Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sticky Parkin (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 21 July 2009 (Mike Warnke). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:




    Citizen Cope

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Cope The last line of "Use in media" is vandalism. However, I can't remove it because it doesn't appear when I try to edit the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneufeld (talk • contribs) 07:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like someone already removed it. Henrymrx (t·c) 07:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – seems resolved -shirulashem(talk) 00:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rasul Kudayev

    • I am curious what the concerned contributor means by "unambiguously supported". In other, related, talk page discussions the concerned contributor has indicated they have concerns over the basic credibility of the DoD's claim. But the wikipedia's policy on verifiability specifically opens with an explanation we aim for "verifiability, not truth". Those of us who have a concern over the credibility of assertions in our legitimate, authoritative, verifiable WP:RS, are plain out of luck. Those sources, and several others, do report that the DoD claims "returned to the fight" after his release from Guantanamo. The DoD's own press releases clearly state this. Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop attacking me. That's wrong! I have no concerns over basic credibility of DoD claims. If you have sources, add these sources to the section and possible rewrite the section so it can meet our policies. By the way to use a DoD press release as a source for the DoD claim will not meet WP:NPF. If you have other sources that makes this section meet our policies just add these sources and we are out of here. But as it is now, it is something that should be clearly removed now and not reverted back until it meets WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NPF. Iqinn (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To use a press release from Burger King to reference that "Burger King claims..." is perfectly acceptable. It is not acceptable to say it as an unmitigated fact. In this instance, and all others to which you have pointed, it is clearly used to say "The DoD claims...", and thus its use is legitimate. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 01:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be the case for some articles but not for an article under WP:NPF. The section in it's current form does not meet WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NPF and it should be removed first. Also editors should not simply revert the controversial material back. Iqinn (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Iqinn, I am not "attacking" you. Rather I put effort into conducting a meaningful dialogue with you.
    • Iqinn, I don't find what you wrote above clear. You say you don't have any concern over the credibility of the DoD claims -- but then you say those claims don't meet WP:NPF. Why, because being described as someone suspected of supporting terror is damaging? When OJ Simpson was suspected of murdering his wife that too is damaging. Madoff is suspected of swindling a gazillion dollars. We don't suppress coverage of this material because it is damaging to OJ or Madoff.
    • Could you please clarify what kind of additional sources you think are required? Geo Swan (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "At Least One "Recidivist" Tortured to Confess to Terrorism". Reuters. 2009-05-21. Retrieved 2009-07-15. The former detainee, Rasul Kudaev, has been held for more than three years in pretrial detention in Nalchik, a city in southern Russia, where he is accused of participating in an October 2005 armed uprising against the local government. Human Rights Watch's investigations into Kudaev's case found that he was severely beaten soon after his arrest to confess to crimes.
      • "Bush's secret Gitmo diplomacy". Kansas City Star. Retrieved 2009-07-15. The most se­verely abused was Rasul Kudaev, who was picked up in October 2005 for al­legedly participating in an attack on sev­eral government buildings in southern Russia. (Kudaev says he was wrongfully accused.) According to Kudaev's lawyer, who visited him in prison shortly after his arrest, one of his legs had been broken and his face beaten to the point of disfigurement. {{cite news}}: soft hyphen character in |quote= at position 12 (help)</ref>
      • "US Sent Guantanamo Detainees Home to Torture in Russia". Kansas City Infozine. 2007-03-27. Retrieved 2009-07-15.</ref>
    • The law in many countries for example Germany distinguishes between "Well-known public figures" and "People who are relatively unknown" OJ and Madoff are Well-known public figures and you can almost publish everything even it may damage their reputation. But Rasul Kudayev falls under the category "People who are relatively unknown" and for these people there are a lot of restrictions, to protect there privacy and reputation. Yes being described as someone suspected of supporting terror is damaging to them. And generally not allowed under the law of many countries. Wikipedia could be possible sued for that. That's why we have to be very careful to meet requirements of WP:NPF. I had a short look at the sources you have provided and do not have much hope they are suitable for the section we are speaking about but i will have a closer look tmw. I have put more information here.Iqinn (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Multiple, highly reliable sources" are required. You may can use some of your provided source after rewriting the section. But even you provide sufficient sources there are further requirements for inclusion under WP:NPF. Some of them are not met now. I have put information about that on the articles TalkPage and i suggest we continue our discussion there. I have also removed the section from the page and i hope now you can agree that it should not be re-included until controversies have been solved. Iqinn (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple users have chastised Iqinn for removing references including the New York Times, the Pentagon and other notable sources who can be assumed to be trustworthy enough to at least report that "The Pentagon claims that..." or "The New York Times reported...", which is the case here. He has a history of removing all footnotes from an article, and then calling for the article's deletion on the grounds of no footnotes, and otherwise seems to demonstrate questionable-faith actions specifically related to these sorts of articles. Attempts to resolve the issue on article talk pages, and his own talk pages, are just met with standard "Stop attacking me!" remarks and playing the martyr. FWIW, my opinion suggests this is a case to be decided on the talk-pages of articles, not a BLP noticeboard. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 01:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ad hominem what you say here is a good example. This board is not there for the same people who resist the removal to come out and try to disturb the process. It is there for uninvolved editors and administrators to have a second look at the material and possible remove it, if it does not meet WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NPF what is clearly the case here. Iqinn (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Brigitte Gabriel

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

    Some fresh eyes on this on please. I took a look at it today for the first time in several weeks and it has got completely out of hand - there are way too many quotations from her books and similar material. I think a major chop job is in order but I just don't know where to start. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dash Snow

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

    Rumors of his death are spreading, & the page already has him listed as dead, though it hasn't been confirmed. Not sure what the proper templates, etc are for this; thought it best to bring it to everyone's attention. -- mordicai. (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    New York Times ArtsBeat blog is reporting this as a fact, confirmed by his grandmother Christophe de Menil. Roberta Smith, "Dash Snow, New York Artist, Dies at 27", New York Times, July 14, 2009.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tweaked the ibox, named the NYBlog reference and updated the talk page template. – ukexpat (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    David Gratzer

    I would welcome a quick look by someone of a dispute emerging at the David Gratzer page. I do not not normally write at Bio pages but I think I started this article and have contributed to it on and off and now a dispute has emerged with another editor deleting material citing BLP SYN and OR. It seems some third editor had been adding POV and weasel words and these were used to make more sweeping changes. I have added back the main text without the problem text but now I am being told that the material breaks BLP.

    Comments welcomed.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My issues originated with these edits by User:DickClarkMises which seemed to me to remove material which rightly belongs in the article. They did however contain some very strong worded elements which I think have been added recently by another editor. I reverted the deletions but took out the objectional elements as I saw them. However User:DickClarkMises has deleted again claiming breaches of BLP POV and OR.


    here User:DickClarkMises claims there is a synthesis of sources. However, in the earlier reference, Gratzer points out that Goodman had made the connection and the element which has been deleted merely traces one example of this. This is not really a criticism of Gratzer but somehow backs up what he has been saying. I personally believe that this is worthy of retention in the article and does not constitiute WP:SYN. I don't think that it really matters WHICH earlier piece by Goodman made the connection but I think it is fair to show that Gratzer was being honest when he said that Goodman had made the same connection.

    here User:DickClarkMises claims is about the use of the term "embroilded". However, the element that has been added back is that the issues below are all about his alleged misuse of statistics. But the first dispute in the article is not about a medical dispute and indeed Gratzer was not the source of the disputed statistic. The second dispute listed is again about another person's misuse of a medical statistic. Guilliani is not an expert but his people have Gratzer as the source. Gratzer did not deny this but said Goodman had made the same connection. (my previous point refers). The third dispute was about Gratzer allegedly misleading a congressional committee. For these reasons I think "embroiled" is a good word to cover all three incidents as it does not imply that Gratzer was misleading in all three disputes even though he was personally involved in all three.

    here User:DickClarkMises deletes the entire substance of the dispute about misleading the congress. The reason stated was "transcript of a cable news exchange is not encyclopedic". But we have the words in the video. Again, the words when orginally put in the article were substantially from the video. It seems that someone else has modified them since I orginally placed them in the article here.

    It seems that another editor User:Apatens has been making edits which seem unhelpful such as this one which removes relevent material from a lead paragraph, and this one [1] which is ostensibly about whether the article was peer reviewed. However, I had already addressed the point with this edit which put the text in without reference to "peer review". User:DickClarkMises again deleted the para again here, now claiming WP:OR.


    A pair of neutral fresh eyes to reviiew what has been going on here would be welcomed.--Hauskalainen (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have time to go into detail now, but the Allegations of misuse of statistics clearly has WP:UNDUE problems (most obviously with the long media quotes), and the list of "selected" publications is far too long. It may be that Grazer is particularly known for this episode, but it still has to be summarised appropriately in a reasonably brief way, not fisked to death. Rd232 talk 16:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the article may have lingered too long on the dispute about prostate cancer survival but because the error was pointed out by experts and Gratzer continued to defend his position it seriously calls into question his value as a source of reliable information. Similarly in the argument with Kucinich, he clearly tried to present a false picture to the congressional committee and answered questions he was not asked and failed to answer properly the questions that Kucinich put to him. As he was there as an EXPERT WITNESS it is clearly important that his testimony should enlighten and not mislead. Now User:Apotens has removed any reference to the reliability of Gratzer as an expert witness and the Kucinich accusation has been reduced to the single word "clash". IMHO that is in itself a clear distortion of what happened. And the reference to Goodman as a source for the identical source has gone altogether and the only reference to Goodman is a puff piece from his book on the people who helped him write his book. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Rush Limbaugh Show

    The Rush Limbaugh Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Repeated insertions of poorly sourced partisan material. Cited sources include comedian Stephen Colbert and the progressive (a political viewpoint at odds with the views of the show's host) group Media Matters for America. --Allen3 talk 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is more appropriate for WP:NPOV/N. Although you're right, the added notations have a good deal of Some-argue-and-I-agree. 01:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Wait, you're kidding, right? You think people aren't allowed to use sources that are opposed to the show? What version of WP:NPOV policy did you read, because that makes no sense? Articles are not for presented the views of the topic being discussed, it for discussing all major views, and the sources you are trying to complain about are highly respected on these topics. DreamGuy (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    DreamGuy, the report to this page was based upon a reading of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources instead of WP:NPOV. Are you arguing that Stephen Colbert has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by these policies? --Allen3 talk 19:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Annemarie Eilfeld

    An edit war going on there between two editors, with some moderate incivility on the part of one of them (stop getting on my nerves then). There seems to be some dispute over whether certain sources are used. In addition, it appears that IP editors are adding cruft to the article. Probably needs some attention. McJeff (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    see my talk page, see vandalism report, see semi-protection and revert. --JD {æ} 13:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    the most important thing here is and will be: you try to ban me as a vandal (and faker) from en as soon as you can because i am a shame for every severe wikipedian. ah, okay. --JD {æ} 21:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    btw: you got banned for 12 hours and in the moment you are avoiding this by using another IP. --JD {æ} 21:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    this is also weird. Tanthalas: Protected Annemarie Eilfeld: persistent unsourced additions/speculation/external links ???? 79.214.201.13 (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jani Allan

    I believe that the entry is biased and reads like a subtle defence of Jani Allan's notorious public image. I also think that the detailed explanations, quotations, and cited reference amount to original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. The entry simply does not read like an encylopaedic entry. What is more, it has been written, edited and rewritten by a single user, who, apart from defending the subject, constantly adds irrelevant detail. 

    EmjayE2 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Duke

    Mike Duke is the CEO of Walmart. The article had a poorly sourced "controversy" section which was referenced to a blog post and a piece on The Advocate's website which talked about the blog post. According to the blog, Duke had signed a petition in support of placing Arkansas Proposed Initiative Act No. 1 (2008) on the ballot. The implied bias is that Duke is homophobic. The section seems to clearly violate WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP guidelines about sourcing contentious material. I posted my reasoning on the article talk page and removed the section from the article. An editor has reverted my changes, including one which merely replaced a dead link with a functioning one. Since I have a pre-existing conflict with this editor, I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the content from the article. IMO, it doesn't belong there as per WP:BLP. I'll mark this as resolved but continue to watch the article.
    Resolved
     – -shirulashem(talk) 01:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but take a look at the references. How can I put this? There has been an extremely sneaky effort made to use the Advocate article as a reference for Duke's starting date, rather than any number of business articles, and to use a copy of a petition from the previously mentioned blog post as a reference for Duke's birthdate, which is WP:OR in itself. Can I suggest that you restore the article to the last version I edited? It also has a fix for a broken link to Wlamart's official bio of Duke. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – I've changed those as well -shirulashem(talk) 01:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to you both for not informing of this discussion. There is no BLP vio in the content. It's sourced, validly, to a national magazine, a national web site, and a government document signed by Duke himself. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted my intentions and rationale on the article talk page. You simply reverted without discussion (or apparently looking closely at what you were reverting since you restored a broken link). You have just done the same again. If you were any other editor, I would have reverted and asked you to discuss on the talk page, but given our history I brought it here so that you wouldn't feel like I was "harassing" you. Unless you were solely responsible for the addition of that section -- I haven't looked -- the issue is with the article, not with you. Two editors have now disagreed with your contention about BLP violations, and there are other issues as noted above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's two editors and one admin. -shirulashem(talk) 13:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The petition source can NOT be used as per WP:OR. The reason, as I pointed out in my revert, is that even though it is a certified legal document, it was not PUBLISHED by a reliable source. It was published by a BLOG. If you can get the same document from a reliable source, I think it's ok. -shirulashem(talk) 13:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we have a source that verifies he signed it, is there a source to say that there is a 'controversy' over it? --Onorem♠Dil 14:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since people don't seem to getting it, here's what's wrong with this section - the Advocate's website (which is a fine magazine and reliable source) is simply reporting what the blog (an unreliable source) said. The blog is using a copy of a petition to include a an initiative on the ballot. We can't know if Mike Duke was the signer, even if the address and birth info appear to be correct, hence the WP:OR problem. Even if he was the signer, we don't know that how he voted on the ballot. Even he did support the inclusion of the initiative on the ballot and voted for it, this isn't controversial. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the measure, according to the WP article on it, the initiative was agreed to by a majority of voters in Arkansas. Including these suppositions, even if it were possible to prove them, is clearly in violation of WP:UNDUE. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the most asinine flaunting of BLP just to whitewash an article I have ever seen on Wikipedia. It's a certified petition for christ's sake, it doesn't matter if it was pasted to a toilet stall wall, it's an official document accepted by the State of Arkansas. I'm not even going to discuss this because this is so absurd, I'm just dumbfounded by the ridiculousness of it all. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We're all trying to do the right thing here, and I'm hoping that there's still hope in keeping this civil, so I'm trying again. I've done something to illustrate my point. Take a look at this file. Look familiar? Now look at signature number 6. You see, anybody can manipulate an official document. So since the petition was PUBLISHED by a blog, just like my version was published by me at my picasa site, it cannot be relied upon. -shirulashem(talk) 21:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (cross posted to the article talk page) The "original source" of a reliable source is not our concern. We could not have verified the accuracy of what Deep Throat was claiming forty years ago, and it wouldn't have been our job... It was the job of The Washington Post. When The Advocate, a reliable source, reports on or publishes something, we rely on their editorial judgment, not our own. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it established that The Advocate is a reliable source? -shirulashem(talk) 00:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that it is, but it's a moot point. Simply having a generally reliable source say "this blog says..." doesn't magically make it acceptable. In any case, as I took pains to point out earlier, it is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Allstarecho, in what way is this "whitewashing" the article? Why is it important for WP readers to know that Duke may have signed that petition? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that including a verifiable, notable position (in either direction) of the chief executive officer of (one of) the largest corporation(s) in the world is certainly not wp:undue. It would be preferable if we had a much fuller biography of Mike Duke, but that is not grounds to remove a notable, verifiable, and reliably sourced biographical fact. We have a reliable source reporting his position, using whatever fact checking they have in place. Once we establish that the publication is a reliable source and is verifiable, it isn't our job to say "Well, that magazine didn't use good editorial judgment in covering a blogger's opinion." That's not our job. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "notable, verifiable, and reliably sourced biographical fact" being removed here. Re-read what I wrote earlier. We actually don't know anything about Duke's beliefs or actions based on the blog report, even if we accept it as fact. Someone signed a petition supporting a ballot initiative. We cannot know that it was Duke.
    You seem to have a misconception about sourcing. Reliable sources often report on what unreliable sources have said. This doesn't lend any validity whatsoever to the original report. The Advocate isn't "fact-checking" or taking responsibility for the information, it's simply saying "that blog says...". Feel free to take the discussion to the RS board if still you don't see that this is a very common situation (please post the links). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "We" don't ever "know" anything. The only thing "we know" is what reliable sources tell us. The Advocate is a reliable source, nobody is disputing that (at least thus far), so wp:rs/n would be an unnecessary bounce of the discussion elsewhere. You're attempting to expand wp:rs to cover the editorial discretion, on a piece by piece basis, of a reliable source, and there's nothing in the policy that supports that. Can you directly quote something at WP:RS that supports your position that we can question the editorial judgment of reliable sources? user:J aka justen (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (See below for follow-up.) user:J aka justen (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Post appearing on article talk page: There's of course nothing wrong with disagreeing. As I wrote in my previous post, the problem I see here is that there are editors who feel that this content could violate BLP, and other editors disagree and proceed to just put the info back in. All I'm saying is that while there is such a disagreement on any article, especially on a BLP, we all must be patient and wait until the matter is resolved. I never said that we have to be unanimous ... I wrote consensus. And since part of BLP is "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic," we need to keep the content out of the article until the consensus is reached either between us or through some kind of dispute resolution. Here's what I propose that I think might be helpful. Let's work on two things: 1. Try to find at least one completely neutral source for the petition, and 2. Let's try to build more content about other things to address Delicious carbuncle's WP:UNDUE concern. -shirulashem(talk) 12:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Allstarecho, in what way is this "whitewashing" the article? Why is it important for WP readers to know that Duke may have signed that petition? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (←) I decided to go back to both wp:rs and wp:blp to figure out if there was any specific direction for an issue like this, and, indeed, there's this helpful test at wp:blp:

    1. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable,
    2. whether the material is being presented as true; and
    3. whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.

    There has been no suggestion so far that The Advocate is anything but a reliable source, and I don't believe there's been any suggestion thus far that this would not be a relevant issue for the biography, so I think there's a general consensus on one and three. The question is with the second point: some editors believe that there is a possibility that the "Mike Duke" in question might not have been the person to have signed the petition that created the "controversy." The issue here is whether or not we accept the reliable source in question relying on public records as indicative of the "truth."

    Forging or signing a petition, or making a political contribution, in a name other than your own is a crime. Typically speaking, newspapers and other reliable sources regularly report on the political contributions of notable living persons... I don't know of any instance in which we have ever said "Oh, well, that might not be true" in any other case. Which brings me back to the fact that The Advocate vetted the story and believed the underlying facts to be truthful (it seems unlikely that they would have published it otherwise). The Advocate is a reliable source. I'll accept that the underlying "fact" is either truthful or fraudulent, but we have no evidence to the latter, and a reliable source reporting it as the former. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know which parts of this you aren't getting. I'll give it one last try.
    (1) In my opinion, The Advocate is generally a reliable source. (Let's ignore the fanciful idea that newspapers, magazines and other news media can be counted on to vet or fact-check information, just for the sake of simplicity.) The Advocate is not reporting that Duke signed the petition, it reporting that a blog says that Duke signed the petition. In the very first sentence of the article it says "...reports the group KnowThyNeighbor.org". The Advocate reporting on that blog posting does not make the information reliably sourced.
    (2) People forge names on petitions all the time - that's why in cases like this someone "officially" certifies them by checking a sample of names against voters lists or addresses, etc.
    (3) This is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. I've said it several times, and other editors have said it also. Even if it were reliably sourced, this would still be the case. That Duke may have signed that petition isn't something that needs to be included in the article.
    (4) The implication of the "controversy" section appears to be: "Mike Duke, CEO of Walmart, is homophobic (and therefore so is Walmart)". Read the comments on the Advocate article. Look, I'm not one to defend Walmart or its CEO, but there's some obvious POV-pushing going on here.
    That's my last ride on this merry-go-round. I hope someone else will step up if required. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "I don't know which parts of this you aren't getting." That would be these parts... The Advocate is a reliable source, the rest of your argument on point one is grandstanding. On point two, people forge names like "Mickey Mouse." Forging the name, signature, and address of the chief executive officer of a company would be a much bigger deal; nevertheless, the Secretary of State and The Advocate accepted the petition as accurate and truthful. As for wp:undue, we include things like poor HRC diversity rankings on company articles, controversial positions on politician biographies, and so forth all the time. Finally, on your last point, the assumption of whether Mike Duke is or is not homophobic is up to our readers, we can only write about what reliable sources report. As for Walmart, the company has an extensive non-discrimination policy, so your assumptions are your own. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'd like to drive what ought to be the last nail in the coffin of this concept that we get to judge the journalistic and editorial standards of otherwise reliable sources on a piece by piece basis... Know Thy Neighbor is an organization. They reported on something on their blog. At least two third-party, otherwise reliable sources picked up the story. This is no different from when Focus on the Family or the ACLU harp on something... We typically would not accept either as reliable and verifiable, but once a third-party, reliable source pick it up, we can then consider including it. Blogs, themselves, are not (usually) reliable sources. Once a third-party, reliable, and verifiable source reports on whatever that blog is saying or doing, it becomes reliable. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to address another issue ... why is this material included in the first place? Assume for a moment that it's true, does it warrant inclusion in the article? Is it really important that the CEO of WalMart signed such a petition? It's not like he signed a petition that supported re-instituting slavery. Suppose a big CEO signed a petition supporting gay marriage. Should that necessarily be in his article too? Again, assuming that he really did sign the petition, I haven't seen anything that shows that his position on gay marriage is anything but his own personal opinion. It's not like he fired employees for supporting gay marriage. (If he did, it would certainly be relevant). If we include this, then there's no reason why we can't include the positions on affirmative action, gun-control, the Palestine/Israel conflict, stem cell research, abortion, global warming, etc. on every single bio on WP. Maybe this is why we still have not produced even a MENTION of this in any mainstream media news source. While the Advocate might be reliable, it's stated purpose is to provide news relevant to the LGBT community. -shirulashem(talk) 02:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure we differ between "mainstream" or, umm, "non-mainstream" reliable sources... In any event, it's not uncommon to include notable political or personal positions of chief executive officers... It's relatively rare for chief executive officers to take controversial political positions of any variety (on either side in this case), executives tend to be relatively apolitical, at least publicly... But, for example, see articles like Meg Whitman, Steven Reinemund, and to a lesser extent, Michael Dell, Sumner Redstone, or Alan Ashton. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll bite: what's the "notable political or personal position" here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a position on LGBT adoption, among other things. You can see the article there to better understand why it's a notable political or personal position. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's where you may start to understand the problem - what is Mike Duke's position on LGBT adoption? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    According to a petition accepted (and heretofore unchallenged) by the Secretary of State of Arkansas, and as reported by at least two reliable sources, his position was that the voters in Arkansas should consider prohibiting cohabitating LGBT couples from adopting children or serving as foster parents. Did I miss something? user:J aka justen (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't actually have any reliable sources for this, let alone multiple sources. Even if we did, the most that you could infer from Duke signing the petition is that he signed the petition. That isn't a statement of his beliefs. Are you spending all this time arguing so that we can include in the article that "Duke signed a petition for a voter initiative indicating that he believed the voters in Arkansas should consider prohibiting cohabitating LGBT couples from adopting children or serving as foster parents"? And this was labelled "controversy"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The tone of your questioning could best be described as "incredulous"... Do you have a personal viewpoint on the matter that might be preventing you from being objective? The reliable sources say what they say. You believe the underlying sourcing for those reliable sources is questionable, but there's really no basis in Wikipedia policy allowing us to decide that on a case by case basis, as I've stated before, and as I'll state again until you show me where -- anywhere -- in our policies you find support for your position. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    J, the onus to make a valid argument would seem to be on you, not on me. You been told by multiple editors that this is a WP:BLP violation. I don't think anyone has agreed with your contention that this is reliably sourced. If your question about my personal viewpoint is really asking if I'm homophobic or anti-LGBT then the answer is no, I'm not. Neither am I pro- or anti-Walmart. I believe I am being objective here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The onus is on every editor to make a valid argument. I am, by no means, the only editor advocating the inclusion of this content, but most people have given up trying at this point, I believe. Not because they agree with your position, but because they aren't willing to engage in a revert war with you to include the content (and, neither am I). I've made numerous points, none of which you've refuted; instead, you've posed numerous rhetorical questions, and you've yet to quote any policy supporting your position. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Been watching this debate, and I have to say that Delicious Carbuncle is way off base in his reasoning. If a person signs a petition it is implicitly understood that they believe in the measures being petitioned for. Either that, or they are mentally incapable of understanding said measures. If there were a petition for the withdrawal of Pepsi from store shelves, I would not sign that petition. Why? Because I enjoy Pepsi. If I were impartial on the subject, I wouldn't sign the petition to begin with, as it would imply that I have an opinion on the matter. When high-profile figures are thrown in the mix, they would be careful not to put their name to anything they did not believe in as it could blow up in the media (as indeed this has). Thus, Mike Duke would not have signed that petition if he did not believe in and support its cause. Drew Rindahl (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Drew, there are two problems with your argument - first, we cannot verify that it was Duke who signed the petition. Second, at issue is a petition to include an initiative on the ballot, not a vote on the initiative itself. Your assumption is not an unreasonable one, but it is just that - an assumption. Duke may have signed the petition because he felt that voters should be heard on this particular issue, not because he agreed with the initiative itself, but I'm not suggesting that was his reason because I don't know. And neither do you. It's a moot point, given that we don't have any reliable sources for this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Except the one included in the revision history? The Advocate is a reliable source. Multiple editors above, including those advocating your position, agree. I'd encourage you to review wp:rs if you're not familiar with what is or is not a reliable source. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems I'm Swamilive :) Did you miss me? Drew Rindahl (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems you are now blocked. :) Enigmamsg 06:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Richie Woodhall

    Is it an irrefutable fact that Richie Woodhall has a "beautiful wife called Jayne" ? Surely this statement is subjective, & should therefore be removed. It suggests the article has been written by the subject matter, his wife, a close personal friend or a relative. "He is married, to Jayne." will suffice in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Switchhitter25 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done - but you could have done that yourself. – ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah Palin

    During her time as governor, Sarah Palin had eighteen ethical complaints filed against her. We are having a disagreement about how to describe one of them. This source says (http://www.adn.com/palin/story/841059.html)

    The reimbursement, which was due today, stems from a Feb. 23 agreement filed by an Alaska Personnel Board special investigator that resolved an ethics complaint alleging Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her.

    The personnel board found no wrongdoing, but Palin agreed to reimburse the state for costs associated with trips found to be of questionable state interest.

    The board's investigator, Timothy Petumenos, said in his report there is little guidance under state rules to determine ethical standards for travel by the governor's immediate family. But he interpreted the law to require that the state pay only if the first family serves an important state interest.

    Some of the editors believe that the allegation that Palin "abused her power" should be included in the article. Some believe that the finding of "no wrongdoing" indicates that the Board threw out the abuse allegation, and that it should be omitted from the article as prejudical and contrary to BLP policy. Do you have an opinion about whether or not the abuse allegation should be included in the bio?Jarhed (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The judgement should take precedence; the listing of unfounded parts of allegations isn't helpful and is confusing.Martinlc (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The only material that can reasonably appear in the artiCle are the final findings, which were "no wrongdoing". All the rest (allegations subsequently dismissed, unsubstantiated claims of "abuse of power") confuse the issue, and are a potential libellous violation of WP:BLP. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That isn't quite accurate. If allegations are covered by strong sources, such as major newspapers, they can be discussed in the article, although not at such length as to give them undue weight. Looie496 (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Palin herself has cited the allegations as part of the reason for her resignation, so can we really claim "undue weight"? Also there has been a lot of strong sources to give these allegations a lot of attention, so again, does "undue weight" really apply? I would think no. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The allegations are covered by secondary sources and are available as public records, so the strength of the sources is not an issue. "Undue weight" is certainly an issue, since the allegations were made by a single individual and disproven in court. Elevating unproven allegations by an individual to the same level as judicial proceedings gives them undue weight. The issue is that some editors are attempting to use the allegations themselves as evidence of wrongdoing, not the outcome of the proceeding. That causes a POV problem and in my opinion should not be part of a BLP.Jarhed (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These never went to court. There is no court case. We must have comments that are informed about the way the process works in AK, we should not have all these falsehoods which only serve to confuse other wikipedians. To repeat there is no court case. Furthermore ethics complaints have been filed by multiple individuals. Yes, each individual complaint has been filed by only one person, but again that is the way the system works. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 10:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The complaints were adjudicated by lawful authority, one configured to protect the rights of the accused. Such issues should be weighted towards those rights, as set forth in BLP policy.Jarhed (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The phrase abuse of power is the most egregious problem with the passage, since there's nothing even in the allegations, as described, to justify that kind of phrasing, which is normally used when someone in power is hurting a specific party who is not powerful. The allegation, from what I see of it here, is closer to tax cheating -- something that anybody could try, no official power needed. Palin cited the fact that she was getting ridiculous ethics complaints as one reason for stepping down -- that hardly justifies even this much treatment of allegations that were dismissed. Prominent allegations that are dismissed may still be used in an article because they've been prominent, but that prominence is obviously very limited once they're dismissed. It would be better to try to stick to facts -- say a representative allegation or two which are described in factual terms, not in phrases that are fraught with loaded meanings. -- Noroton (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Roland Perry

    User:Rd232 has done some extensive work on it since your last edit. Does that deal with your concerns? – ukexpat (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rd232 That's a great synthesis. Appreciate you bringing to bear your objectivity and higher-level editing. +I have updated the first para; author Roland Perry is onto his 23rd book now. Would also appreciate following up with any questions on how to improve the content and if any further disputes brewing. Haruspex101 (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)[reply]

    Problems with the Roland Perry page have returned. The very experienced user YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has deleted the content extensively, with these actions including: loading up the Cricket Book section in a very unbalanced way with purely negative criticism and removing positive reviews; cutting away all of the subject's career overview except to wrongly emphasise a related political article in Penthouse and leaving one para on a minor Guam project (rendering the career section bizarre); and willfully adding a paragraph which directly maligns the subject [see first edit]:

    maligns subject

    I would appreciate any ideas and assistance to resolve these problems.

    Balanced content and sources can give a fair view of the subject; but only if there are the conditions for genuine discussion and development of the content.

    Despite many invitations, the YellowMonkey user has not used the Talk:Roland_Perry to discuss content changes to date.

    This is all very disappointing.

    Haruspex101 (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)[reply]

    Attempted this DIY Reversion: DIY Revert. Hope YellowMonkey user will take editing proposals to Talk:Roland_Perry. Haruspex101 (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)[reply]

    This SPA is an autobiographical spammer YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bertram Earl Jones

    I've just declined a speedy G10 as it is sourced, but I'm off out in a minute so fresh eyes would be welcome. ϢereSpielChequers 17:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sam Fuld

    Is his religion adequately sourced? Second paragraph says he "is Jewish." "Personal" section, based on Q&A with the man, says he is "half-Jewish." I'm out of patience with an editor who keeps reverting back the contradiction, so a fresh viewpoint would be welcome. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hamoud Omar Khamis

    Born(10 June 1988) in Wete, Nothern Pemba district in Zanzibar Tanzania.He spent his childhood life in Kizimbani village in Wete-Pemba. As the norms of Zanzibar at the age before begining schooling he went to Madressa for geting foundation in Islamic knowledge. He attended Madressa called 'Hayatul Atfal' (Children's life). At the age of eight in 1996 He began his primary education at Kizimbani primary School which was formally known as Kizimbani Catholic Mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.244.70 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The purpose of this page is to draw attention to articles with problems, not to add biographies of people. Looie496 (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:Attack page up for deletion

    Please feel free to see article Anti-Israel lobby in the United States and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Israel lobby in the United States as a particularly egregious case of a WP:attack page and wp:coatrack page where extremely partisan sources are allowed to insult and attack individuals and groups. Very bad precedent for this article to survive, IMHO. FYI CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a WP:BLP issue? I think not.  – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex Sink

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

    There's a persistent anon editor who's continually adding a half-the-length-of-the-article hit piece about this gubernatorial candidate. Can a few people keep an eye on this one? Rebecca (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know if the alleged transgressions are worthy of inclusion, but to have half the source of the article about this seems to me to be WP:UNDUE weight on the issue. Martin451 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes. I don't know if they warrant mentioning either, but I'm concerned with the clear BLP violation. Rebecca (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Lancaster

    There are a number of SPA repeatedly adding in personal details about the individual's family including the names of the children and salacious details about Lancaster's divorce. There may be sockpuppetry issues with the SPA. I've been dealing with this on and off for a few days but having more eyes on it might help (especially since I'm not going to have much internet access for close to 48 hours). JoshuaZ (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved
     – article has been semi-protected -shirulashem(talk) 00:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reality TV series

    There have appeared several articles about reality TV show series, such as The Hicks (since deleted), and The Suburbs (web series), and, presumably The Hills, The Real Housewives of New Jersey, etc., which are supposedly real showings of people going about their lives, and appearing on TV. When the articles discuss bad things which the people involved in these series do, and they're totally sourced to the shows themselves, do these edits violate WP:BLP? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No. DreamGuy (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they do. Absent some verification, the claims are nothing more than editors' first-hand accounts of having watched the show and interpretations of whatever was said. At best, original research into primary sources. There's in practice a limited exception to the no-primary-source rule in WP:RS applying to sources for in-universe references in articles regarding fiction, including television shows, and some editors are smashing trucks through this "loophole" by applying it to all television episodes, whether fiction or nonfiction (applying that term rather broadly to reality TV). WP:BLP says "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject," and the broadcasts themselves are primary sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. My concern came up when reading the season descriptions at The Suburbs (web series), where it uses terms like "player" and "been around the block". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Katja Shchekina

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

    This biography is continually being edited to include poorly sourced information regarding the model's ethnic background. Both of the sources cited in the article are basically soft core pornography sites with low journalistic standards. There is also absolutely nothing in either of the articles which establishes which parent is of what ethnicity, and the page is being edited to intermingle poorly sourced information with the personal opinions of the editor. The issue of this model's ethnic background began as internet speculation and it continues to persist in that vein. It has already been established in the discussion page that there is evidence elsewhere which completely contradicts a mixed Somali-Russian background (i.e. the model's own claim that she is not part Somalian). The article is also being persistently edited to include subjective phrases like "in demand model", "top designers" and "is a favorite with". I think the article should avoid remarks about parentage and race entirely.

    Rahat Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan

    In Response to a "BLP unsourced" notice requesting help at the top of the article, warning that the article did not cite references as required by BLP policy, I added two references, and noted that on the talk page.

    The article now seems to comply with the policy, particularly as it applies to "Well-known public figures." The subject is a well-known musician in South-Asia, and there is nothing inaccurate, controversial, or inappropriate in the article. I would like to remove the "BLP unsourced" notice, and just want to confirm it's OK before doing so. --Dalesundstrom (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is now "partly sourced" -- at such point as the major claims are sourced, the tag departs this vale of tears. IMHO. Collect (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article now includes a reliable biography reference, but could still use improvement. The tag was modified earlier by a bot to unsourced (the bot doesn't seem to change the date, or change the tag back after improvement, as far as I can tell). I changed the tag back to unreferenced, which now seems more appropriate. I assume the bot will correct it or that someone will advise if that's not so. Hopefully all is well, and I believe this issue is resolved.--Dalesundstrom (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ceawlin Thynn, Viscount Weymouth

    User:Houstonfoochik keeps removing a reference to an article in The Independent, on the grounds that it is "defamatory". I believe it is a reliable source, though admittedly only secondarily relevant to the subject. The article is a commentary on another article (in the Daily Telegraph) about the subject. —Ashley Y 08:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit summary: "I have removed, now for the third time, an article which is defamatory and will litigate if it is reinstated. Pleasse take this seriously"

    I'm thinking this might be in violation of WP:THREAT? —Ashley Y 22:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure sounds like a legal threat to me, I would alert an admin at WP:AN/I. -- Ϫ 23:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a legal threat, but a pointless one, as it is citing something in a national newspaper, and not even commenting on it in the text - unless they have retracted anything about him subsequently (doubtful, as the article would eithe be unavailavle, or edited with the retraction. Thing is though, what is the point of citing it? It is about the media's coverage of something, rather than him - using the media coverage of him as saying something about the media, rather than about him. Mish (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has now been blocked. I've rewritten some of the bits in the article to use the references properly, but strictly speaking some of the included cites shouldn't be there, and they certainly shouldn't have been where they were placed. --WebHamster 23:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is playing out like WP:DOLT, which bothers me. —Ashley Y 00:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the source in question from the article. Not because of the legal threat, but because we already had another, better source for the statement it was nominally supporting in the article. The source was an opinion piece that included a rather insulting description of our article's subject, but was written to address a different topic. The opinion piece didn't add to our article, so I pulled it. (For U.S. readers, it would be like sourcing the statement "Barack Obama is President of the United States" with a link to Rush Limbaugh's blog.) Just-the-facts-ma'am newspaper articles are preferred over opinion pieces for establishing basic facts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is partly that the Telegraph cite is undated and unfindable online, and the Independent cite proves it exists and includes some of its information. The other is that the Independent cite helps establish notability to some small degree. —Ashley Y 00:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Slight problem - the Independent, if it establishes anything about him, is saying that he is not notable enough to warrant a headline in the Telegraph. So, his main claim to notability is his title, which was used in a report about a more notable event (a bombing in India where 17 people died), and the title was referred to by the Independent criticising the Telegraph for doing so. It establishes his non-notability, and I can't see why he warrants an article. Mish (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A source can argue non-notability, but by discussing a subject, it inevitably adds to notability. —Ashley Y 08:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but in this case, it adds notability to the title, not the person who holds the title: Viscount Weymouth. Mish (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no, because the Independent article discusses him as a person, with the suggestion that he specifically is not notable enough for the Telegraph headline. —Ashley Y 09:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if a newspaper notes somebody's lack of notability, that makes them notable in their own right? Mish (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Notability#General notability guideline: '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.' Mish (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not enough to establish notability (we have the other sources for that), but it certainly adds a little bit. In any case, it's a reliable source that refers to the subject, so it's a relevant link. —Ashley Y 04:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Stuart Miles - birth date issue

    Stuart Miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Stuartmiles (talk · contribs) has changed birth year on the Stuart Miles page to 1974 several times. This user claims to be the actual Stuart Miles but has not yet shown independent published evidence to support the alternative birth date claimed. The majority of published sources show Miles' birth date to be 1969 (as broadcast in a Blue Peter episode) with a minority showing birth date as 1970. Some discussion has already taken place on the talk page and on the user page with no resolution so far. A previous WP:COI/N was discussed and as a result a note was added on the user page though with no follow-up to date.

    Example diffs:

    —Teahot (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually most sources I found showed 1971 as his birth year (with the article stating he was 27 in 1999, prior to his birthday in February) (Guardian 8 Feb 1999, Guardian 8 Feb 1999, Sunday Mirror 16 Mar 1997 (possibly not reliable), BBC, Telegraph 23 Jun 2008). I have suggested on the talk page that Stuart adds a year of birth to his official website. Majorly talk 13:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gianmichael Salvato

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

    I'm not at all concerned with the apparent vandalism to the page as it seems to be reverted fairly soon after it's discovery, however I am concerned that the page does not meet the guidelines for notability.

    Upon going through the history and finding pages that were not actually vandalism, most of the text took on the feel of a personal advertisement rather than a biography. None of the information contained any real verifiable information as to education, business dealings, notability, and the such which violates WP:BLP#Reliable sources. In fact, many of the references are WP:SELFPUB#Self-published sources .28online and paper.29. It was filled with weasle and peacock.

    There was even a claim that he was a well known and notable author (or some such thing), however, searches on all his names for books written produced only two books on-line through Lulu.com (goto storefront for dharmadude it will come up with Mr. Salvato's information.) Researching his education from information provided at Linkedin shows his diplomas are from a Diploma mill and are not notable at all.

    It further seems as if there are personal interests involved with this page and it is requested a third unbiased person step in to make a determination if the page should actually remain or if it should be deleted. I've not yet marked the page for possible deletion and since I've never done so before, felt I should get another perspective on this before I make such a drastic suggestion.

    Thank you in advance for whatever help may be offered. Kjnelan (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    With a total of 15 G-hits on his name and order, none of which appear to be RS, it appears to be at best WP:PUFF and at worst eminently deletable. Collect (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have prodded it. – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all for the help. I'm rather new and still learning, but taking many notes. Kjnelan (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Erin Andrews

    So, we now have a nude video, apparently, of this very pretty woman. It's made its way to Wikipedia with a flurry edits. It is referenced at the moment, and her lawyer has admitted it occurred. My reading of BLP says the only reason to remove it would be "right to privacy" - apparently we're observing this policy on Miley Cyrus for some revealing cellphone photos last year. Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Taped without consent or permission equates to clear violation of privacy from the start. IMHO, it has no business on WP ever. Not even a close call. Collect (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Linking to or referencing the video itself is obviously inappropriate. Whether the incident itself should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article depends on the way the incident is covered by reliable secondary sources and its significance in relation to the subject's career/notability as a whole. In most cases, incidents like this fail at least one half of the test (for example, the paparazzi photos of Jacqueline Onassis in Hustler or wherever were widely reported, but were no more than a flyspeck from the perspective of her entire life; in contrast, Vanessa Hudgens's cellphone photos were both widely reported and were generally considered to have significant potential to affect her career. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place to document every embarassing moment in a celebrity's life -- there are way too many mentions of DUI arrests,, etc in celebrity articles, for example -- and the idea that anything that can be sourced should be included is just plain wrong. We don't have "Delinquent Tax Payments of the Rich & Famous" sections in articles, or "Child Star Bedwetting Incidents." (We do seem to have "Acts of Drunken Stupidity by Rock Musicians and/or Busty Female UK Celebrities" but I've been working on eliminating that one. But now I'm just ranting.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Simon Sheppard (far-right activist)

    Isn't the title of this article POV in the extreme? It was originally at this title, then it got moved to Simon Sheppard (activist), which seems more NPOV, and then it got moved back again. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved
     – Absolutely. That page was semi-protected AFTER it was moved by a vandal. I have placed an unprotect request on the talk page of the article for an admin.
    -shirulashem(talk) 21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Professor Carl Hewitt

    Professor Carl Hewitt has again been attacked in the article about him on Wikipedia.68.170.176.166 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia instigated the defamatory attack by The Observer on Carl Hewitt is another amazing Wikipedia scandal. Does Jimmy Wales know about it? 71.198.220.76 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like Wikipedia needs a new policy: Don't be evil! 67.180.134.170 (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any Wikipedia policy (including "Don't be evil") which has been violated here by anyone other than Carl Hewitt and the Students (which sounds like a good name for a rock band). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This incident shows that Wikipedia needs a code of ethics for Administrators and Arbitrators. 63.249.108.250 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if what Carl says is accurate (which is not a forgone conclusion), there doesn't seem to be any policy or "code of ethics" which is violated, by anyone other than Carl. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If Arthur Rubin speaks for Wikipedia, then the situation is far worse than most people imagined.63.249.108.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    Explain what policy, guideline, or proposal that has been violated by the people Carl thinks are opposing him? I can name a number of guidelines which have been violated by Carl. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I clearly don't speak for Wikipedia, nor do they speak for me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what the anon is asking be done here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he wants Charles Matthews removed as an arbitrator, or perhaps the subject's restrictions against editing Wikipedia removed. Most of this rotating anon's comments on Talk:Carl Hewitt seem related to that section of one of CH's essays against Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    The complaint in Wikipedia instigated the defamatory attack by The Observer on Carl Hewitt seems to be that the following section of the article violates NPOV:

    Hewitt's changes to the "Logic programming"[1] article sparked some criticism by Robert Kowalski and the logic programming community.[2]
    Well, it seems it was accurate at the time, but Kowalski didn't understand Wikipedia (either; I don't think it's a violation of any BLP to say that neither Kowalski nor Hewitt understood the Wikipedia model at the time they edited.) What specific change would you suggest? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The facts as indicated in Kowalski's ALP newsletter article seem to be as follows:
    1. Kowalski was involved in an edit war with Hewitt from 30 March through 11 April 2007
      (Perhaps about the definition; it wasn't entirely clear).
    2. Kowalski proposed a definition fork, with Kowalski's preferred definition being in logical programming.
    3. "The administrator enforcing the ban" decided against the fork.
    This seems to have left the article in a confused state, as neither Hewitt (because of the ban) nor Kowalski (because ...?) feels able to improve the article.
    Does that seem an appropriate analysis of Kowalski's article? If so, Hewitt's changes did spark criticism by Kowalski and the logic programming community, but so did the admin's action in locking the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_programming
    2. ^ Robert Kowalski (May/June 2007). "Logic Programming in Wikipedia Update" (PDF). Association for Logic Programming Newsletter. 20 (2). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

    Fight Club (film)

    I think you're right that the name should be removed from the article; none of the individuals involved in the other copycat incidents mentioned in the article are named, even though at least some of them have been convicted, and one is the son of a prominent government official. So I've done that (and condensed the discussion a bit). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarence Thomas

    Our article on the Far right confirms what common sense tells us: the term implies, to most readers, "that someone is an extremist." When numerous reliable sources exist that offer all sorts of descriptions of a judge, thereby allowing us to choose between several descriptions of that person for which a citation can be offered, should we choose the needlessly inflammatory one ("far right"), or should we select a more accurate (and more NPOV) description from among the available sources (such as "conservative")? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There are several reliable sources calling Clarence Thomas a member of the "far right" of the Court, and many more calling him the "most conservative" member of the Court. The WP article doesn't say he's far right in general (though he is); it just says he's on the far right of the Court. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And there are other reliable sources that describe him in other terms. You and MastCell want to present this into a dispute about sourcing, but it isn't: it's about content. You want to describe Thomas as being an extremist, so you've found a reliable source that describes him as being "far right," but the existence of other reliable sources means that it can't be the end of the debate that such a source exists. You have to defend your preference in terms of content, and that means defending your desire to have the article insinuate that Thomas is an extremist. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas' description should reflect what all RS say, with careful attention paid to weighting using reliability. I have less of an issue with describing someone as "far right" (or left, or up, or down) if enough good sources say so than with the idea that the article on the term Far Right might have too much soapboxing/OR in insinuating extremism. I know my opinion doesn't count as an RS, but I can think of people at both far ends of the political spectrum that I would not consider extremist, in the sense you (SD) are objecting to. Rafael's comment regarding scope of far rightness (within the Court) would significantly temper the problematic connotation of extremism. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As an involved party: let's be clear on what the sources actually say. Oyez.org summarizes Thomas' position on the Court: "Since becoming a justice, Thomas has aligned closely with the far right of the Court." PBS on Thomas: "While on the high court, Thomas has been a solid member of the far right wing bloc, commonly voting along with Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia." I know of no serious contention that these are unreliable or unencyclopedic sources. I don't think that reliable sources should be excised simply because their wording offends the sensibilities of one editor, but yet this is a recurring theme at the article. I will refrain from further comment here, and I'm not willing to be quite as free with imputations of malice as Simon has been above, but to cast this as a BLP issue is seriously misguided. I invite any and all curious parties to Talk:Clarence Thomas, since I think there are serious quality issues with the article that can probably only be resolved with additional eyes. MastCell Talk 17:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When read through the lens of the article on Far Right, then you are correct. The problem is, however, that I think the article on Far Right is wrong in many of its connotations. Reading that article, you get the impression that "Far right" means the next coming of Naziism. This is not an accurate portrayal of what Far Right now means in the US. The articles needs to be revamped and updated.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)"Far right" is obviously an inflammatory phrase. Common sense tells you that. Simply because we can find normally reliable sources who happen to have shown their bias on occasion, that does not mean that "far right" is the commonly accepted, widely accepted, consensus term for Thomas' philosophical stance. It isn't. Anyone with any familiarity with common coverage of the court already knows that. To use inflammatory language and pass it off as the mainstream view is insidious POV pushing. It is completely offensive. It is certainly a BLP issue because it is an attack on Thomas, who's been attacked -- rabidly -- quite a bit over the years, a situation that should make us more sensitive to bias on Wikipedia's part. There are dozens of alternative descriptions that would avoid inflammatory phrasing, so it's interesting that one of the most inflammatory is put into the article. It's simply bizarre to think that the inflammatory nature of "far right" is drained away by being cute in referring, on the surface, only to the court. To say "far right wing block" or "far right of the court" somehow exculpates the writers of the source documents or the editor who put the phrase in the article or the editors who support it is just ludicrous. The court is a controversial, politically sensitive topic. When you run across those, you take extra care to not only be neutral, but to look neutral. If I put a phrase like "child lover" into the Michael Jackson article, claiming I was only talking about his well-sourced affection for children and not referring to the pederasty allegations against him, it would be obvious that I was either stupid or trolling. Barack Obama, according to a reliable source (which I believe Wikipedia still cites), was one of the three most left-wing members of the U.S. Senate. That would not justify a Wikipedia article stating that "After he was elected to the upper chamber of Congress, Obama aligned closely with the far left of the Senate." or "Obama was a solid member of the far-left block in the U.S. Senate, commonly voting with Socialist Bernie Sanders." No one trying to be neutral would write that way. -- Noroton (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making a content argument, and one to which I'm somewhat sympathetic - I'd rather we have a more rounded reflection of what reliable sources actually have to say about Clarence Thomas in our article. But a content argument isn't a BLP violation. Believe me, I take BLP seriously - but citing multiple independent, entirely reliable secondary sources, verbatim, with in-line attribution (e.g. "The Oyez Project described Thomas as..."), to describe a major public figure's political orientation is in no way a BLP violation. In fact, it's reasonably good editing practice. Perhaps we should add additional reliable sources, or alter our presentation of them - that's an issue for discussion on the talk page, but not a BLP issue.

    As an aside, if an independent, reliable source has described Obama as a "solid member of the far-left block in the U.S. Senate", then that might be reasonable for inclusion, verbatim, with in-line attribution, as I've argued here. That would be an issue for discussion at Talk:Barack Obama, but not a BLP violation. MastCell Talk 18:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (redent) It is absolutely a BLP violation. Reporting on criticism of subjects who fit into WP:WELLKNOWN is justified, even a duty for Wikipedia under WP:NPOV. But "far right" is just name calling. You need to read through the WP:BLP policy again. Here are the relevant passages:

    • From the "i" box: If you are concerned about the accuracy or appropriateness of biographical material in a Wikipedia article [...] You're treating this as if accuracy is the only issue. That isn't the case with BLP. Appropriateness is also an essential aspect of BLP policy. My Michael Jackson and Obama examples had nothing to do with accuracy.
    • First paragraph: biographical material about a living person [...] requires a high degree of sensitivity Except when you're dealing with people who are widely called "far right" that is a phrase to be avoided in any BLP -- because using it elsewhere will obviously violate the requirement of a high degree of sensitivity
    • Writing style section: The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. "Far right" is quite obviously overstatement. Adjectival phrases are not supposed to be exaggerations, especially in BLPs, and especially when the idea is "negative". The policy is clear.
    • Criticism and praise section: Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Where is the evidence that describing Thomas as "far right" is either (a) a major (never mind "mainstream") opinion about him, even in relation to "far right of the court"? (b) an uncontested, uncontroversial label that a large proportion of the reliable sources would not object to? If it's controversial, even if it were worth mentioning, the phrase should be presented as controversial. Just look at it in the article: It's presented as fact, and it's not even necessary in the passage so lovingly quoted at length. If the sentence with the phrase in it were dropped from that passage, the purportedly neutral idea behind that phrase would remain because the rest of the passage says the same thing. You're arguing over an unnecessary phrase that's simultaneously offensive. Does that sound like a high degree of sensitivity to you? Does it sound like written conservatively? Does it avoid overstatement? Does it reflect the careful approach WP:BLP tells us is needed?
    • Well-known public figures section: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Note that this is basically the only difference between a BLP subject who fits into the WP:WELLKNOWN provisions of the policy and a BLP that doesn't. This is in the "Privacy" section of BLP and is concerned with scandal coverage, but it also addresses the broader idea of appropriate material (notable, relevant, and well-documented). How is it notable or relevant that Thomas be called "far right" when you could just as easily remove that short sentence and the passage would make the point that he is in the most conservative group in the court? How is it well documented when the article presents "far right" not as an opinion held by biased, left-wing court observers but as a phrase that is widely considered perfectly acceptable in describing him (much as its widely acceptable to characterize a Klansman or a neo-Nazi as "far right")? Here's the passage in the article, by the way (I defy anyone to tell me what is essential in the first sentence that isn't adequately communicated in the rest of the quote, or even in the article's lead-in to the quote):
    Upon his appointment, Thomas was generally perceived as joining the conservative wing of the Court, voting most frequently with Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia.[1] The Oyez project reported:

    Since becoming a justice, Thomas has aligned closely with the far right of the Court. He votes most frequently on the same side as the conservative camp of Rehnquist and Scalia. When Thomas began his tenure on the Court, many observers perceived him as a junior version of Scalia. Since then, Thomas has emerged from Scalia's shadow offering hints at his own conservative thinking.[2]

    -- Noroton (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's be clear: I would never write, as a Wikipedian, that Clarence Thomas was at the "far right" of the Court. You can see, in your blockquote, the wording I chose: Thomas "was generally perceived as joining the conservative wing of the Court." I think I have respected BLP, and chosen neutral, respectful, and reasonably sensitive language. On the other hand, when quoting an actual reliable source, I feel somewhat constrained to do so in a way which honestly reflects its content. Why should we bowdlerize specific sentences out of reliable sources because we don't like them? By deliberately leaving out the parts of the source that you find overly "inflammatory", you're altering the meaning and content of the source, and actively misrepresenting it. MastCell Talk 20:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. We have numerous reliable sources saying Thomas is on the "far right" of the Court, and we phrase it as such. The article in general, if anything, is biased in favor of Clarence Thomas, relying heavily on using his own words and frequently letting him define himself, so using some reliable sources to characterize his position on the Court relative to others is completely acceptable. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rafael: We have numerous reliable sources saying Thomas is on the "far right" of the Court my point is that this one is presented as providing neutral reporting or analysis, a point which you're evading. As a matter of fact, you've ignored all of my points. -- Noroton (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec):::MastCell: Misrepresenting it? How so? If the factual, neutral reporting that this source is presented in the article as providing is the only thing being conveyed by the sentence Since becoming a justice, Thomas has aligned closely with the far right of the Court. then what ideas are not conveyed by starting the quote with the next sentence rather than with that one? In addition, the article language just before the quote also conveys the idea. Again, if this were presented as one of the important opinions about Thomas, I'd be fine with it. But it's presented as reporting from a neutral observer, and it implies that the conservative wing of the court is "far right" in American politics, when that phrase is reserved for (a) mainstream accounts of people to the right of the Republican Party and (b) use by opinion writers to stigmatize people they disagree with. Do Google News searches of "Clarence Thomas" and "far right" or "Sotomayor" and "far left". All you find are opinion pieces in the first hundred results. Normal news coverage doesn't call SCOTUS justices "far right" or "far left". MastCell, you can be unfair and violate WP:BLP in other ways besides the words you write in an article. This is one of them. when quoting an actual reliable source, I feel somewhat constrained to do so in a way which honestly reflects its content. As I said, the only "content" reflected in "far right" is the source's biased opinion-mongering, apparently masquerading as neutral reporting or analysis. What you should feel constrained to do is avoid misrepresenting to our readers someone's opinionating for reporting or neutral analysis, and protecting living persons from unfair attacks from Wikipedia. Those come first. Anything you owe the source is a distant third, and exercising editorial judgment over what's notable and relevant to include in a BLP article won't violate any duties you have to the source. I'm all for reporting major opinions or criticisms held by any but a tiny minority, but that doesn't include simple name calling or presenting those opinions as neutral analysis or reporting. I've said everything I need to say, so I'm going to walk away, at least for now. I respect your motives, but articles on controversial subjects are difficult to edit neutrally. So please take some time out consider what I've said. -- Noroton (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    John de Nugent

    Ugh. de Nugent is a white supremacist, and this biography is relatively new, very lengthy, and its subject is pretty pleased with it. Its creator, User:BobKostro, has created a mess by uploading multiple copyrighted images he claims he has the permission to upload, but there are no OTRS tickets. Since de Nugent thanks Kostro for "this article on me on Wikipedia, which is designed to provide factual and credible information" about his white supremacy, he probably does have permission, but that's not how we operate. Anyway, this article could stand a review, as it read to me almost like an advertisement for de Nugent's white supremacy and his championing of his repeated victimization. -->David Shankbone 21:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For one thing the article is way too long for such a minor person. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hussein Salem Mohammed

    Soulja Boy Tell 'Em

    On Soulja Boy Tell 'Em (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a third opinion was requested for the potential use of Twitter links in order to justify inclusion of a currently circulating story (on blogs) that this rapper had posted a picture of himself in his underwear with an apparently faked bulge in his pants. The opinion given was that the story did inform as to his public persona and had been of sufficient public interest to be considered notable for inclusion if suitable reliable sources could be produced.

    This notice has been raised in order to help judge if the article at bestweekever.tv can be considered a reliable source or is a "questionable source" as per the guidance of BLP.

    The discussion in question is Talk:Soulja Boy Tell 'Em#Twitter controversy.—Teahot (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The bestweekever.tv article linked on the discussion above begins: "ONTD informs us that rapper Soulja Boy". "ONTD" (Oh No They Didn't!) is a blog; it's actually a LiveJournal.com community account, which means any LiveJournal.com user can contribute a 'celebrity'-gossip related entry. We evaluate sources by determining what sort of fact checking they do. We can look at news articles verifying the site's reliability or significance, show they're backed by a news media company, point to a page that explains how they accept submissions and how they fact check, etc.

    The 'article' highlighted comprises two short 2-sentence paragraphs. No About page is clearly visible on the bestweekever.tv site; the site has a VH1 logo in the top right. It is clear the 'article', with the site, is a "Gossip" page, rather than any substantive coverage of music or showbiz. In this specific case, where the gossip piece starts by pointing to a blog anybody can post to as their source for the information, there is no reliable published source for the information. Information and opinion does not become reliable by virtue of being repeated & cited in another source along with a comment.

    As no reliable sources providing the information without merely regurgitating earlier unreliable sources have been presented, the information does not belong in the article. The self-published Twitter source in this case is not appropriate, as we do not use such sources to present information with—direct or indirect—commentary as to what we, as editors, believe it "represents". Content that is not required in order to give a neutral encyclopedic article, that is not discussed by reliable published third-party sources as relevant to understanding the living subject as a whole, does not belong in the article. –Whitehorse1 09:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Abdulhadi Abdallah Ibrahim al Sharakh

    Matt Drudge

    Has a very extensive section (25 footnotes, 14 lines of text, making it have 40% of all the footnotes for the entire article, and the second longest section in the article) on "sexual orientation" which is almost entirely sourced to gay publications, and to an article retracted by the Toronto newspaper. At what point does such a section run afoul of BLP considerations? Do a large group of gay publications form a reliable source about the sexual orientation of a person the articles oppose? Is the section too lengthy as to be UNDUE? Does use of such a group of related sources adequately prove a contentious fact? I am not an edotor on the page, so am asking this only because it appears to be an issue which should be discussed. Collect (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreliably sourced claims Kimo Leopoldo have died

    Resolved

    A report that Leopoldo have died of a heart attack was posted on the MMA.tv-forums and is currently being added to the article. A few unreliable sources have reported on the post, but no reliable sources have confirmed it. I'm at 3RR and would rather not keep reverting alone. Thanks, --aktsu (t / c) 13:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The death is still not confirmed, but NYDailyNews.com just posted a story that he's "reportedly dead" which is a far cry from the previous posts on various small MMA-blogs. Marking as resolved. --aktsu (t / c) 16:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Falah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan‎

    This article is currently at AfD, but may be kept due to the subject's notability as a national polo player. If you look at the page history, it's pretty clear that the user linked above has an agenda. I've both edited the article & !voted for deletion on the AfD, so I'm no longer an 'uninvolved admin'. --Versageek 14:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Serious BLP issues in project space

    I stumbled upon this page which appears to have serious BLP issues. Specifically, many of the article requests accuse named individuals of serious crimes, without sourcing. This should be looked into. *** Crotalus *** 14:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles G. Koch

    Charles G. Koch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The material in this [edit] is supported only by a single editorial from a marginal news source and is a cut and paste job to boot. A new user User:Stormport keeps adding this material back in. Perhaps some attention might help this situation. Bonewah (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Mike Warnke

    Oh dear. Am I only one that thinks that, true or not, having him in Category:Impostors and the caption under his pic calling him discredited former "expert" is a bit much? Sticky Parkin 23:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ Vanzo, John (October 12, 2007). "Clarence Thomas". Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved July 20, 2009.
    2. ^ Cite error: The named reference oyez.org was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=303428655"