently it seems to be keeping a relatively decent middle ground, but it is true that the detail of the biographical information relies heavily on the subject's own web page. The particular detail Greek Mitch picked out about the subject's early studies seemed to me to be a fairly harmless plausible mistake (the guy said on his webpage he studied at college X; our article had turned that into saying he studied at university system Y, when in reality college X had only become part of university system Y a decade or so later; there was also an overlap of one year between two parts of his biography that would appear mutually exclusive), but the overall gist of the biography seems plausible enough. The fact that he later studied in Moscow seems unproblematic, because (if I remember correctly) it was easily testable that he actually did his PhD there. – If somebody wants to cut back on the article on BLP grounds, I have no obejctions. Greek Mitch seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the subject of the article; partly understandably so (I might say I'd personally tend to agree with the view the guy is a charlatan), but obviously we run into a problem if we let him "fix" the BLP according to his liking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
B. The few objective footnotes added to the BLP are the ones objecting to the theory. C. The ones supporting the BLP are primarily based on a study Poulianos conducted in 1981. THE BLP IS SLANTED. D. You still do not know that Queens College does not take an apostrophe, why edit what you do not know?
2. According to the Greek BPL, he studied Biology solely in the U.S. while he is an anthropologist. Thus, we can eliminate it as irrelevant to the object of his career. I am o.k. with. I am reasonable. Let me trust you are not associated with Poulianos. Because unfortunately, as an objective observation, on your discussion page, where I could not leave a message, I noticed several users with Slavic or Slavonic names had left you messages. That is another group Poulianos targets with his BPLs on Wikipedia. You may wish to dispel the notion of association with a charlatan. Let me know if you want a copy of the final letter to Wikipedia and their counsel and how to send it to you. Not a threat, just a fact what I have already done. It gives my view of what you did.
I tend to look at facts. Instead of opinions, I looked up the type of articles you edit. That could give me an objective idea about you. You see, it hit me: why did you undo my change within 15 minutes, unless you have been guarding the article? Ethnologically, you appear to be working on two groups of articles: Greek and Slavic. Further, you have been involved with the Poulianos article almost since its inception (I may be wrong but at least since 2006, you have worked on the article). I wonder, why the interest? Is it a coincidence you have the same interests with Poulianos and his family about Slavs and Greeks ethnologically? I do not understand your participation in the Greek dialects article that names Bulgarian as a dialect. Bulgrians being a group that Poulianos had determined similar to Greeks and culturally (not necessarily ethnologically), I believe they are extremely close to Greeks. The article that calls "Bulgarian" and "Macedonian" Greek dialects should go, or has to be changed to "Languages Spoken In Greece." And there is no "Macedonian" language, not even a dialect. If anything, the FYROM language is an idiom, just like Greeks in Crete have an idiom, unlike the difference of Ancient and Modern Greek, which are dialects. See videos of Slavi Trivonov where he makes fun of the other Bulgarian "dialect." Thanks for the / * code change. I took the liberty of changing something in what you said. I like the touch you added to it. So, how come you share Poulianos's interests and why are you watching article? I may attempt to bring it in order, I am not sure yet.
|
Margaret Downey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This BLP article has been done at the behest of the living person to help her promote herself. The claims made about her in the article are hardly noteworthy, are not offered from a neutral point of view, and are probably no longer verifiable.
Quite a few of the listed references come from articles that were penned by the living person or come from websites supported by her and used to promote herself and her personal causes. Other articles are taken from the local newspaper in her area where they were reporting on publicity stunts generated by the living person to promote herself and those causes.
The article is also incomplete and omits quite a few controversies that accompanied the projects that she has been involved in. None of the controversies are worthy in themselves of Wikipedia coverage, but are significant exceptions to many of the claims and accomplishments listed on this page. For instance, the "Tree of Knowledge" reference listed in the article refers to a Christmas display that was subsequently rejected and discontinued by the County of Westchester, PA. (I would list the on-line references to this event, but the websites appear to be on Wikipedia's blacklist.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblemouse (talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
John J. Nance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am John J. Nance, and I am hereby filing a complaint that will accelerate into a libel action against the individual who continues to post a diatribe against my writings and has done so with clear malice and intent to defame. This individual's personal animosity is based on his misguided opinion that airline deregulation was a boon to the U.S., and that anyone who disagrees must be attacked. This concerns such a small part of my overall body of work as an author, lecturer, broadcaster, pilot, and military officer as well as entrepreneur, that continuous contamination of my biographical listing in wikipedia with his hysterical opinions, as well as his slanderous observations of my attempts to correct the record are, in the first instance, wholly unworthy of this project; and secondly, simply a personal attack without merit. I request that his entire commentary be permenently removed, or that at least his continuous "reversions" of any corrections I make be blocked and his ability to affect this site be barred. While I reserve the right to proceed against this individual in tort (and I am a licensed attorney in Texas ) at any time due to the continuous and notorious nature of his postings, I would prefer to resolve the problem by having his ravings removed permanently. Please contact my law office at (Redacted) regarding this matter. john J. Nance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.236.190 (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Destorm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
People keep editing this wiki with false information. They keep changing the subject's name and adding false birth dates. The confirmed birth name for the subject is Destorm Power, not the other names that have been added to the wiki i.e. Demetrius, Derek, etc. I will update it with the correct information right now, could you please make sure it doesn't get removed? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylaiva (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Corwin Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a death date listed in the first line of his bio. However, there is no source cited that he has, in fact, died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.231.163 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Chris Mullin (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Racial (White this and that) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.96.190 (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Tyrese Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page has an extreme amount of false information, specifically in the Awards & Nominations section. Seems like a prank to put in strange words in wrong places.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TJohanis42 (talk • contribs)
Odd recent edit history over at Peter Palumbo, Baron Palumbo: vast expansion of the article last night, which at first glance looks as if it could be a hatchet job, followed some hours later by a proposed deletion by a new account, giving the reason "Lord Palumbo himself has seen his Wikipedia page and has decided categorically to delete it. He wishes to take no further part in Wikipedia and very much disagrees with the page's existence. He asks that the Wikipedia community respect his wishes and apologises for any inconveniences caused."
I considered contesting and simply reverting to the revision as of 3 August 2011, but thought perhaps some extra eyes would be of use, given the apparent sensitivity of the subject's feelings on the issue. --88.104.47.107 (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Cameron Mitchell (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is not an urgent request, but I'd appreciate it if someone could keep an eye on that article for a few days. There was a flurry of edits yesterday, mostly harmless, but sourced to unreliable sources (some regarding his dating history) and other assorted fancruft. I'm a little concerned that his growing online fan base might continue to insert rumors or cruft. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Barney Glaser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have worked carefully with one of your editors, MaterialScientist, to carefully and objectively create a small addition to the biography of Barney Glaser. The material is all based on a court case, from the public court system of California. The relevant document is sourced, and I have a copy in my possession. Continuing to edit out these few sentences is censorship. Dr. Glaser has had an important history in his post-academic life and this is relevant to people who wish to know about him.
I have not called him any named, or committed any libel. Only facts from the court case are presented.
Eddie & JoBo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This edit should be removed from the page's history. Not only is it potentially slanderous, but it also contains the names of the subject's children - possibly minors - who should not be included in the encyclopedia. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 08:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like to get some feedback on the following addition: [14]. It is being argued that since the original source of the quote cannot be found it cannot be included in the article, despite the numerous references to it on many WP:RS's and a lack of any sources that challenge it. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
“ | On Nov. 21, 1970 she told a University of Michigan audience of some 2,000 students, "If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communist." At Duke University in North Carolina she repeated what she had said in Michigan, adding "I, a socialist, think that we should strive toward a socialist society, all the way to communism." | ” |
I kept checking for a reliable source in the news, and found this thankfully. That clears things up. Dream Focus 00:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Tawana Brawley rape allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
After Brawley's rape allegations were shown to be false, she withdrew from the public eye. She has since joined the Nation of Islam and changed her name. Is it appropriate to mention those facts in this article, or does WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy preclude it? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The Nation of Islam is an African American organization and Tawana Brawley is an African American. There is no significance to Tawana Brawley joining the Nation of Islam except any significance that might be gratuitously read into it. The question becomes: why are we mentioning this extraneous piece of information in our article? Are we trying to make a point? What point are we trying to make? The only subject that attains the level of noteworthiness qualifying itself for an article is the incident. The individual, Tawana Brawley, would not qualify, in terms of noteworthiness, for an article on her alone on Wikipedia. It is only the circumstances of the incident that thrust her into the spotlight. Therefore her ongoing life should not be subject to continual coverage unless something significant came to light relating her to the original incident. Merely joining an African American organization hardly qualifies as something that puts the original incident into a new and revised framework. Rather we should be concerned that a private individual not be tracked by Wikipedia, years after an incident, in ways that might be irksome to someone who has not attained the level of notability that would qualify them for a standalone article on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe a short blurb on her current situation is warranted. Also, I live in Oregon and was quite small at the time, but I still was aware of the TB thing. It was big news across the nation, not just in NY. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)