I have added many citations to the article after receiving word that it was deemed unreliable. How do I have it re-checked so the notice at the top of the page can be removed? Are the citations I used in line with what Wikipedia needs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenb700 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I've tagged some sources that might be improved through third party coverage. Primary sources, as well as the subject himself, are good for some things (in this article, Béhar's heritage, for example), but optimally, facts that contribute to a subject's notability – from activities to awards – will be covered by reliable, uninvolved third parties. It makes a better case for the significance of the activity or award. For example, if we discover that a magazine's award is not actually discussed by anyone anywhere other than the magazine itself, the article might improve by omitting the information. I've also removed the tag from the top. JFHJr (㊟) 23:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
What do you think? Do they pass WP:V and WP:RS? I wouldn't add the content about arrest back into article, unless people approve. I might add sources into "Further reading". --George Ho (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
They have no relevance to the article, full stop. Read WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". This would be titillating tabloid trivia, regardless of sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
In the section "Arrested and Charges Cleared," the following is written:
<offending material redacted> The entire last bit about 2011 is not true, or at least not able to be backed up by anything. This section needs to be heavily revised and corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.36.235.4 (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - An IP had added some uncited controversial content - and might come back so if a couple of users could watchlist it that would be great. I removed that and then removed the rest as it seems to have been a misunderstanding - the complainants wanted the charges dismissed - they were dismissed, so theres nothing to report on. Youreallycan14:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Final line in Tom Sizemore article claims he has been sentenced to life in prison [redacted]. I can't seem to find anything on the internet to corroborate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.78.19 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Controversial information exists regarding Cory Burnell's involvement with the Texas League of the South. The articles cited provide no confirmation from known officials at the Texas League of the South that Burnell ever held an official position in the organization, nor are any records cited. The coordination between Christian Exodus and the Texas League was mistaken for Burnell holding an official position and that misinformation was then reported in future news reports. It's not the case and the reference to Burnell having an association with the Texas League in any capacity other than through Christian Exodus should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turner17 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The material is well-sourced. It doesn't have to be confirmed by League of the South officials. If you have a conflicting secondary source, that might change things. As an aside, the material shouldn't be in the lead when it's not covered in the body.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Paul Krugman
Paul Krugman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vision Thing keeps on adding these controversial materials to the Paul Krugman page even when many people on the talk page have objected to them.[1] At the same time, he edits the Friedrich Hayek page to do this.[2] It looks to me like Vision Thing's motivation is to edit right-wing BLPs to puff them up, and edit left-wing BLPs to blacken their names. He gives flimsy reasons for his edits. When I looked at his history, and it looks like he comes to Wikipedia to push a political point of view. I feel that this is wrong and that there should be some rule against doing this. FurrySings (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Vision thing's edits seem to be a bit partisan, but that is pretty normal here - many editors just add good content to the side they like and attack content to the people they don't like - sadly policy is weak to assist. Keep notes of any potentially biased additions and make a RFC user case against him if you feel its a serious issue. I notice he has added this multiple times in January and if consensus is against him adding that content he needs to stop adding it and return to the talkpage. Youreallycan18:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
FurrySings is the one who is refusing to discuss changes on talk page. His last comment there was 25 days ago and in the meantime he made a number of reverts. He isn't even trying to justify his reverts on the grounds on improving article. If that is not objectionable behavior, I don't know what is. He is treating this like a battle. -- VisionThing --19:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
When one side is refusing to discuss its reverts and is basing them on personal dislike of editor who made original contribution to the article it is impossible to achieve progress. -- VisionThing --15:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've twice removed the disputed material, and it has been twice re-added by User:TheFreeloader. I'd have thought that it should stay out until there is consensus for inclusion, but I'm done reverting it myself -- if others agree then they'll have to pursue it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we'll just leave them to it - the content is a bit undue but there is now a good discussion on the talkpage with a couple of experienced editors. Youreallycan22:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Fascinating. When it suits you, you adopt the approach I was recommending: if it's disputed, keep it out until there's a resolution. Additionally the alleged discussion on the talk page is not active. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to request your constant sniping at me at every opportunity please stops, its unending and if you are unable to get over your personal dislike of me and continual commentary I am going to have to request a interaction restriction. Youreallycan15:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Stop trying to personalize this. It's a perfectly reasonable point: if it's disputed it should stay out until it's resolved via discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I have made my request, if you continue I will ask at WP:AN for an interaction ban - please stop your continual picking at me at multiple locations. Youreallycan15:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
@Nomosk, you "personalized" it with your comment beginning with "Fascinating". The only part of that post that was legitimate was about the Talk page; the rest was gratuitous.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
My name is Sandra Davis and I am a former ATF agent who started fighting the corruption within ATF back in 1986. I am now working with some of the current whistleblowers who exposed Operation Fast and Furious (F&F). Wikipedia did an excellent article on this topic but left out the name of the first whistleblower to go to the media when John Dodson, the first agent to protest the operation, was ignored by ATF and his congressman. There is a list of all the F&F whistleblowers in the article except for Special Agent Renee Jaquez. Please contact me so that I can give you the information and documentation you need to correct this. This Agent has been the most retaliated of all the F&F whistleblowers. Please direct me in how to help correct this as soon as possible. This man is truly a hero and to have his name left off the list would be a devastating blow to him and all the agents who are grateful to him for his sacrifice. Thanking you in advance I am sincerely yours, Sandy Davis
Wikipedia bases articles on published reliable sources. If you can find these, I suggest you raise the matter on the relevant article talk page. Note however that we will need strong credible sources for any assertions regarding living individuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I see that you added Jaquez to the article, without providing a source. I have removed this, as per WP:BLP policy, a source is required for such material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Try [3] for that person mentioned in regard to an article on F&F. Well, this whole scandal shows we've probably allowed more guns into the country than guns we've stopped," Jaquez said. Also [4]RENE JAQUEZ, ATF SUPERVISORY AGENT: At crime scenes. At the death -- at the side of somebody who's dead, at a gun battle between the police and the bud guys, in which either the bad guy was killed and his gun was left at the scene, or used during the commission of a crime in which the gun was left behind. Enough to label him as a candid source on the ATF actions. Only part I can not verify is "retaliation." But enough to get a mention (several distince major reliable sources). Collect (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The section is very messy and not enough care has been - or is being - taken with edits to the section. These are major allegations, and they need to be approached carefully.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Your attention to this article for a moment--I've reverted more often than I should. A registered user and an IP keep adding a Facebook group and some silly puffery to the article. I've started an SPI, but I want to make sure that this is indeed a BLP violation. If you agree that it is, consider reverting. Ditto with the Facebook addition at Sanford H. Calhoun High School. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is libellious. This article is deliberately presenting information that is drastically out of context, if not completely untrue, and is simply designed to make Dr Newton look very, very bad. He has himself attempted to correct the libel in the article and to adjust the context and content to make it accurately reflective of his life and work. However, it appears that whoever has posted this is also monitoring the article and replacing any attempts to correct it with the original libellious information. Such behaviour is nothing more than slander of Dr Newton, and as such is harassing in nature. I would submit that the article be removed. If it cannot be removed, it would appear that the person or persons who keeps putting libellious information should be barred from replacing our attempts to correct the work with his or her content. Their content is malicious in nature, and is defamatory to Dr Newton in every possible way.
I am a close personal friend of Dr Newton's and I was a patient in his KIDS rehab programs and can testify as an eyewitness to my own experience, and give accurate context for many of the issues placed in this article, which are misrepresented in terms of how they are reported. As I was by no means a model patient - I went through the KIDS program four complete times - I believe no one would be better qualified to back him up. His treatment program was a lifesaver - it saved my life, and I still use the lessons learned from the treatment process now, more than 13 years after the dissolution of KIDS. I would even suggest that the true story of the KIDS program, and Dr Newton himself, as well as RuthAnn, and many other people involved in this work, is nothing short of extraodinary in its goodness. It is truly saddening and tragic to see this good man maligned in this way. I personally would really like this to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim1967 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see also WP:COI, as it applies to close personal friends of article subjects. See also WP:LEGAL for reasons to avoid opening your post with claims that something is "libellious" [sic]. JFHJr (㊟) 09:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Ripoff Report is a website that primarily comprised of user-submitted "reports" detailing grievances with companies, individuals and organisations. Anyone can submit a report, reports receive no vetting for accuracy and the website has a policy of never removing reports. Obviously, links and references to reports on this website are completely unsuitable for any Wikipedia article except the article on the website itself. Usage of the site to reference BLP articles and statements concerning BLPs in other articles is clearly completely out of the question. Nonetheless, this website is being used as a reference in multiple articles (including many BLPs) for contentious assertions. It has additionally been used to support statements in multiple discussions.
I intend to start going through the list in the next day or so, but I don't have the time to cover the 200+ uses myself and would appreciate any assistance. CIreland (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
That's because Youreallycan and I have removed the problematic cites and external links from various articles to address the above complaint. JFHJr (㊟) 23:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Now we're down to 185 or so. At this point, it seems improper sourcing has been removed from obvious WP:BLP articles, however there may be some lingering violations in non-BLP articles where Ripoffreport attacks on living persons are used as references. JFHJr (㊟) 02:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Genealogical claims have repeatedly been made which are unsupported by the cites given utterly. One cite does say he is related to Huntsman through a common ancestor (which sort of claim has been made about almost any two candidates in the past, including Bush and Kerry, and have not been found of significant weight in the past), but the other cites do not support any of the claims made. Please watch this article for "genealogy" which, IIRC, has generally been found to be of minimal weight in any candidate BLP, and especially of little weight when it is a comment at most en passant in an article not based on genealogy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Is not a term found in any books, nor in news articles. It is pure SYN and OR, AFAICT with WP:BLP implications. It is not properly sourced, and is based on genealogy which is not properly sourced (in many places totally unsourced, or sourced to non-RS sources). I think it may even be deletable as a matter of fact, as it is such a mish-mash of unsourced and unsourceable claims entirely. Collect (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not make a practice of nomming for XfD as I maintain a position that I examine all noms there scrupulously before forming an opinion. One perennieal problem at XfD is that editors who nom a great number of articles may lose credibility in the entire area. This noticeboard, moreover, is a proper place to raise conscerns, and here are editors here who take editing BLP-affecting articles quite seriously. BTW, there are zero reliable sources for "Pratt-Romney" at all (that is - fewer than a single source, nada, nil, six less than a half-dozen, etc.) - in news articles or in books. I think that indicates something seriously amiss with this "article." Collect (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The source cited for the existence of the family calls them the Romney family. I have no problem with nominating it for deletion ASAP. BigJim707 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The son of a furrier, Forsyth was born in Ashford, Kent. He was educated at Tonbridge School and later attended the University of Granada in Spain.[1] He became one of the youngest pilots in the Royal Air Force at the age of 19, where he served on National Service from 1956 to 1958. Becoming a journalist, he joined Reuters in 1961 and later the BBC in 1965, where he served as an assistant diplomatic correspondent. From July to September 1967, he served as a correspondent covering the Nigerian Civil War between the region of Biafra and Nigeria. He left the BBC in 1968 after controversy arose over his alleged bias towards the Biafran cause and accusations that he falsified segments of his reports. Returning to Biafra as a freelance reporter, Forsyth wrote his first book, The Biafra Story in 1969.[1]
Observation from former Flt Lt John Chambers (Service number 4054415) (forjohnc@batsford-bear.com)
Without any validation nor intended condemnatory criticism, I am, nevertheless, 'surprised' by the statement: "He became one of the youngest pilots in the Royal Air Force at the age of 19, where he served on National Service from 1956 to 1958."
I was an RAF flying instructor from 1952 to 1958, during which time (to the best of my knowledge) no one (repeat) no one was entered into pilot training for just the two years of National Service ... unless, of course, Mr Forsyth had signed-on for a longer engagement (as many recent young graduates did) but was suspended from flying training early on (as some trainees were), when he would have been transferred to ground employment to serve-out his National Service time. In which case he never would have been regarded as "a pilot", only ... at best ... as a "pilot trainee" for as long or short a time as he was a pilot trainee.
To the best of my knowledge, to complete "pilot training" in the 1950s took three years; at the end of which time the Air Council required a minimum commitment from recent graduates of a further year of service as a pilot with an operational squadron to consolidate a new pilot's useful skills. My unit regularly had at least a few student-pilots whose National Service had been deferred until they had 'come down' from University with their degree ... but all of them were serving on at least an obligatory Short Service commission of four or eight years in order to qualify for entry into pilot training.
I removed the statement. I don't think biblio.com author profiles are necessarily reliable sources. This particular one does not even say who wrote it (others do but I'm not sure who can, who can't, nor what kind of fact checking is done). I also removed another statement from the same section - that one wasn't even supported by biblio.com and was negative.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
SPA devoted to whitewashing the article. Perhaps there can be a discussion if there are any BLP violations, but at a glance what's there appears well sourced. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'm concerned that a number of the sources may not be reliable. This would benefit from some oversight and cleanup, but the wholesale deletion of content caught my attention.... 99.149.85.114 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd really appreciate more eyes on this, given the current engagement of the above account, who claims to be the article's subject. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I am Father Virgil Miller Newton, I am 72 years old and this is extremely difficult for me so I recruited the help of an assistant. The information on your site is erroneous, I have tried three times now to correct it. The article as it stand is defamatory and libelous in its manner. Siting my practices as such and then referencing an organization that's sole purpose is to liable anyone every involved with Straight Inc as a credible reference is ridiculous at best.
If you will check out my changes you will see that I do not sugar coat the fact that I was affiliated with the company that the people who perpetrated the original biography note. I just corrected there misinformation.
Please help me help myself by taking down there misinformation.
Actually (and my apologies) -- there were references, in fact the article was at least prima facie well referenced -- so I've restored the version that existed prior to today's changes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you please assist on this. It is not well reference, and unfortunately I do not have the knowledge this group has to edit it to your liking. A little assistance here would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foucauld1 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that Foucauld1 started a thread at the Fringe Theories noticeboard[5] because he believes the sources violate WP:FRINGE. I suggest that discussion about this stay in one place, and that this board (or RS?) might be a better fit than fringe theories. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said I am illiterate when it comes to this and am doing the best I can with a little assistance.
Here is what I put on the other board.
Citation 1 is in direct violation of propaganda rules a b Fager, Wes (2000). "Reverend Doctor Virgil Miller Newton at Straight, Inc. and at KIDS of North Jersey / KIDS of Bergen County". Retrieved 2009-08-03. It is a site that is not reputable site that was created solely to defame me.
Citation 2 ^ "Newton settles with Corter". Retrieved 2009-08-03. again goes to this same site.
Citation 3 is a falsification of information. I corrected that information in my edit and did not deny that there were suits filed while I was involved and listed them.
Citation 4 - 7 can not be sourced
Citation 8 and 9 as well as 13, 19, 21, 25, 26 are 404 can not be found pages
Citation 17 - again goes to the straights as referenced in citation 1
Citation 22 - does not validate the claim
Citation 23 - is another site created just to defame me.
And lastly 4 and 28 are from POKOV a self proclaimed watchdog of the Orthodox Church that publishes half truths.
Hopefully this will help in getting this matter cleared up.
Referring to citations by number doesn't always work well. I've recently removed the citation you list as citation 1, as it appears more a blog site than a reliable source. So the other numbers are now all slightly off as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Again Citation 2 and 17 also go to the same blog site
No-one here wants untrue information to stay on a Wikipedia article about an individual. To assist you, it would be useful if you could summarize (what in your view is) the incorrect information currently on that article. What does it say that is incorrect? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Given the size of the article, that seems a bit difficult for Foucauld1 to comply with. ("Which of these 250 negative statements about you are not true?") He's listed the references that he believes are unuseable. Since the article is a BLP, and since 95% of it is negative, then any statements solely backed by unuseable sources, need to be removed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no objection to removal of anything that isn't properly sourced. I'm just trying to get a sense of the big picture here: what does the article say about him that he believes is untrue? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Obviously this is a standard message. I have tried several times to correct the information, even went line by line earlier today with an assistant to change it, not removing all references and it was reverted before I could blink. As I have stated the references are not valid, they majority of the article is created just to defame me.
The amount of information that is incorrect is way too large to post here. If you go back to the history of my biography you will see where I made changes, but after spending 2 hrs the first time and it being dumped I just copied and pasted from then on. I have given you the unreliable sources, If you want I will gladly post the changes I made here and you can review them. But not today, this is not resolved but I have other more pressing things to attend to right now.
The article seems pretty coatracky to me. The lawsuit section, for example, is full of info about suits against KIDS, with info about Newton kind of tacked on. Of course Newton was a director at KIDS, but this much info about suits against an organization don't necessarily belong in a biography of someone who was affiliated with the organization. It would be better suited to an article about KIDS. I'm not necessarily saying it should be deleted, but I wouldn't mind seeing it reduced in size - I think it represents undue weight as it is. Is anyone else seeing a coatrack here, or is that kind of a stretch? Dawn Bard (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks that way to me - some of the tangent stuff needs removing from the Bio - and perhaps in an article about the org or the lawsuits - if its notable. Clearly there is involved editing. Youreallycan22:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Having made the initial report here, and after several more cursory glances of the article, I submit that the content be vastly cut back. Much of what's there relies on dead link sources or sources that are not reliable, or are from websites of disgruntled former patients. Without trying to suss out what's true and what's not, I've come to think that a lot of what's there, especially given its negative balance, isn't sufficiently well sourced to stay. At the least I'm glad to have come across it while it was being revised-- the article's subject and his associates aren't objective-- but I think they raise legitimate concerns. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
While a Google search of the subject's name turns up numerous NYC news reports on Youtube covering the KIDS organization, I'm not sure that Newton himself is prominently cited, and wonder whether he even meets notability guidelines.... is the article primarily a vehicle for settling scores? 99.149.85.114 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree - its not an easy job though when articles have been bloated like that from a conflicted involved person. Perhaps someone will take it on. Is he individually notable .... thats something to consider Youreallycan23:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed an obvious commercial site and an obviously non-RS cite - but a lot of the "newspaper articles" are not findable with diligent search in the newspaper archives, to say the least. I assume good faith, but the chances that some of this was "gemacht" can not be totally ignored. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
A lot of excellent cleaning up has been done here--my thanks to those who have contributed to the article since I raised my concerns here. Today I found and added links to several important sources that had gone missing, the NJ Law Journal piece, a book, and a NY Times article, all of which help substantiate numerous claims in the article. My formatting of the cites leaves something to be desired, but at least the sources and their content can now be viewed. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I've engaged in discussion at both the article and Collect's talk page, and would appreciate further review, especially as to whether the deleted content was overly specific, violated BLP policy, or is not supported by sources. Thanks, 99.149.85.114 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Again - in a BLP if a claim is made, particularly a multi-sentence claim, the source must support all of the material, and not be "extrapolated" to support them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere, the deleted content appears to very closely follow its sources. Specific problematic claims or tone can be edited, but in this case you've just deleted entire passages with explanations that the text was unsupported by sources, which is not true. I added the links to the NY Times and NJ Law Journal articles, as well as to a book which extensively covered one aspect of the subject's legal concerns (which was subsequently removed in total), for the very purpose of strengthening the article's content. So, I'm really surprised by this, and view the deletions as something more than an adherence to BLP guidelines. Others' reading of the deleted passages, alongside the sources from which they derive, would be appreciated. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Something I haven't even mentioned until now with respect to BLP is that the aforementioned sources are far more critical than even what was removed; I'm left with something like the same unnerving sense that brought me here a few days ago, that controversial material regarding the subject is being removed, even after it's been properly verified by accepted sources. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
(od) Please read WP:RS to see what sorts of sources are acceptable in articles in general, and WP:BLP to see the further strictures on sources in biographies of living persons. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Incredibly, I've read these policies. This appears to be the first time you're raising questions regarding the acceptability of these sources. Is there now a problem re: the NY Times and the NJ Law Journal? Lo, the ground continues to shift re: rationale for removal of sourced content. Cheers, yes. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
(od) I have posted on the article talk page - for some odd reason when a source says absolutely nothing to support claims made using it as a cite, the claims are "not supported." Unsupported contentious claims must be removed from a BLP. The NYTimesmag cite I go into in depth on the article talk page,and I daresay no one here will give credence to the assertion that the cite supported the claims made for it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I've responded there. Though some of the specifics are not supported by the source, they are easily removed, and that which is supported can be retained. A similar exploration of other recently deleted passages is welcome. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Virtually none of the claims were remotely supported by the source. As in - they got Newton's name in the source, but not much else supporting the explicit, detailed and wide-ranging contentious unsupported claims. Collect (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
While several specifics were not supported, they are easily removed, while much of the passage can be verified by the source. I've proposed an alternative example at the article talk page. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It's no fun watching this article, but there's been a new (for me anyway) wrinkle, a spat between two editors, one of whom claims the other is actually Jack Harte. Even that I could deal with, but I'm having trouble dealing with cites to a subscription-only website for some of the cited articles. So, I have no idea whether the material is supported by the cite(s). Anyone who feels like helping would be welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been observing, but I haven't been in much position to help. I don't have an subscription to the Irish newspaper cited. FWIW, as for editors' behavior, I think a visit to ANI or action by an admin here might be warranted. I found no indication the one editor has actually disclosed his identity as the subject, so I think attempting to link any real life identity is a serious problem per WP:OUTING on the part of Viticulturist99 (talk·contribs). JFHJr (㊟) 17:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, Viti's comments violate WP:OUTING, but we've all occasionally questioned the connection of editors of articles to the subjects in some fashion because we suspect a conflict. I'm more concerned with whether it's true and, even if it is, whether Viti is using it as an excuse to insert negative information into the article (it's clear that Viti does not like Harte, which interferes with whatever editorial judgment he may have otherwise). In any event, I've asked Viti on the article Talk page why he believes the other editor is Harte. Thanks for trying to help.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it looks like a couple of real-life antagonists have brought their dispute to WP. If this doesn't cool down, I think blocks/page bans are in order. Otherwise, the page is going to continue to be a back-and-forth between the two accounts. The Interior(Talk)17:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but even if the editors are banned from editing the page, what remains in the article needs to be accurate and reliably sourced. And although there's nothing technically wrong with a paywall source, it raises red flags when the user citing it has a biased history editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, given the history, maybe we should take a very strict interpretation of WP:V. Ask that paywalled sources give an excerpt within the ref. There's not a whole lot left there that I'm worried about, you still have concerns? The Interior(Talk)19:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Other than general uneasiness (heh), this one sentence added by Viti: "In 2008, the Irish Writers' Centre lost the Arts Council of Ireland funding due to limiting its activities to being only a writers' courses provider, which approach was seen by the Arts Council as purely commercial." The cited source is behind the paywall.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I've consulted this article via Nexis, and I don't think it supports the claim. In the first paragraph we get a summary: "The reasons [for cancellation of funding] set out in the recommendation ... include concerns about the centre's visibility, value for money and quality of service to writers." The word commercial does not appear in the article, and I don't see anything that could be summarized using that word. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. Is there something in the Irish Times article that warrants inclusion in the Harte article? If so, could you edit the Harte article accordingly? Or, if you wish, could you e-mail me a copy of the Irish Times article so I can deal with it? Whatever you're comfortable with.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Reading the Jack Harte talk page makes it clear that Viticulturist99 has a grudge against Harte, and seems unable to edit this article from the neutral point of view. His insistence that a user-submitted website is a reliable source for contentious information added to a BLP is problematic. I should have added this article to my watch list two weeks ago: I have done so now. Cullen328Let's discuss it20:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I see that Viticulturist99 has previously attempted to use a Russian-language source for a quotation in English, without providing the Russian text and his own translation, as required by the relevant policy/guideline. If Bbb23 agrees with me that he has also misused a non-free source (possibly misrepresenting it while hoping that difficulty of access would deflect scrutiny), then I think we'll have to worry about serious misbehavior here, likely justifying a topic/page ban. For now I have removed the questionable portion of the sentence indicated above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Viticulturist99 also added material that failed both reliability and verification and was removed. Viti then repeatedly restored the content and cite to the source that did not support it once, twice, thrice. It looks like a pattern and a BLP problem to me. JFHJr (㊟) 22:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
There is indeed a long, protracted history reflecting an agenda by Viti. Even his comments on the Talk page indicate that he doesn't like Harte, and his edits, unfortunately, show he cannot put that bias aside. He reverted Nomosk's change to the problematic sentence. I have since gone in, reedited it to quote the article, and updated the citation so it's clearer. Viti's interpetation of the article (and I'm fairly certain I know which part of it he's relying on) is completely misguided, and, even then, he adds charged words to exacerbate the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I have now checked more sources via Nexis and removed the bit about Harte being "at all times" on the board of the IWC (seemingly intended to blame him for the centre's difficulties). We have more instances of difficult-to-access sources offered to support claims that aren't actually in the sources. Any further evidence of misuse of sources here in service of the obvious vendetta Viticulturist99 has against Harte will need to be taken to ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The Biography of M.Dz. is hiding the bad side of him and presents him in a very controversial manner.
He is the most corrupted and most doubtful politican in Slovakia. In the article he is portraid only with one color. The article is not serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modra-gorila (talk • contribs) 15:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
In your article about Asil Nadir you make reference to me - Michael Mates. What is written there is entirely untrue and grossly libellous. i require you to remove it forthwith and confirm to me that you will not allow it to be repeated. For the record, I never received any monety at any time from Mr Nadir, nor did I evber put down any questions in the House of Commons. What you allege, if true, would have involved censure by the House at the very least, and probably dismissal for corruption. I weas never criticised by tthe House itself or any of its authorities for any raseon at any time during my 36 years in Parliament.
I object to the inclusion of the term "10th rate trundler". I am not against including criticism, but according to WP:BLPSTYLE:
"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."
Accordingly, apart from being disparaging towards the subject, the phrase "10th rate trundler" is also the viewpoint of Haigh Gideon, a minority of one.
I am sorry for following your contributions to this article. I would usually not do this, but since this is a biography, I couldn't let this pass. According to the policy page, the burden of evidence for inclusion of the material is on you, and therefore, I would request you to please remove the statement until this dispute is resolved. Thanks. Telco (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
By your flawed logic, the views of anyone should be discarded as everyone is a minority of one. Haigh is in the A-grade of cricket journalists; he published his opinion in Australia's only national newspaper. His viewpoint helps contextualise the one and only Test match in which the subject of the article has played. So no, I'm not going to remove it. If you can find other quotes from reputable journalists or writers, perhaps saying different things, you're more than welcome to include them as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
</reproduction of discussion>
I would appreciate third party opinion on this, and removal of the edit from the biography page until the dispute is resolved. Telco (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
third party - removed diff - edit summary - its an awful addition imo that no experienced NPOV contributor would make to a BLP. - also, to add, defending it at the noticeboard and refusing to remove it is also incomprehensible to me. As the reporter says in the first line of this report - while actual encyclopedic educational criticism is welcomed, that addition is a simple insult. Youreallycan21:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
No worries, I understood that. Sadly the user (User:Mkativerata) has replaced the comment again and rather than discuss has chosen to attack me in an edit summary (diff). I have removed it a second time. Youreallycan21:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
He has reinserted it once again (link). I don't see why the inclusion of that phrase cannot wait until the BLP dispute is resolved. In his edit summary, he says "take it up with the news publisher", but that is exactly the point: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a tabloid. We do not publish news reports or opinion pieces but encylopedic articles. Telco (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This article has been the subject of, in my opinion, POV pushing, since I decided to rewrite a paragraph on this minister's plans for an apparently SOPAesque copyright law. My edit to a paragraph which previously only had a link to an organisation opposing the law as a reference added reliable references to the paragraph, removed some of the previous content for which I could find no verification, and added some content I felt was relevant. 176.61.61.99(talk·contribs·WHOIS) took umbrage at this, and reverted my changes. There followed an edit war involving me, the IP, and an other user. The end result was that after an unproductive discussion on Talk:Seán Sherlock, the IP user unilaterally "merged" the two competing version, and add some POV content. The current version is highly unsatisfactory for reasons that will be obvious to anyone reading the page (adjectives like underhanded referring to the Government, and popular referring to the objectors makes it pretty clear in what direction the POV is). There is no attempt to give a neutral treatment to the issues. I am unsure whether the BLP exemption to 3RR allows me to revert the changes (I am currently at 3 reverts), because the content could be read as non-biographical, so I would like input from this board on how to deal with this issue. Quasihuman | Talk23:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe the above to be honest or transparent. The orginal edit was made to remove an important aspect of fact - the initial method of the intoduction of the statute. The initial edit also sougt to remove an entirely pertinent link. Furthermore the edits made have refered to petition sigature numers and consistently sought to reduce the real total by refering to dates in the past when there were fewer signatures. Language such as 'reform' were introduced in editsin place of statute, legislation or law. Above all the edits have been driven to remove established fact. This includes removal of citations requested (i.e removing the journal.ie and the irish times link). The reference to the use of the word underhand is in fact mild compared to the description which was printed in one of Irleland leading broadsheet newspapers ( a citation that when provided was removed). Having asked that any edits be amended to the very short initail contribution rather than erasing it, persistent re-editing utilised in place of undos was used to obscure the original facts and link (dispite the fact one of the edits included petition numbers available via a link that was removed! However in an attempt to compromise I will remove the word underhanded but believe it is entirely right to leave the link to the Irish Times article which highlights the attempt to intoduce the statute without debate. The attempt to utilise a technique of repeated editing over as opposed to transparent undos, utilise well intentioned wikipedia rules such as the 3RR to censor. Utilising words such as reform, mistating petition numbers from several days prior and indeed challenging the very evident use of the term 'SOPA Ireland' are indicative of extraordinary bias seeking to create a unilaterally pro goverment article. This is a matter of puiblic issue, indeed, there are ample citations, links and references to establish that the article covers the issue well, is well referenced and is entirely appropriate to the Sean Sherlock article. Since it is speciffically raised, the world underhand will be removed by me now, however I hope that the above disputing party will be restained from making further borad edits, particularly to valid references such as the irish times, the register, the website of a TD who debated the matter in the Dail with Sean Sherlock etc. No where in the article is a position stated on the staute other than it facilitates the bocking of websites for Irish internet users, this is enterly true and factual. No moral poosition is taken in relation to this.
A better question for readers of this dispute is why someone would wish to censor out the publicly acknowledged and known facts regarding the attempted method of introduction of the statute, wish to misrepresent petition numbers, delete links that cite debate between Sean Sherlock and another TD in the Dail and remove any reference to the public opposition to the proposed statute. The contesting party above infact uses the phrase SOPAesque, yet dispite numerous sources a citation was requested on the phrase 'SOPA Ireland'. No conclusion is made on the article on wether the proposed stature is good or bad, merely to the public and media events that have surrounded it. The taking down of government websites bt Anonynous is one consequence, entirely related to the statute ebing introduced by Sean Sherlock. The disputing party appears to be entirely motivated to obscure fact band references and citations. The theme from the contesting party is biased.
It is noteworthy that wikipedia itself choose to protest against the SOPA legislation and its' potentially damaging effects. It would be a bizzare irony if wikipedias rules where utilised to obsure direct and pertinent facts and information in relation to a statute in Ireland with similar inclination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Article about a young gay activist - seems to rely mainly on blogs, some by him, may be written by him. I'm not sure if he's notable, can't find anything myself other than these blogs, etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I've gone through cites and removed those that didn't even mention the subject, as well as blogs. Then I checked those that did for substantial coverage, found none, and further discovered several that didn't at all support the prose. Having done so, the article is left with nothing but primary sources – one search url at The Advocate online and the rest is subject's own writing. Notability's seriously in question. I left a notability tag on the article and findsources template at the talk page. JFHJr (㊟) 22:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs to base articles on reliable sources, rather than on postings from individuals. A quick check on Google finds nothing to back this up, though if it is correct, no doubt it will become clear soon enough. Meanwhile, I'd ask that we wait for conformation, if this is indeed the case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
This article quotes Lord Prescott speaking in the House of Lords thusly: " I get a full page in the Telegraph but what worried me about that they used evidence of all personal factors and when I went on to them, where did they get that information because they are lies, they said they got it from Wikipedia. Well they didn't even ask you the question they just pumped it out. Why? Because it was a political action to in a way attack somebody from another political party for decision they have made."
- this is the article in question - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9031148/John-Prescott-could-run-for-police-commissioner.html - lots of personal details in the article - its hard to say what exactly he is referring to - opinion pieces get reported in low quality articles and get repeated in other articles and users quote article titles and vandals add stuff that gets quoted in articles and after we remove it from here as uncited it mirrors back from an article - this is just the standard of writing in wikipedia's political sector - so low as no journalist should ever be using it to cite anything. Youreallycan10:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
We have a situation at the biography of Nenad Puhovski, a notable Croatian film director, one that involves the person themselves, and it's been going on for a while now, so I wanted to bring it up here.
Nenad Puhovski seems to have registered User:Npuhovs1 and wrote their biography article themselves in 2005, and also edited it later. Then,
In July 2010 User:Eversman added a note to the biography how the director is "Jewish". [6] The reference used is an article in a Croatian weekly that I'll bring up later.
On December 9, 2010, Eversman puts Jewish into the lead section. [7]
December 18, 2010, NP corrects the early life section to say "partly Jewish", without edit summary. [8] The reference was kept.
December 19, Eversman reverts the "partly", no edit summary either. [9]
January 13, 2011, NP removes the whole sentence and reference. [10] Eversman undoes the edit. [11]
I noticed NP and asked them about their identity at User talk:Npuhovs1, but they didn't respond.
January 18, 2011 NP does it again, [12] Eversman undoes it again asking for a source [13]
February 3, NP removes it all again, [14] The same day, the article gets tagged and speedily deleted by unrelated users explicitly claiming WP:COI.
In June 2011, the article is re-created by a new user.
June 4, an anonymous user re-adds the same Jewish claim and reference. [15]
June 9, two anonymous users add and revert more Jewish stuff [16][17]
January 5, 2012, User:Inoslav Bešker removes the said claim again. [18] Eversman again continues the same edit war
We finally start discussing it at Talk:Nenad Puhovski, where you can see the whole argument. Long story short, Puhovski got abused in real life because of some Jewish ancestry, was interviewed about it and said that he doesn't think it is actually more important than his other ancestries. The interview was published with a broken title, one that implies he said he was a Jew, which he didn't. Now, this half-truth/misrepresentation has been propagated elsewhere, including an LA Times commentary noticed by an anonymous account that makes edits like Eversman, adding that claim and source to the article [19]
Inoslav Bešker extensively complained to my talk page [20][21] He happens to be a notable Croatian journalist, and he told me, among other things, that he was recently told by Nenad Puhovski in real life that he had this problem on Wikipedia, which in turn prompted him to make his edits.
In the latest set of edits at Nenad Puhovski, anonymous IP edits were also used to make User:Eversman's point
I fully recognize the value of accurately reporting various factoids in biographies, and it is verifiable that the person in question has Jewish ancestry and that fact is made somewhat notable by the fact it has been mentioned in reliable sources. I also recognize that NP and IB have not acted in a proper manner by failing to explain their edits early, which made them look for a long time like pure advocacy, conflict-of-interest censorship and/or vandalism.
But, the way the story has unfolded clearly makes it look like Wikipedia is making a point to point out and exaggerate this factoid to levels that are clearly offending the living person who is the subject of this biography.
Now this looks like exactly the kind of abuse that the WP:BLP policy was meant to prevent.
User:Eversman seems to have made a point to emphasize this person's Jewish ancestry. This is a a practice he employed in other Wikipedia biographies too, and I had noticed it much earlier, but didn't complain because it seemed to be harmless. However, I think they have completely failed to understand the distinction between BLPs and other biographies, and how it relates to sourcing. They have continued to stubbornly insist that the article includes a bit of information that misrepresents the living person's position. This kind of advocacy is most unhelpful and we could also fairly reasonably extend the restrictions of WP:ARBMAC to it. But I'm steering clear of that because they might still reasonably claim to have acted in good faith. I would appreciate it if another administrator reviewed this situation.
As for the article, I think that at a minimum we need to move to a more neutral phrasing, like the one I tried to do with this edit, and definitely try to establish some sort of consensus that doesn't exacerbate the whole WP:BLP violation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, given that the source now cited states that Puhovski is of Jewish, Polish, Hungarian, Albanian, Italian and Croatian descent, and given that none of this seems to be in any way relevant to his career, I can see no particular reason to mention his ancestry at all, and emphasising the Jewish part of it almost certainly violates WP:BLP policy. If Croat Nationalists (or whoever) want to make a point, they can do it somewhere else: Wikipedia isn't a forum for propaganda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Puhovski's quoted statement ("Ponovno mi prijete da će me ubiti jer sam Židov") seems to imply that he is a Jew, because he could have implied otherwise by stating it in a slightly different way ("Ponovno mi prijete da će me ubiti jer da sam Židov"). This is, however, a finesse easily lost in less formal speech, and, of course, in newspaper headlines.
Oh, I beg to differ - that is not his statement that was quoted. That's simply that newspaper article title, which is usually made up by the newspaper editor and tailored for conciseness and effect. The fact that it appears in single quotes is not proof he said it verbatim. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Since his supposed Jewish descent has zero relevance for his biography as it is presented in the article, and since the subject is clearly uncomfortable with this bit of information appearing there, I'd agree with AndyTheGrump and simply cut it out. Introduction of his descent from other ethnicities does appear to balance the issue somewhat, but is not really useful, for more or less the same reason. GregorB (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I resent and find it very offensive that some users are exploiting this question to encourage a story of Croatian nationalism, when in fact one does not exist regarding this issue. I am not a nationalist, I am a Croatian Patriot of Jewish descent. So don't talk about nationalism where there is none. My only sin is that in all my edits, about Croatian Jews and Croatian people of Jewish descent, I have and I am trying to stress the magnitude and significance of the Jewish merits in the Croatian past and present. Fact is, Mr. Puhovski declared himself as a Jew and later a person of Jewish descent, on several occasions. If Mr. Puhovski is ashamed or afraid of his ancestry, then why would he make them public? So what is the problem here? The problem is that Croatian journalist who lives in Italy, Mr. Besker, denies these statements and calls them racist statements. WTF? Mr. Besker is trying to portray today's Croatia as anti-Semitic country, where people are forced to hide their ancestry while they live in fear for their lives. This is utter nonsense and a lie, work of a malicious person. As a half Jew(from my mother side, which by Jewish law makes me 100% Jewish) I have never experienced a fear for my life because of my ancestry. In every country there is Antisemitism, but on this issue today's Croatia is no worse than UK or United States. That is a fact. I would also like to know how emphasizing someone ancestry violates BLP policy? If that was the truth, then you could start reediting 99% biographies of living persons on the Wikipedia. P.s. And if Mr. Besker would like to know my real name, he can contact me since he stressed that he doesn't act hidden by the nickname. Well Mr. Besker I also have nothing to hide.--Eversman (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
You have no problem calling yourself "a half-Jew", but you should also have no problem accepting that a person who has been abused for it does have a problem with it. In a biography of a living person, a documented abuse victim, what is the point in using such language and edit-warring? Their right not to be misrepresented trumps your right to advocate your point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Joy—you say "Their right not to be misrepresented trumps your right to advocate your point." I don't think indicating a Jewish identity equates with misrepresentation. That the subject of the biography "has been abused for it" is really not all that surprising given the prevalence of antisemitism in the world in general. I think the Jewish identity of the subject of the biography is well-sourced. Furthermore Jewish identity does not correspond in all ways to nationality. I think you make a reasonably good edit here. I would simply separate that into two sentences, allowing the allusion to a Jewish identity to be asserted in its own sentence, followed by a sentence identifying national affinities. Let me just add that we would be expected to exercise caution if Jewish identity implied that the person had a "poor reputation", a term we find at WP:BLPCAT. Concerning Categorization we find: "Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light)." But Jewish identity is not negative in any way—it is a wholesome attribute of identity. This information is available elsewhere. I'm not clear on the reason we should be eliminating it from our biography. Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The LP in question seems to think so, and given how easy it has been for people to spin it into an outright misrepresentation, I see no practical purpose in disagreeing with them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Joy—you say that the User name Inoslav Bešker represents a "notable Croatian journalist". Does that person sound like a "notable Croatian journalist" when, in contemplation of Nenad Puhovski's Jewishness, they question whether Nenad Puhovski is circumcised or not? Do most notable journalists concern themselves with whether film directors are circumcised or not? By the way, a man need not be circumcised to be a Jew. A Jew is a person who was born to Jewish parents or who converted to Judaism. Notable journalists would likely know that and they would not likely be contemplating whether someone was Jewish based on whether they were circumcised or not. Has User:Inoslav Bešker provided any sources in support of any assertions they make? Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
You didn't seem to understand that they were making basically the same point you are making - if we insist on a precise delineation of someone's religious beliefs and whatnot, we easily get into really bizarre territory. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Joy—the Los Angeles Times states that "…Puhovski is half Jewish." Please tell me why we should not be stating in the Puhovski article that Puhovski has Jewish ancestry? User:Inoslav Bešker has not brought any sources to bear on this question. Further, User:Inoslav Bešker states that "…this kind of stressing the ascendency of people is racist…" I have a differing opinion. I don't think it is "racist" to for instance state in an article that someone has Jewish ancestry. Can I ask you a question? Would you concur with what User:Inoslav Bešker seems to be saying—that stating in an article that someone has Jewish ancestry is "racist"? I am wondering what your opinion might be because you seem to have defended User:Inoslav Bešker's opinion in this matter by referring to him as a "notable Croatian journalist". He could of course be quite "notable" and still be off-base in his comments about this matter. I can see from his Wikipedia article that he is apparently prominent in his field. But how is such prominence reconcilable with a statement supposedly made by Inoslav Bešker such as: "Did you verify even if the director iz fully (or halfly) circumcised? Even if positive, this kind of stressing the ascendency of people is racist, and in Croatian situation can be harmful." Mentioning in an article (if properly sourced) that someone has Jewish ancestry is certainly not "racist". If that were the case then the Los Angeles Times would be racist too, would it not? Furthermore whether Puhovski is "circumcised" is quite irrelevant. Do you think you should be placing as much weight as you seem to be on the opinion of someone who has made comments such as those quoted above? User:Inoslav Bešker's argumentation is just opinion as he has not provided any sources. Bus stop (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
There have been IP attempts to insert obvious BLP violations into this article, some of which have needed rev/deleting. The latest still in the article is about a lawsuit and uses a primary source. I'd like some opinions on whether this should stand. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The lawsuit is deleted - as is some puff. He seems just notable enough <g> and I am not cruel enough to delete all the poorly-sourced bits. Existence of a patent is, however, proven by a patent office cite. Collect (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
An unregistered editor is trying to add a link to a petition calling for the resignation of the current U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. This is a clear violation of BLP. He or she has been warned many times and blocked. Now that the block has expired, he or she is back at it. I've asked for him or her to be blocked again but I think my request has gone unnoticed. Can an admin who monitors this noticeboard please block this editor (or otherwise convince him or her to stop)? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The current article is a gemisch of factoids concerning at least two (possibly four or more) distinct individuals with the same name. Without knowing which Ulla Hansen the author intend to profile, it is impossible to edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.164.44 (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for posting. I've added a WP:BLPPROD tag since it's entirely unsourced. If it were better sourced, it'd be easier to find out which sections actually apply to the subject described in the lead (and/or the one pictured). There's also a significant likelihood of a COI involvement (see edit history). JFHJr (㊟) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Please help the dense. Besides the woman pictured and described in the article, what other subject could it be? The article is tough to read because it's so badly written. And I would say it's clear there is a COI as the creator of the article is obviously a relative.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I've no idea; I was assuming good faith in the claim that not all the text might be about the woman in the picture. There are certainly zero sources to help verify anything. At any rate, I PRODed because of zero sources. Hansen is such a common name, though, it made me pause as far as COI. But sometimes I pause unnecessarily. JFHJr (㊟) 18:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Found something. It seems the ceramicist is a Danish person. Linked at the bottom of the article, her ceramics cite includes no Swedish and the photo seems (to me) to be another person entirely. JFHJr (㊟) 18:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
So, the issue is whether the artist and the professor at BU (regardless of nationality) are the same person? I'm not good at pictures.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Apparently. There's also no indication the painter was the same person. Given zero sourcing and what was in my opinion a clear conflation with the Danish ceramicist, I removed that also. I'm not entirely convinced the artist (in Acadia) and ceramicist (in Denmark) are even the same artist... JFHJr (㊟) 18:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[22] Please check this edit war going on, on the pretext of BLP violation where the content is properly sourced with complete information about the citations.. just because some of the content is not available online (or is not currently available online due to deadlinks) user Darkness Shines is removing the content completely disregarding WP:SOURCEACCESS and rather being uncivil in editsummaries to another editor. --lTopGunl (talk)17:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The article talk page needs to be seen where full details of sources is presented. The content is well sourced. If a single citation has incomplete information removing all of the content will still be disruptive. --lTopGunl (talk)18:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The sources provided are adequate enough to source the content. Stop claiming it is about a single line that might have a dead link. I've given enough information about the sources (which was already cited inline) on the article talk. --lTopGunl (talk)18:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The Dawn sources are not reliable. Furthermore, the wording appears to be intended to inflame rather than inform—a violation of WP:NPOV. I support the text removal shown in the first link. The topic appears to be an emotional one, best written by neutral non-participants. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Dawn (newspaper) is a 70 years old main stream media source. I think they are completely reliable. If there are any dead links they do not mean the content should be removed. About the reword... the issues with current wording can be discussed... will you specify? Otherwise the claim of the user about the content being unsourced is ridiculous. --lTopGunl (talk)18:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Make your mind up, it is a little more than one line BTW. Now as I have said, the other content removed was pure WP:OR or in a nutshell, WP:Crap. I have asked you several times on the talk page to discuss this, you have so far refused, engaging instead in low level hostility. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Enough of the blame game. I've repeatedly asked you for the reason for removal of the sourced part of the section. Are you going to reply for it? I'll also ask neutral editors to see through the content. Most of the section was properly sourced. --lTopGunl (talk)12:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
How many times would you like me to tell you? As both here, and on the article talk page, I have explained quite a few times. I shall try again, it does not matter if the sources are WP:RS, what matters is the fact that it is all WP:OR. Now do you understand? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you being obtuse? Just because there is a source does not meant it is not WP:OR But as you ask, [24] Explain how any of this is Anti-Pakistan sentiment please. For instance, the BBC[25] source says Dr Rizvi says at the moment any Pakistani requests for fresh weapons systems from the US are fiercely resisted by Indian and Israeli lobbyists.
The article says In Israel, the Anti-Pakistan sentiment is largely presented in Israel. Since 1950s, the Anti-Pakistan sentiment grew in Israel. During 1965 war, Israel played a major role in convincing United States not to send weapons to Pakistan, and therefore, imposed an embargo on Pakistan. Now do you get it? Pure WP:ORDarkness Shines (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Your first link is a correct citation for the Anti-Pakistan sentiment. This is clearly related and obvious. The second link specifies Israel's resistance to Pakistan's weapons purchase. It is an obvious evidence and is being treated as such. If you have some issues with the wording.. that still does not amount to section blanking. And for the last time.. stop commenting on me. --lTopGunl (talk)14:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The second link specifies Israel's resistance to Pakistan's weapons purchase. It is an obvious evidence and is being treated as such. And there you have it, that is WP:OR Israel (not the government BTW, lobbyists) opposed weapons delivery's = Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Would someone else here please explain this to him. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
And the first source in that section Indian foreign policy: challenges and opportunities does not have Anti-Pakistan sentiment anywhere in it. It does not have the word embargo on page 332 Nor does in make mention of the US not sending weapons. What is does say is that during the 65 &71 wars India got a small amount of arms and ammunition form Israel. Are you still going to try and defend this? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I have removed a rather large section of text here from Nick Cohen's article. I'm not convinced that the sourcing is accurate enough for a BLP article - it relies heavily on blogs and looks like it's been 'coatracked'. Could someone give me a second opinion? The Cavalry (Message me) 14:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Reverting and protecting without discussion. Classy. But the article did need stubbing and rewriting as it was a hatchet job by another journalist socking. Fences&Windows17:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I missed that the first time (?), attributing a statement of any kind to a person needs a good source and inline citation. The use of "rendered" is confusing also. Is it to mean he described Pakistan that way, or is there a interpretation implied?. The Interior(Talk)17:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Whom ever wrote it had terrible English. I believe they meant "called". I realize this got lost in the content dispute, so I thought it best to ask again. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute at this article about the first sentence. One editor repeatedly labels him "war criminal". What i think is problematic under WP:LABEL, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The legitimacy of the Guantanamo military commissions is controversial not only in a world wide view but also in the US. There is an easy way to solve the problem.
1) problematic version: "Omar Ahmed Khadr... is a Canadian war criminal and former child soldier."
2) more neutral version: "Omar Ahmed Khadr... is a Canadian child soldier convicted of five war crime charges under the United States Military Commissions Act of 2009"
Please use the talk page on the article. It seems this is the second time that a new user pops up, makes a case / reverts, and ignores the talk page.--Львівське (говорити) 01:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
This is an BLP issue. I think you have shown no willingness to work towards consensus.So that's the right place here. There are no new arguments or facts to discuss. We just need BLP experts from this board here who look at the facts and arguments and decide or give their comments. Blotime (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't find version 1 problematic. It could be improved by adding "convicted" before war criminal. The version 2 shown here isn't terribly bad either, if you add "former" to child soldier, but the text in the article was bungling to say the least. I'm still not sure a statement about the venue belongs in the lead. At any rate, sometimes leads for such figures can be rather long (Veselin Šljivančanin), or rather short (Kanao Inouye). The poster's concerns about WP:LABEL are misplaced. Having said that, I think the talk page would have been the best forum, but since it's here, we might as well keep the conversation in one place. Also, I find the wealth of WP:SPA in the edit history telling. If more pop up, I hope responsible editors consider bringing it to the attention of WP:SPI and/or WP:RFPP. JFHJr (㊟) 01:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I have strong feelings about this case, so I won't recommend either way. But remember, while he has been convicted of war crimes, and is technically a war criminal, this case has more to do with his legal status as a combatant than it does to the atrocities that are usually classified as war crimes. Canadian sources don't use "war criminal" to describe him, and I doubt many U.S. ones do either. The Interior(Talk)16:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
John Coleman (news weathercaster)
John Coleman (news weathercaster) has a section "Views on global warming" that details Coleman's "global warming is a scam" opinion. That section ends with the paragraph:
Coleman has no education in the field of climate change. Coleman sees himself as an expert on weather (albeit a journalism degree in 1957 from the University of Illinois), not on climate or climate change.12345
In my opinion, this sentence is clear WP:OR and in violation of WP:BLP because (quote from article talk page):
One reference went to a Wikipedia mirror, and one to a political blog that can in no way be considered a reliable source. The remaining references may support the basic facts from that paragraph, however putting them together in that way to reduce his credibility with regards to his views on climate change is clear original research. If there is a reliable source making that exact point, that he has no education/expertise in the field of climate change and for that reason his opinion is not useful then we can add it. But we mustn't attempt to draw this conclusion ourselves.
That sentence has been there a while and was added as complaints on the Bias of that section was over weight. I have already removed the mirror link and added a REF to his paper to where he himself states that is a “mere weatherman” and not an expert. Other Refs also point out his education and his bases is not based on expertise but "read dozens of scientific papers", "talked with numerous scientists", and "studied" this issue. To remove this would send that section back to a biased version that would over weigh it. --Sallynice (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Also one of the REF that Amalthea complains about is also a REF used for the first paragraph. The 2nd REF is also dead and was a self published link from Coleman himself. And the 2nd paragraph also has NPOV issues with lack of supported REF as well. If the REFs are not good then the entire section needs to either be removed or scaled down to a sentence on his stance and nothing more to remain neutral. --Sallynice (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
List of Football Referees - England - Tony Oliver
The biography against Tony Oliver is completely incorrect.I am the referee Tony Oliver and I was born in Chelmsford ENGLAND not Alfonso Olivier born in Porto Rico - in fact was the first Chelmsford man to be appointed to the League List Reference Handbook of the Football League 1968 - 1974. Please delete this man'sutobiography. I can supply all correct details for the Tony Oliver 1968-74 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrapoliver (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony. That was just a bad link in the list of referees page, and I've fixed it. Currently, you don't have an article here. Deleting the other page isn't necessary. Thanks for pointing out this error. The Interior(Talk)17:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Could I please get some BLP experienced eyes on this article? An editor claiming to be the subject has had problems with the article for a while now. Today they tried to G7 delete it. I declined this deletion, but would like someone more versed in such matters to see if there is any substance to the user's issues. Are things well enough sourced? And the has had a notability tag for quite a while. Maybe it should be sent to AFD for deletion? - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
This individual does not appreciate being called "Paul Lambrino" — we know that for a fact from here, as he complained about it to OTRS in 2007. An IP has also removed the name three times in the last day: [26], [27], [28]. However, at least three respectable Romanian newspapers have used the name in their reporting on the subject, as I have now cited. I think the name is widely enough known that the article should mention it. However, if someone reading this believes the name should stay out, then I will not press the matter further, and will refrain from re-adding "Paul Lambrino". Please advise. - BiruitorulTalk22:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned in the Talk board the fact that the "respectable" articles to which you are referring are virulent towards Prince Paul, and inconsistent in throughout their texts. In one sentence they talk about "Paul Lambrino", in another one about "Paul de Romania", and further "Printul Paul" or "Paul de Hohenzollern". Are these reliable sources for Wikipedia? --145.116.225.193 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
"also referred to as Paul Lambrino" - who also refers to him as that? Have you got any English sources? - Perhaps as he objects to usage of that name - as a compromise, remove it from the lede and add it in the bio section below... Youreallycan22:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
"Hohenzollern" was not his name at birth, it would appear, and this is one of the famed "European royal claimant" issues. It does need tidying up, however. Collect (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
To clarify his birth name was "Paul-Philippe DE HOHENZOLLERN" in Paris, his original birth certificate is available upon request. How do you know that was not his name? Have you looked into the French records? Stop spreading lies about something you know nothing about! --145.116.225.193 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
FWIW I think it's fine in the lead as it is. It seem accurate, verifiable, and there shouldn't have to be discussion of why who says what about how the subject is called, since there doesn't seem (so far) to be a real naming discussion in reliable sources. Unless there is in fact noteworthy and NPOV discussion on names, the lead is just fine since it's the subject's name (a redirect origin, even), and it doesn't require discussion in the bio. I also think the wishes of the subject are best served by referring to him otherwise, as the article currently does, by the name he prefers. JFHJr (㊟) 07:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Prince Paul of Romania not only DOES NOT appreciate to be called "Paul Lambrino" but he has sued and won against prominent people for using that name (i.e., Frédéric Mitterand and Stéphane Bern).
In accordance to Wikipedia's "defamatory" or "libellous" information ought to be removed summarily! The name "Paul Lambrino" has been found to be both defamatory and libellous in France. I can send you the copies of the court decisions upon request per e-mail.
According to Wikipedia's guidelines you ought to prioritise reliable English language sources which you are NOT doing! No major or legitimate English language sources refers to him as "Paul Lambrino".
The subject was born under the name "Paul-Philippe DE HOHENZOLLERN"; he has never been a Lambrino unlike his father, so why do you insist upon using that defamatory name?
The Romanian articles to which you refer as "reliable" are sensationalistic, virulent against the subject, and furthermore they DO refer to him as "Paul de Romania", "Printul Paul" or "Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern". They are therefore incoherent, inconsistent in his way to address him and therefore cannot be viewed as reliable sources.
Furthermore, the article's actual title ought to be "Prince Paul of Romania"; the only name under which he is known in English for quite a long time. Also in Romania he is recognized as "Printul Paul al Romaniei". The Government of Romania and foreign royal houses title him "Prince Paul of Romania". Upon request some sample envelopes from foreign royal houses can be sent to a private e-mail. He is ONLY known by the serious media outlets as "Prince Paul of Romania". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.225.193 (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
More
Please, the reference to "Paul Lambrino" must be removed!!! He was born in Paris under the name "Paul-Philippe DE HOHENZOLLERN". The article lacks the predicate preceding his FORMER surname, but that is a matter which he is going to take up by contacting directly the Wikimedia Foundation.
He does not use the name "Philippe" at all, so why are you so persistent in adding it in the title? With other subjects only the calling name is used; even in sources which refer to him as "Paul Lambrino", the "Philippe" is not used.
In regards to the name "Paul Lambrino"; the articles which are being utilised as reference are articles which are rather virulent towards Prince Paul of Romania, hence, unacceptable as references for Wikipedia.
Additionally, how come a few article outweigh the fact that Prince Paul is known under his actual name and title by major and reliable newspapers in Romania and elsewhere. According to Wikipedia emphasis ought to be given to English language sources when available; this is the case with Prince Paul who is known as Prince Paul of Romania in major newspapers. Examples:
Furthermore, I can offer copies of articles published in reputable British magazines wherein Prince Paul is referred to as "Prince Paul of Romania". In addition, over 80 FRONT PAGE articles in Romanian national papers going back to year 2000 wherein Prince Paul is known as "Printul Paul al Romaniei".
Please also notice that in the past, HRH Prince Paul has been named "Paul Lambrino" even by prominent journalists who later had to retract themselves because they lost cases in courts of law. In 2000 he won a lawsuit against incumbent French Minister of Culture, Frédéric Mitterand, in 2002/2003 against Stéphane Bern. The later is BY NO MEANS a threat against Wikipedia or any of its administrators, but simply facts. Unlike his father, he has never borne the surname "Lambrino". That name is used by people who dispute his claim to the Royal House of Romania, but that is not clear from this article. The copies of the court decision shall be forwaded to Wikimedia Foundation so the name issue is settled for good.
The fact the article states "also known as Prince Paul of Romania and Paul Lambrino" implies he is known by about the same degree by either name!!! That is rather problematic because it simply is not true. The Government of Romania, foreign royal houses, his friends and family as well as the SERIOUS media outlets address him as Prince Paul of Romania. The appellation "Paul Lambrino" should not have a place in the lead. You only need to google him in several languages, and you shall find a plethora of articles about him with that name (i.e., Prince Paul of Romania, Printul Paul al Romaniei, Prince Paul de Roumanie, Príncipe Paul de Rumania, Paul Romania herceg, Prins Paul av Rumänien, etc.).
You can insist upon mentioning the fact that he is also known as "Paul Lambrino" but in that case, and for the sake of neutrality and fairness one ought to clarify that name is exclusively used by people who dispute his claims to the Royal House of Romania. Moreover, that in the past, HRH Prince Paul has taken legal actions against such individuals and won (once again, it is not a threat, simply a fact which needs to be added if you insist in mentioning the legally non-existent name "Paul Lambrino"). The later appellation also has no place in a sentence "also known as Prince Paul of Romania or..." because it misleads people to believe he is equally and acceptably known by both names.
Also heed the fact that some editors are personally biased against Prince Paul:
"This is hardly an act of aggression against Lambrino -- just another source (indeed quite a good one, in terms of WP:RS), that supports use of Lambrino here. Nomoskedasticity " (under headline "Whether to include Lambrino". Why does he refer to Prince Paul as "Lambrino" goes for bias as it is beyond doubt that is not his name or a name for which he is known by anyone of seriosity.
Furthermore, in his resolution to the matter he/she stated "We are not here to facilitate someone's claim to royalty. Nomoskedasticity(talk) 19:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)". The editor intends to claim Prince Paul is not royalty, but if he isn't then he should bring his concerns to the British Government which has issued him a passport as "HRH Prince Paul of Romania".
To summarize:
a) The appellation "Paul Lambrino" ought to be remove
b) Following Wikipedia's own guidelines the article's name ought to be "Prince Paul of Romania"
c)The subjects name is not "Paul-Philippe Hohenzollen", neither has it ever been so. On the contrary, he was legally "Paul-Philippe DE HOHENZOLLERN", just like his royal cousins born in exile. However, the surname Hohenzollern was always used in conjuction with the suffixes "de Roumanie" or "of Romania" to distinguish himself from the German Hohenzollern.
--145.116.225.193 (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I have read thoroughly NYT's article which is being cited, but it contains several mistakes. One further guidelines for reliable sources is not only that they are published in reputable places (such as NYT) but likewise one ought to analyse the content and take into account the author.
The article claims Prince Paul brought forward a lawsuit at the European Court of Human Rights to advance his royal claims. The lawsuit was in fact filed by his father as you can see in the English summary of the decision I have posted before in the Talk forum.
He claims Prince Carol Mircea "persuaded" courts in Portugal and France to back up his "rival" claims. I wondered which rival claims, for the cases were mostly about inheritance (and Prince Carol Mircea won in all cases). Furthermore, courts of law in Portugal, France or the UK are not "persuaded" (contentious wording).
He claims the courts decisions in the countries named above were meaningless because they have not been ratified in Romania. However, Prince Carol Mircea did share the estate of his father with his half-brother, so not meaningless at all.
There are further mistakes in the text about historical facts. He claims the Romanian monarchy was imported from Germany. There was a monarchy before Carol I ascended the throne! Only a German prince was imported but not the royal institution.--145.116.225.193 (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The same IP is trying to change the main name to Prince Paul (in the lead). More eyes are again needed on the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Someone again posted a photo of graffiti saying "Gas the Arabs" in this article. There is no evidence that JDL members (many of whom are living) did it. Nor does the article claim that "gassing the Arabs" is a policy advocated by them. BigJim707 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's still a not notable picture of unknown origins and totally undue to assert any weight to a position. - The JDL is a large organization? It must all depend of how you look at it, because imo WP:BLPGROUP assists and encourages removal. Youreallycan19:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't really buy this argument. The same can be said about almost any racist graffiti like this, "it says KKK but there's no evidence that it was the Klu Klux Klan that sprayed paint over the MLK sign", "it's a swastika on the side of a Synagoge but there is no evidence that it was done by the anti-semitic neo-nazi group that signed it" etc. Also, the caption didn't say that JDL members did it. It said "Graffiti left overnight on the door to the Abu Heikel home in Hebron". Racist Kahanist graffiti like this is commonplace in Hebron so I'm not sure that "totally undue" is really accurate. Every editor submitted photograph of a plant/animal species to illustrate an instance of that species is "non-notable". It's included as an example. Given JDL's record and reputation, which is extensively documented by reliable sources, I struggle to see what possible harm could come to their reputation as an organization by including one example of the many examples of this kind of graffiti in Hebron in their article. It's signed JDL. It may or may not be by a supporter of the JDL. People can decide for themselves. Sean.hoyland - talk05:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Sean -- this is standard stuff for the JDL, something obvious in the abundant sources on them. It's really not a BLP problem, not even a BLP issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it better to err on the safe side. The message on the image is highly offensive and while I will never advocate the removal of a picture because it might offend someone, care must be taken when it is attributed to someone or some group in particular, even if the group itself is also considered offensive or violent or whatever. There surely are other pics that could illustrate the JDL without this "slogan" on it. This picture might itself be better suited to an article that deals with the conflicts in the area in more general terms.--Kalsermar (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
A cursory google image search ('JDL Graffiti Israel') reveals dozens of similar examples of disgusting racism and genocidal language by JDL. Like all motivated bigots, the defenders of JDL will attempt to distort even obvious facts to promote their cause. We should not let them do this. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio YouTube link, blogs used to attack him, this should have been picked up earlier when someone protected the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Yesterday Jmugge placed a db-g7 template saying "Author and Sanchopanchez are both unwilling to compromise on disputed language, and author feels that deletion is the only recourse", but G7 speedy deletion was correctly declined as there is no single author, and in any case squabbles about content are not a reason to delete an article.
Thereupon a third, newly-created SPA, Eveinparadise (talk·contribs) popped up and replaced the whole article with a blatant attack version. This is getting ridiculous. I have reverted, no doubt to The Wrong Version, and protected for a week. Experienced users are invited to comment on the talk page and broker an attempt to reach an agreed wording. Any admin who believes that the situation is resolved may unprotect without consulting me. JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Ugh -- a no-win situation. The current version, while of course preferable to an attack page, is sourced almost entirely by butler.edu weblinks. I think Jmugge needs to be instructed to edit only the talkpage, not the article, and the other two should probably be banned from the page. Might be more of an ANI issue than a BLP noticeboard issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I have replied at User talk:Academicjc apologising for the situation that has arisen but saying that now we have been alerted to the problems they should not continue, and deletion at her request is unlikely. I have not much experience of these situations, so anyone is welcome to add to, or correct, what I have written.
Nah. She has held several senior administrative roles at different universities, including being the chief academic officer at Butler University, as well as holding tenure at several institutions.
In any case, I've cleaned up the article quite a bit. I've trimmed down much of the self-serving and copyright-violating material from the hagiography. I've also added a bit of information from the negative version of the article, in appropriate amounts and using high-quality sources. I'm sure it could use more work but it's in pretty decent shape now. ElKevbo (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I closed the above CfD after it had been open almost a month. And it would seem from the discussion that a fair amount of WP:OR was going on.
I would like to ask if someone with more interest/understanding of the subject please check over the rest of the subcats of Category:People of Black African descent (for references in their articles, for one thing).
If it turns out that the categories are untenable due to rampant WP:OR, drop me a note and I'll see about getting the whole batch nominated at CfD. (Though speedying for WP:BLP violations wouldn't necessarily be out of the question either.)
I think that per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, the categories shouldn't exist at all: "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not. Ethnic groups may be used as categorizations, even if race is a stereotypical characteristic of the ethnic group, e.g. with African-Americans or Anglo-Indians. See Lists of ethnic groups for groups that are typically considered ethnic groups rather than races". Whatever 'Black African' means (if anything), it certainly isn't an ethnicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to add to previous comment, not only is the definition unclear, but none of them are referenced and many are simply incorrect generalizations or assumptions. Just the other day, I removed a bunch of categories from the English people of Black African descent and French people of Black African descent category. People to seem to think anyone of color is automatically of Black African descent, even if they are for example English of Jamaican descent. It's all WP:OR. I've also removed countries where people are of different descent. For example, French of Comorian descent was listed under French people of Black African descent, when really Comorian people themselves are of different ethnicities (Black, Arab, Chinese, Indian, etc.). I really don't know to approach this whole issue at once, that's why I started with the Saudi Arabia one first, but any help to get rid of it all would be very much appreciated! TonyStarks (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- RFC - in relation to WP:BLP policy - Is it acceptable under WP:BLP policy to link to external Blogger (service) sites that have been created specifically to demean and degrade and attack a single living person. - Youreallycan21:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
comments
Posit that an anti-AGW warming site was set up against a climate scientist - would namecalling about that scientist pass muster? Or an anti-scientology site creating a new meaning for "Hubbard" - how would that go over? In short, is namecalling "encyclopedic information" about the living person being called names regardless of the category the person falls in? Collect (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The site in question is the topic of the article. It has been the subject of commentary in numerous high quality reliable sources. But mainly, it's political satire. It besmirches and ridicules its target, Santorum, but does not libel or slander him. It is not an attack site, it is a significant part of an historically significant act. This is not a black and white case. It is nuanced and difficult. I urge editors to read the thoughtful discussion that preceded the RfC, and deliberate for a bit before doing the obvious. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It is "nuanced"? Um -- suppose someone named Gnarph ran afounl of a person who sets out to define "gnarf" as a "frothy mixture of anal fluids and sexual secretions" - whould you automatically find that a "proper sourse" to be mentioned in Gnarph's biography? And be considered not contentious per wP:BLP even? I would sincerely hope not! There is some point at which Wikipedia should remember the comment "Have you no sense of decency, Sir?" in how it handles biographies of living persons and material which is just a "frothy mixture" spread by a person who dislikes them. Collect (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I do. I'd appreciate less hysteria and more reason, please. Just squealing "BLP! BLP!" isn't actually addressing the serious questions on that page. Linking to the topic of the article is what we do. The site is not an "attack site", whatever that is. It is cruel, significant political satire, discussed heavily and widely. Linking to it will send more readers to the site, but that's no reason not to. We're not linking readers to a porn clip some newsreader made in his wild youth. This is a significant element of a significant event, and essentially the topic of the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
"Have you no sense of decency, sir" is an interesting choice of quotation here. It was (as everyone here will no doubt know) directed at Joe McCarthy, who despite having more than a whiff of the Inquisitor about him notably resisted calls to add gay-bashing to his attacks on ideological enemies. Hmm, I wonder what the relevant contemporary parallel might be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I think Collect was also referencing a comment I had just made at an RfC/U. I'm still struggling to draw any lessons from that McCarthy incident for the case(s) here, though. If there are any, I'd appreciate having them spelled out, genuinely. There probably are relevant parallels that I'm missing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Several weeks ago, an article was created about Seamus, a dog owned by US Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The dog was part of a controversial 1983 road trip, and has been in the news extensively. The article on Seamus (dog) was proposed for deletion. There was a long and contentious discussion at the Afd for Seamus. The AfD was closed with a decision to merge the Seamus article into the Mitt Romney article, which an editor did. Some of the frequent editors of the Mitt Romney article have deleted the information about Seamus, citing undue weight -- "Uh, no. Doesn't matter what they decided at AfD, we're not pulling all that into here. Would be massive WP:Undue weight" This has led to an edit war between those who want to merge the Seamus article into to Mitt Romney article as decided by AfD, and those who don't want to change the Mitt Romney article.Debbie W.06:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I know I shouldn't laugh at this, but I just can't help it. We have an entire article on this dog (who, by the way, is no longer living, so it's not a BLD article) because Romney put the dog on the roof of his car in 1983 and people are now accusing him of animal cruelty almost 30 years later? Doesn't the media have anything better to report? Don't we?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
As long as you point the door of the kennel toward the back of the car so the wind doesn't blow in, then its fine, right? Seriously, this is one of those "stories" that pop up with in-the-spotlight politicians on slow news days. Kind of like the family trees that trace a politician's ancestory to claim he/she is a tenth-cousins thrice removed to Charles Manson...or that one time someone knew someone else who had a brother at the party where he/she was in the same room with some people smoking pot or whatever. If sourced it has its place, but if there is any dispute over the inclusion, it should most likely just be ignored unless he responds to it in the media. Quinn❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY03:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean regarding deleting anything, but your recent edit was a clear copyright violation, and I have reverted it. DO NOT copy-and-paste material into articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The biography page of Vaiko has been written in a biased manner. There are numerous instances, where the article has not confirmed to wikipedia standards.
I have done a little clean-up of the article. It was full of poor language, copyright violations, and poorly sourced material. It has quite a few dead links in it, which makes it harder. Mostly, it's just hard to follow.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
This image is particularly disparaging towards the subject and in contravention to WP:MUG. The use of the captions indicates that the intent behind the addition was to show the subject in a poor light. I have gone ahead and removed the above instances. The image is still in use on the biography article of the journalist who threw the shoes. Inviting comments on (i) the above actions and (ii) whether the image should be used on the biography article of the journalist. — Nearly Headless Nick{C}12:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I dunno, I don't find the picture "disparaging" (I assume you mean toward Bush?); I don't know anything about the "intent". As for your removals, I think the picture belongs in the al-Zaidi article and in the Shoeing article (although I'm not putting it back in for the moment) as it's directly relevant to both and is helpful to the reader. It's true that the text (for example, in the al-Zaidi article) describes the throwing, but the picture adds value to the textual description.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Just my 2¢, but I would say that the Bush shoeing incident is the most high-profile example of this act of contestation, and probably brought the act, and the associated dirtiness of the shoe in the Muslim world, to the attention of millions of otherwise ignorant non-Muslims worldwide. So using the Bush image to illustrate the article on shoeing appears to make perfect sense, as it is through this incident that most people will be aware of what shoeing is. CaptainScreeboParley!14:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Why is the picture a "primary example"? There's a section on the incident (too long, in my view), so why not the picture? How is it "out of context"? And I still don't see why the picture is disparaging. The guy who threw the shoes didn't like Bush, but what does that have to do with the picture itself? It's just a silly disruptive act that the media eats up. The only argument I can see against it is that it gives the event too much weight, but at this point the excessive amount of text in the Shoeing article and in the al-Zaidi article already does that.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hold on a second. Even assuming that the image "disparages" Bush, which I don't, it's not a BLP violation just because of that. Negative commentary on a BLP is only a violation if it's untrue, unreliably sourced, undue, or something else. This is just a depiction of an event. It's no more disparaging than the textual description of the event, and neither is a BLP "violation".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
It represents a single view of an event of zero biographical value. Your standards would allow a picture of a noted person at a urinal - as it would not be anything more than a "depiction of an event." Unless the picture shows something of significant weight and relevance in a BLP, it is improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Collect, if the picture is a "violation", so is the text. The urinal example doesn't apply. It's not that a picture can't be a violation, only that this one is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Proof by assertion? Fails. And the issue here is the image - the text may very well violate WP:BLP as well - but that was not the questin posed. Collect (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Superficially, your point about the "question posed" may be true, but the text and the image are intertwined, and to avoid commenting on the text because of the question makes no sense. But you still haven't supported your conclusion. What part of WP:BLP does the image violate?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Feel the picture could be used in the Muntadhar al-Zaidi and Shoeing articles, not the Bush article. The shoeing of George W. by Muntadhar al-Zaidi is a major highlight in that journalist's life and warrants a mention and picture in his BLP. As another editor mentions above, the shoeing of George W. brought the concept to the mass media and therefore the photo should also appear in the Shoeing article. --BwB (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The relevant portion of the BLP policy is quoted below:
"Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed." (see WP:MUG)
With the present examples, the use of the picture on the article on shoeing is out of context, because on an article that could use numerous other depictions (not necessarily of living persons), the picture of George W Bush is being used. This was also a situation where the subject was not expecting to be photographed. The BLP policy exists to protect individuals from being depicted in a manner that makes them a subject of ridicule. This could be an example widely cited in the media, and for the reason a reasonable portion of the article talks about the incident but we should not let Wikipedia become a soapbox. — Nearly Headless Nick{C}15:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Your arguments are not persuasive. This is particularly true for your "out of context" point. I also think it's preposterous to suggest that Bush wasn't expecting to be photographed at a press conference. I see no disparaging at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Nomo, Bush regularly gives press conferences where he is photgraphed, filmed and recorded, so to suggest that he was not expecting to be photographed is utterly, well, preposterous. CaptainScreeboParley!17:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. Bush was expecting to get photographed at the press conference, but not while having shoes thrown at him. There is a clear distinction. Similarly, when paparazzi take pictures of celebrities in public places, it does not mean that they were expecting to be photographed at all times. I hope there will be more users commenting here. — Nearly Headless Nick{C}17:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see how the image is disparaging in any way, I was in fact quite impressed by Bush when I saw the incident, he moved fast for a guy his age, and he laughed it off. Hardly disparaging. It is also a highly notable incident and having this image in an article is not a BLP violation. It almost certainly belongs in the Shoeing article as the most notable example of this occurring. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Another editor, who hasn't contributed here, disagrees with your restoration of the image to Shoeing. I've left a TB on his page to comment here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it's the same editor -- the OP for this thread has an alias of some sort that appears in his signature. Stupid, really -- an annoying affectation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Darkness Shines and User:Nomoskedasticity have reinserted the image on the Shoeing article while the discussion is ongoing on WP:BLPN. ([30], [31]) These are inappropriate reversions and should be reverted back until this discussion has concluded in a conclusive manner. There is no harm in waiting for a few more hours to invite more opinion from other users watching this page. The onus of proof is on the users who insert the material. — Nearly Headless Nick{C}17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I think there's a fairly clear consensus that the image belongs in the Shoeing article. I also think (no offense) that the claimed BLP violation is a major stretch. That said, I don't have a problem with leaving the image out of the article for a while longer in case the consensus changes. There's no rush, really.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
AFAIK nobody is inserting new material, so the onus is on those wishing to change the articles to establish consensus, which does not appear likely at this point. BLP concerns are raised but they don't pass the threshold of either plausibility or support where it's a clear BLP concern. MUG clearly doesn't apply with respect to the shoeing article, as it is both a primary example of the subject of the article, and neither disparaging nor out of context. Although inserting this low point in the Middle Eastern reaction to the presidency of George Bush as part of the articles about Iraq and foreign policy is arguably a barb rather than a noteworthy event (arguably not, as well), that's an NPOV and WEIGHT issue, not a BLP matter. It strains the boundaries of BLP to apply it to coverage of significant international events where neither primary purpose of BLP is served: it does not avoid lawsuits and it does not avoid harm to individuals. BLP is supposed to serve the encyclopedic nature of the project, not to thwart it. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
As an uninvolved person maybe I can help understand the concerns being raised with a few questions. First, is it the concern of Nick and Collect that we not include any images of any living person having shoes thrown at them, or reacting to having shoes thrown at them, because that would be disparaging toward that living person? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Note -- the rest of us are uninvolved as well, in the sense that we are responding to the OP's post to this noticeboard and were not active on this issue or the related articles previously. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see this as a big deal. That someone chose to throw a shoe at George W. Bush isn't a negative statement about him: some people see it as a negative thing (because of the motivations that led the man who threw the shoe to do so), but in terms of BLP, this seems like it ought to be in the same category as politicians or other public figures who throw water on each other when debate gets heated. Like this. Or perhaps people fighting inside legislatures. The person doing it is childish, it is possibly of dubious notability (not in Bush's case, I don't think), but it sure ain't a BLP violation. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Adding my additional opinion to the discussion, I think there are appropriate places for the images use, that do not violate the spirit of WP:MUG in regards to former POTUS George W. Bush. That is that the use of the image on the Shoeing article appears to be appropriate, in a limited context of describing the act. If per WP:EVENT the attempted shoeing of George W. Bush is found to be notable, then it would be useful there as well. Additionally, the use of the image in the article regarding the assailant would be appropriate as well. Other uses of the image I think should be discouraged under the spirit of MUG.
On this article the following has been attributed to Barrack Obama However such claims where later rejected by U.S. President Barack Obama who said it was more complicated and a question of Pakistan could do more[2] What Obama actually said was
The president said Mullen's statement "expressed frustration" over the insurgent safe havens in Pakistan. But Obama said "the intelligence is not as clear as we might like in terms of what exactly that relationship is." Obama added that whether Pakistan's ties with the Haqqani network are active or passive, Pakistan has to deal with it.[3][4]
I feel this is a gross misrepresentation of the source, is it a BLP violation to attribute this to Obama as it is written? Or is it better practice to use the full quote? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The last line "Obama added that whether Pakistan's ties with the Haqqani network are active or passive, Pakistan has to deal with it." is unattributed quote from the publisher [32], it is not a direct quote hence a copyvio. Better to rephrase it inline. --lTopGunl (talk)16:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:ANI#Latif Yahia where it appears the subject himself has been blocked after a legal threat. To quote myself, "We have a 15 day old untouched OTRS ticket 2012012010008591 which is a complaint from a representative of his about his page. I can't comment to the rights or wrongs of the situation, but editor Perrynio (talk·contribs)'s edit summaries are part of the complaint, and see this edit. We need to sort out the BLP issues (if they exist). Toodst1, the Foundation will deal with any legal action if it comes to that, but that's all. Responding to the complaint and sorting out the article if it needs sorting is up to us. And sooner than later as it would be nice to be able to respond to the OTRS ticket." He's been told to write to the Foundation, but he's already done that so that advice will just annoy him. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
To the extent the article does need work, it can be approached only through the Talk page and a request for admin assistance as the article has been fully protected for about a month.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I've posted at its talk page. I think fresh eyes would be useful in looking at reliability and undue weight, which are the essential claims by objecting editor(s) once collateral COI, SPA, SPI, and LEGAL issues are put aside. JFHJr (㊟) 00:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Please compare the article Keith Raniere with its references and the collection of WP:RSes on its talk page, TALK:Keith Raniere. Please have the article accurately report the important information in the citations and available WP:RSes. Thank you for your kind attention to this important matter. Chrisrus (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
This is mild compared to most here, but the Fareed Zakaria article seems to be a frequent target of new editors wanting to add a singular quote or opinion attributed to Zakaria just to make him look especially good or especially bad. The latest already has me at 3 reverts, and I'm not going to edit war over it, but it has to do with an WP:UNDUE quote by Zakaria that has now been shown to be falsely attributed to him. See the discussion at Talk:Fareed_Zakaria#Fareed_Zakaria.27s_own_statements_regarding_his_candidacy_for_Secretary_of_State. It wouldn't hurt for a few others to watchlist this article, even if I'm proven wrong on this one. First Light (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The whole entry is crass. It ignores her actual acting career - the highlights of her theatre and film career are ignored - and reduces her personal life to a caricature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelastor (talk • contribs) 00:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
By all means, please add information to make the article less crass, citing reliable sources. In the meantime, most of the prose appears to be pretty well cited; if you find unsupported material or unreliable sources, though, you can always remove it. Finally, you can post any suggestions for improvement at Talk:Sarah Miles. JFHJr (㊟) 00:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't find the article to be as described by the OP. Miles's personal life is colorful, and it's not suprising that the article reports it in that way. I'm not sure what aspects of her career the article ignores, but that ought to be pretty easy for the OP to add if they wish to.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Some of the article was pretty bad - many people use profanity and it is not a major part of their BLP, to be sure. Collect (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Personal details - such as the family names and children should be cited - I would suggest doing a search to see if you can find one , if not then move such, and similar personal uncited claims to the talkpage so that other interested users can find citations and replace the content. He is not really very notable - a small career in some half hourly shows. I would disagree with your usage of the picture as fair use - although you have worked hard on the rationale - En Wikipedia fair use policy is deliberately restrictive - Commons pictures are the dish of the day here - and imo the energy you put into the rationale to include this non free picture in the biography of a low notable person would have been better directed elsewhere. Youreallycan16:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
But Baywatch and Step by Step and films can help him be notable, right? Even if he doesn't meet GNG, he could meet other subject-specific guidelines per WP:Articles for deletion/Olivia Hack. There are some articles about him; I don't think I can give you sources that verifies his notability, can I? Thanks for complimenting my efforts on the non-free image. I added the image because he has not been officially, publicly active since 1998; therefore, I consider him retired and living. See WP:NFC#UUI. --George Ho (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed personal entry because I could not find one from News and Books. Even though I still consider him retired, I removed "retired from acting" entry because no words about him were found since cancellation of Step by Step. --George Ho (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Rinat Akhmetov
Rinat Akhmetov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would appreciate third party opinion on edits done to the article by user Львівське. This user has been constantly adding statements on the alleged ties of the person with the criminal world, using references to unreliable sources, emotive negative statements and unproven allegations and rumors presented as fact. There was a conflict between me and Львівське, temporarily resolved by administrator ddima, and the article contained only facts, backed by reliable sources. Recently, Львівське reverted everything to his version and in response to my edits recoursed to a whole number of accusations and insults from being the sockpuppet to following me - he just has suggested a number of my articles for deletion. --Orekhova (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Article is currently fully protected. Suggestions for talk-page discussion and editing once unprotected: ensure that any non-English sources are being used in accordance with WP:NOENG. If there are problems of WP:RS, insist that the material be removed until there is consensus that the sources do meet WP:RS; use WP:RSN if necessary. As for "my articles" -- see WP:OWN, but perhaps also WP:HOUND. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
In the interest of transparency, Orekhova is flat out lying about my conduct on the page. I'm not using unreliable sources (she wont even point out what is, or why), the rumors are presented as they are in the sources. Also, nothing was resolved in the past, the editorial process just took a time out while Orekhova and another user censored a lot of the material for unjustified reasons. That the version prior to my new involvement was full of tags kinda shows it was hardly a consensus final version. Orekhova refuses to use the talk page to sort these matters out and is hoping to own her version of the article via bureaucracy. Her editing conflict of interest and article creation history was brought to light by other users, I've just followed up on it.--Львівське (говорити) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. Orekhova shouldn't be accusing Lvivske of misconduct in this forum, particularly without diffs in support. At the same time, Lvivske shouldn't be accusing Orekhova of lying. This forum is mainly for discussing content, not user conduct. Although I haven't looked at anyone's edits or sources, saying "the rumors are presented as they are in the sources" immediately raises red flags, especially if it involves negative material about a BLP. As a general rule, rumors should not be reported.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Here, some editors keep readding badly sourced and POV info about opposition activities - suggesting they are working for foreign governments - a highly provocative gesture in Russia given the amount of activists who are imprisoned/assassinated there. They link to a Youtube video with no provenance (on the Talk page user Greyhood mentions possible sources, but can't say for sure) - and the video is called Receiving instructions in the Embassy of the United States. This title suggests that these activists are working for or influenced by the US, when, as far as is known, they just went for a polite discussion with the man who had been nominated as Ambassador but wouldn't become so for another month. No information from the activists is given regarding their visit, other than what they said when accosted by a reporter in the street. That's hardly a fair chance to give their version. For these reasons, I think that the section gives a highly skewed and biased view of their actions, which harms their reputations and could lead to other problems for them. A secondary issue is that the section is Undue Weight - it is unlikely to have changed any of the protests against Putin's regime, but is a good way of tarring the reputations of the anti-Putin protesters.
The video was anonymously put on Youtube, but then discussed in the (highly influenced by the government) Russian media. Hence, it has some coverage - but the makers (and their intentions) are impossible for WP to describe to readers. The problem is mainly, but not only, the title: Receiving instructions in the Embassy of the United States. The video's makers have no proof of that the activists were being told how to oppose Putin, it's just a wild, unsubstantiated attempt to tar the their reputations. The pro-Putin editors, however, are happy to help them do this.Malick78 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The video and the scandal it spurred was widely covered in the mainstream media, not only a plentitude of Russian sources (including top TV channels at prime time), but BBC and other western media as well. As I have already wrote, the section in question contained just bare facts as described by reliable sources - opposition activists visited the U.S. Ambassador (100% sure), the video of certain name was released (100% sure) and it produced a scandal (100% sure). There was no claim "that these activists are working for or influenced by the US" (though we could find such claims in reliable sources as well) except for the title of the video, which is unavoidable part of the story (the title was also reported by many media sources).
So there is 100% provenance for all the information in question.
It is also false that this story is undue weight - it is perhaps the largest scandal with the Russian opposition in recent years, and certainly the largest in the last months. It forms an important part of the article Protests_following_the_2011_Russian_elections since the scandal instigated anti-Orange attitudes in society and was later discussed at the Anti-Orange protest, which was the largest of all those Russian protests. GreyHoodTalk23:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that it wasn't presented as: a scandal erupted when activists were filmed entering the embassy, but the activists denied anything untoward. Instead, it was described as: activists were caught entering the embassy, in a film called "Receiving instructions in the Embassy of the United States". The activists just shouted at the film crew when they left. Here are the activists' names... This was overly inflammatory, and insinuated misdeeds on their part. Hence my problem with it. Greyhood has consistently edited the said article in a biased way, and then pretended not to see a problem for the last two months. So no surprise then that he claims such things as "the scandal instigated anti-Orange attitudes in society" - when in fact Russia has feared an orange revolution ever since the one in the Ukraine, and certainly did before the 17th Decemeber visit to the embassy. I'm happy Greyhood has removed the absurd title to the film, but the section still exists solely to insinuate guilt in a most cowardly way.Malick78 (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The section exists to tell an important part of the story that influenced the development of events described in the article. That visit to the embassy was condemned at the "anti-Orange" protest and continues to be discussed in the Russian media every next day. Attempts to censor it are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GreyHoodTalk17:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The fact that the activists were defamed again at the protests, doesn't mean we should carelessly repeat the defamation. That's what your edits did, insinuating their guilt.Malick78 (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
You try to censor out a highly important part of the story. BLP policy exists not for censorship of facts inconvenient for somebody, but to provide coverage of living people "with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research". GreyHoodTalk23:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
You linked to an anonymous Youtube video! How's that "verifiable"? You quoted the highly biased name of the video without giving any proper explanation/defense from the defamed activists, so where was the "neutrality"? You're talking rubbish as usual.Malick78 (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The name of the video per se is easily verifiable and was a part of the story reported by reliable sources. The sources which I have read contain no cohesive explanations from those visitors. The most widely cited explanation is the one from Yevgeniya Chirikova: "Если можно использовать Америку в борьбе против режима ПЖиВ и Путина,разграбл природные ресурсы нашей страны это надо делать!" - "If we can use America in struggle against the regime of PZhiV [party of crooks and thieves] and Putin, steal[ing] natural resources of our country than we should do that!" (in the word разграбл - steal[ing] - the flection was omitted by Chirikova in her Twitter, which produced a funny effect - she could have meant either разграбляющих, which then refers to the stealing by Putin and the party, or разграбляя, which then refers to the stealing by Chirikova and her struggling friends and the U.S. ;) ). Anyway such an explanation would rather harm Chirikova than defend her, so I didn't add it to the article even though it was in the same source as the rest of the story. GreyHoodTalk20:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Why are you posting this now? The article hasn't been edited since last December. The diffs, etc., above are all 1-2 years old.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The first part of the biography is not open to editing, but there is an error, which has evidently been copied from a typing error on the Ohio DRC website. Romell Broom does not have four counts of kidnap against a male child: there is one kidnap charge and three attempted kidnap charges against female minors, all associated with the one crime against Tryna Middleton and the two girls with her. Therefore, the statement about kidnap of male children is libellous and should be removed or amended. Check with Ohio DRC directly if official confirmation is needed, but the case - and the person - are known to me personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthfulness (talk • contribs) 15:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I am the subject of the article in question. The stub about me has been tampered with by someone with a wry sense of humor; it suggests that I (a violinist) play vuvuzuela and trumpet and it has as well a sentence following that one which makes no sense.
Below is a real bio of me, accurate in all respects. Thank you for your attention:
Paul Rosenthal was born in 1942 and began playing the violin at the age of three. He studied with Dorothy DeLay and Ivan Galamian at the Juilliard School and with Jascha Heifetz at the University of Southern California.
Rosenthal has made his home in Alaska since 1969 and continues to enjoy performing innumerable concerts in every corner of the vast state. In 1972, Rosenthal founded the Sitka Summer Music Festival which continues to attract musicians and audiences from many countries and is recognized as one of the outstanding chamber music festivals in the United States. He also directs the festival's affiliated Autumn Classics and Winter Classics series in Anchorage.
He continues to tour world-wide and can also be heard in recordings on the RCA, Vox, Fidelio, Arabesque, Vanguard and Biddulph labels. His recordings include collaborations from the famous "Heifetz-Piatigorsky Concerts" and premiere recordings of major works by Arensky, Taneyev, Vieuxtemps, as well as his own Variations on "Alaska's Flag."
Paul Rosenthal holds honorary degrees as Doctor of Humane Letters from the University of Alaska and Doctor of Music from Alaska Pacific University.
The vandalism in the article has been reverted. As far as the other information you have given above is concerned, the place to suggest improvements is on the article's talk page, but you will need to provide published reliable sources that can be used as references to satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
There is some offensive text at the top of your Andy Murray page just after the initial introductory text. Please remove this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.7.170 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thankfully ClueBot NG, our faithful automatic-vandalism-reverter, seems to have rapidly dealt with this, and the person responsible blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I live on eastern Long Island, NY. Today (Sunday, Feb 5, 2012) I read the local newspaper, which included an interview and photo of Jackson Pollack on his 100th birthday in late Jan'12. Common knowledge has it that he died in a car accident in 1956. He jokes about this misperception in the story.
I created a Wiki user account, put the facts from the newspaper on the TALK section of the Jackson Pollack entry, and asked that a more experienced editor confirm and edit. A few hours later I looked, and my entry was DELETED. I think the appropriate response should have been to REFUTE rather than simply delete. The fact is that the man is alive. He has led quite a full life since 1956, which the story provides details of. He goes by the name PJ Pollack.
Dan's Papers - Volume LII, Number 44, dated February 3, 2012. The story was written by the paper's founder, Dan Rattiner. Should be easy to confirm.
That was all rather bitey, wasn't it? Sad that no-one troubled to welcome Dcestaro (did it just now). Removing talk page comments that are not overtly disruptive isn't great either. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, come on Cusop, be fair. First, it wasn't wholly unreasonable to react to Dcestaro the way the editor did. It turns out in retrospect that Dcestaro was absolutely sincere, but it was a wacky business and superficially preposterous. Second, several of us helped out. Demiurge correctly restored Dcestaro's comment. I did a fair amount of research to figure things out and then responded to Dcestaro's original comment, for which he very graciously thanked me. And JFHJr added a helpful link and an apology. The fact that we also had a bit of fun here with the spoof itself was not intended to cast aspersions on Dcestaro.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The beginning of the entry is "...is a piece of shit, hatemonger...."
This may be true; but is probably not appropriate. Maybe if they cited examples. Just found it unusual for Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.169.247 (talk • contribs)
I recently stumbled upon a blatant copyvio in this BLP and removed it. Then I took another look at the rest of the article and thought it could use input from BLP regulars. The article currently focuses on two unsuccessful legal complaints by the subject. I'm not sure if any of it meets BLP standards. And though they've gained some regional coverage, I'm not convinced either event is noteworthy. Any opinions? JFHJr (㊟) 05:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Now I realize I was likely looking at a wiki mirror. What I removed was, in any event, a large swath of uncited material tagged at addition. Anyhow, what say ye about the rest? JFHJr (㊟) 05:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, can't deal with this, just funny, spurious nonsense about this DJ remixer that has been on-wiki since 2007. Please can some sensible heads decide if the guy meets GNG, he's recently remixed a whole Roots Manuva album[33].
Does he pass musicbio, or is it BLP1E and you're out? Too involved and still laughing, at least stub it to something reasonable, or has Wikipedia merged with Uncyclopaedia? CaptainScreeboParley!21:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Only trying to help, someone posted it to Facebook and it was only on reading the extract a second time (and laughing) that I clocked it was from his wiki article, but I did mean the article as a whole and the general tone which is very unencyclopaedic.
Thanks, I didn't know where to start and was rather admirative at this rather fine piece of surreal, peurile writing, which obviously doesn't belong on WP. Had a quick look last night but couldn't find a lot to establish a reasonable level of notability, I'll have a dig and visit the AfD. Can you post the link to the discussion, cheers. CaptainScreeboParley!09:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has inserted seven links to four self published websites on the talk page that attack Prem Rawat and contain contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced.[34] I have removed it once but it was reinserted. I would appreciate an impartial editor to enforce BLP.Momento (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I've commented on the talk page that this issue has been taken here. I can be fairly aggressive about enforcing BLP (in this instance WP:BLPSPS), even on talk pages, but in this instance I'm not sure I'd remove the section as it's a list of improper sources rather than a direct attack on the subject. In addition, removing other editor's comments because of claimed BLP violations can be controversial if it's not egregious.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Prem Rawat needs a permanent entry on this noticeboard, alas. Collect (talk) 13
The following need verifiable citation or must be deleted:
"Sheila handed her gold medal to her twin brother after becoming the olympics champion, and he dropped it to the floor and some parts of it are rotten." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.129.88 (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I am a Wikipedia novice, but this article ("Dregen") appears to have had a press release/promotional biography copied and pasted into its body. It reads like an advertisement and lacks citation. N.B. the section headed "Biography". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.148.141 (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I took out the whole bio section for all of the reasons you mentioned; I'm going to look at it later more carefully to see if the person is actually notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Your removal of some material was appropriate. However, what you added (about his win in Michigan) needs a cite. As an aside, Ballotpedia is not a reliable site (it's a wiki).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
(The information in the last para of Ali Paya is inaccurate and appears to have been written by someone who has a grudge against Mr Paya.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.53.2 (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Resolved
