Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive165

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Bob Hewitt

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

Bob Hewitt is currently being dragged through the media and various sporting agencies on allegations of child abuse, but he has protested his innocence and no charges have been laid. Some links are being broken as previously published content is being removed (i.e. this link). I've tidied the article but would really appreciate extra eyes on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sun Myung Moon

A user at Sun Myung Moon is very insistent on removing the line "According to estranged daughter Un-jin, Moon also had at least one illegitimate son" from the family section of the article. It is sourced to this article which mentions the same in the first paragraph. Other news stories such as the NYT obituary state that he fathered a child out of wedlock as a matter of fact. Should this be included in the article? a13ean (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It's widely reported in reliable sources, so, yes, include it. The attribution (Moon's daughter) can be made clear in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Adrian Camilleri

low-profile individual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Country Music Historian (talk • contribs) 06:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This person is not well known enough to be included in wikipedia. "Finance broker" is an inaccurate title. He is a guy who went to jail, that is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Country Music Historian (talk • contribs) 03:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


Seems only notable as a smalltime bad-boy who dated Miranda Kerr . He should either be redirected there or simple deleted. Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Camilleri.--Scott Mac 23:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Tanya Shafi

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

The Tanya Shafi article is lacking in sources and details of her relationships in the personal life section are contentious. The subject also doesn't consider herself as being notable enough to merit a Wikipedia entry and is concerned that it appears that she has self-promoted. As I'm connected to the subject, and in the case that it appears that the article doesn't have a current editor, I would appreciate it if an impartial editor could review the page and take any appropriate action. Dephelis (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

the article has been tagged, stubbed to claims that should easily be verifiable if she is indeed notable and re-worded to present the content in a more neutral fashion. Sources are still needed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Pawan Kumar Bharti

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Poor references are included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NehaIndia (talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Anand Jon Alexander

I am an attorney that currently represents Anand Jon Alexander with respect to criminal charges currently pending in New York State Supreme Court. I have contacted your company previously on October 15, 2012 via email but to date have still not received a response not have the factual errors been corrected.

There are several significant factual errors in Mr. Alexander's profile posted on wikipedia ( Anand Jon) that we would like to bring your attention to, and urge you to make the appropriate changes immediately as Mr. Alexander will soon be going to trial and it is important that all information available be as accurate as possible.

Your website indicates that Mr. Alexander also faces charges in Texas and Massachusetts in addition to the LA and NY prosecutions. That is incorrect and there are not, nor have there ever been, charges in any jurisdiction in Massachusetts.

As to the complainants, not all of the complainants at issue were aspiring models and many had personal and/or professional relationships with Mr. Alexander. While the wikipedia profile states that the defense in Los Angeles was that "the women and children were better because he did not hire them" this is incorrect and that was not his defense, nor were any of the complainants "children" as the profile alludes. In fact, many of the women complaining admitted to dating Mr. Alexander but in hindsight regretted their choices or felt that they had been taken advantage of. At least one complainant in LA stated under oath that she did not feel she had been raped and only felt that way after speaking to the LA District Attorney's Office.

The profile also indicates that Mr. Alexander will be extradited to New York. Mr. Alexander was brought to New York, at his own request and only after repeated requests, to address the charges in January 2010. While initially there were twelve complainants in New York, several of whom were also complainants in LA, three of those complainants charges have already been dismissed in their entirety. In May 2012 the District Attorney's Office further dismissed many counts of the indictment and indicated in June, 2012 that they were not sure how many complainants would actually be brought to testify at trial. Presently, only 25 counts of the indictment still remain after the NY DA's office also dropped every charge alleging "drugging" on the basis that there was no evidence to sustain the charge.

The profile also inaccurately states that Mr. Alexander was convicted of "16 out of 23 counts of sexual abuse; charges including the forcible rape of seven women and girls.". We ask you to please clarify this immediately as Mr. Alexander was not convicted of any charge related to a "child" nor the forcible rape of 7 women. The one and only "rape conviction" in California, as with almost every single charge, was "deadlocked" in a hung jury for over nine days, no assault related findings and no corroborating witnesses to any "crime." The matter is currently under appeal.

While the profile correctly states that Mr. Alexander went on to fire his attorneys and represented himself towards the latter part of his case, the decision was primarily discovering that his own attorney had secretly applied for a job with, and in fact became a paid employee of, the LA District Attorney's office who was prosecuting the case. Clearly this was a significant conflict of interest which was not properly disclosed to the Court or to Mr. Alexander.

We ask that you please clarify and update Mr. Alexander's page immediately. Mr. Alexander's New York trial is set to begin in November and is expected to receive media attention and therefore it is incredibly important that the press and public receive accurate information which could influence his trial and public perception (and wikipedia is often where many people initially obtain their information). We remain confident that following the trial and appeal Mr. Alexander will be found innocent of all charges and finally released from his wrongful incarceration and we look forward to presenting evidence on his behalf at trial to show just how poorly this case was originally handled.

If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 917.656.6911 or via email and I would be happy to provide you with affidavits and court documents which will fully support every assertion we are seeking wikipedia correct. Thank you so much for your time and attention.

Best regards,

Kimberly Summers, Esq.
SUMMERS & SCHNEIDER, P.C.
555 Fifth Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, New York 10017
(t) 212.918.0690
(c) 917.656.6911
(f) 646.490.2175

www.SummersAndSchneider.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.120.168 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have made a first pass at removing some clearly inappropriate/improperly sourced and unclear content and second pass adding some sourcing and matching our content to sources. I have not fully read the entire statement above, and I would still consider the content in the article a draft that needs to be carefully proofed. A second or third pair of eyes would be good.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Removed more "stuff" from the BLP - person appears only marginally notable other than a TV appearance and the arrest. Collect (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Gold Bar Reporter and Aaron Reardon

There is a negative claim in The Gold Bar Reporter about Aaron Reardon, which is sourced to the "citizen journalism" website itself. This should be cited from a more mainstream/reliable source or deleted IMO. I don't have much time or inclination to deal with this but I found [1] which might help. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Commented out in that article, though I likely could have simply deleted it entirely. Collect (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Allan Donald

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

Hi guys.

Allan Donald's Wiki page only states that he is a former bowler, but he is the bowling coach for the SA cricket team now. I would have edited the article myself, but cannot find decent material to link it to. Which is frustrating, because we know that he is our bowling coach! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Double Fine (talk • contribs) 10:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs reliable sources to verify claims, especially regarding living people. GiantSnowman 10:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
This should probably do it Double Fine, article from when he got the job last year. Followed by this which confirms he is still there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_the_2012_United_States_elections

This page is becoming a dumping ground of BLP violations galore. I have removed the Steve King BLP/Synthesis of material once already and the Jim Buchy as well. These two individuals have not been involved in any controversy. King was asked about Todd Akin's comments and this article is implying that he defended them. Which is absolutely not the case. The Buchy section is sourced to TP and Rachel Maddow and is a complete non-controversy. That this article exists at all is amazing as it is nothing more than an WP:ATTACK page. This kind of crap really needs to stop. Arzel (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The article was created based off of this AfD that resulted in merge. Multiple editors suggested that an article that integrated all the rape and pregnancy comments into one single page would be useful and the closing admin allowed for it in their closing statement. That said, these comments had clear national effects, as documented in the article. Nothing has been added which isn’t sourced and nothing has been added that doesn’t meet the scope of the article. WP:CENSOR. If the article is a problem, I suggest the editor take it to WP:AfD again and get the article removed. Casprings (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The present article is a new Article, proposed in the middle of the AfD (by Casprings) of a different Article. The AfD did NOT demand or in any way require its erection; consensus was that the article addressed in the AfD, a standalone article solely on the strange comments of Todd Akin, could not exist and should be deleted, its sourced content going as far as WP:UNDUE would allow to his campaign article, the National Democrat's War of Women strategy page, and to Todd Akin. Casprings also wanted to start a new article (the current one) on the alleged rape "theme" of Republicans in the 2012 elections, and merge content from the (no longer existing) Akin controversy article into this one, as well as the other existing targets. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
"If the article is a problem, I suggest the editor take it to WP:AfD again and get the article removed." - Disagree. Only a few days ago the AFD consensus you describe resulted in approval for that article; putting it for AFD again is plain disruptive. This looks like forum shopping. If he feels consensus can change, I'd advise Arzel to wait a year before retrying, so that we can see things in a cooler light. --Cyclopiatalk 16:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Not at all forum shopping; there has never been an AfD on this article. The AfD referred to was on a different article, and this new article merges content from the deleted Richard Mourdock controversy article and the deleted Todd Akin controversy article. There would be a strong Speedy Delete argument if that is all it did, and finding LEGITIMATE nationally-important rape controversies that demonstrate a real trend and commonality is essential to this articles future non-deletion. I don't think editors will find any that fit the bill, and manufacturing them to avoid AfD or SD is certainly a WP:BLP violation, but have no problem with giving editor/advocates a week to give it a try before AfD-ing.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say that the article need be deleted, only that it not become a dumping ground for attacking living people, which is exactly what it is becoming. Arzel (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Tend to say that it is a new article, and might be given a short time to develop (though I heartily endorse your observation that it is a crap magnet, and designed as such). WP:BLP should be applied, and if editors prove you and I right, that such an new article is WPOR, or reverts to being an excuse for re-posting legitimately deleted articles, then that IS an argument for deletion. Currently reading what is being posted, not impressed with its WP:BLP, WP:RS or WP:NPOV compliance. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections - because we are committed to neutrality, and this can never be neutral.--Scott Mac 00:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sidharth Kaul

This article is written just to gain the popularity. This person does not meet the standard of notability. Publication in journals is not enough to achieve notability. This article should be DELETED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NehaIndia (talk • contribs) 17:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Rajni Kaul

This article is written just to gain the popularity. This person does not meet the standard of notability. Publication in journals is not enough to achieve notability. This article should be DELETED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NehaIndia (talk • contribs) 17:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

comics.org

I'm concerned about an apparent user-generated database at Grand Comics Database being used as an RS for living persons; please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Grand_Comics_Database. Shaz0t (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Nirmal Baba

The alternative versions on either side of that diff exhibit the core of the dispute here. This is a BLP that is either wholly negative but at least honestly sourced, or wholly positive but with deceptive citations that have falsified titles. The conflict over the citation titles is ongoing, but there's more to this than just that. There are large differences in content, too. Additionally, things will have scrolled off AN/I by the time that the conflict almost inevitably starts up again. Uncle G (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Marco Rubio

[2] uses Yahoo as a source for a contentious opinion that links Rubio to creationism.

The problem is that the actual source is TPM (talkingpointsmemo.com) which is clearly shown in the by-line. The source further is clearly an opinion column.

The claims that Rubio is a creationist, or favours creationism, or is a fellow-traveler of creationists, are contentious. Thus strong sourcing is needed. I aver that TPM is not such a source, nor is Rubio's comment on the "age of the Earth" such a quote as allows the linkage (noting that the quote then continues to say that it is not important to economics just how old the Earth is - making crystal clear that Rubio does not consider it an important topic in the first place). Repeatedly inserting such claims is violative of BLP as well -- [3] shows the first attempt to use this "source", and note thaytt I had no objection to including the full GQ quote per [4] showing actual context from that source. What I do find a violation is this clear new attempt to paint a person with a brush which he does not even seem to justify - Rubio is a Roman Catholic, and, last I looked, theology makes for bad politics when trying to paint anyone with the "creationist" brush. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it seems the controversy is all over the place: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Not all of these are necessarily RS, but evidence of a notable controversy where "creationism" is cited is clear. I agree that we should include the full quote with context, ask for good sources and avoid brushing him as a creationist. --Cyclopiatalk 14:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

* Quote from source =

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio attempted to walk the line between science and faith-based creationism in remarks that that have provoked the ire of liberal blogs, leaving the door open to creationism in responding to a recent question about the age of the Earth.

When GQ’s Michal Hainey asked Rubio, in an interview released Monday, “How old do you think the Earth is,” the rising Republican star described the debate about the planet’s age as “one of the great mysteries.”

“I'm not a scientist, man,” Rubio told the interviewer. “I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.”

“Whether the Earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras,” Rubio continued, “I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.”
  • Quote from source =

    Rubio's comments to GQ were unsurprising when compared with Rubio's rhetoric on creationism in the past. Facing creationist protests, the Florida Board of Education wrestled with curriculum standards in 2008 that accepted evolution as scientifically sound. Eventually, the board ruled that evolution should be taught, but only as a "scientific theory." It was a compromise decision that drew criticism from the scientific community who said it underplayed evolution's acceptance as the basis for biological science and criticism from creationists worried that it didn't go far enough to allow their theories about the creation of the world into the mix. Then-state House Speaker Rubio was on the side of creationists.

My opinion: That Rubio made statements about the age of the earth isn't seriously questioned. Quotes of his statements are easily found in other reliable sources, like CNN and UPI. The issue appears to be how the proposed content is using the source. The source cited doesn't mention anything about Rubio 'taking the side of creationists', and does not show he is engaging in the Florida Board of Ed debates. Either better sourcing needs to be found for the claims made in the proposed content, or the proposed content should be made to better reflect the sources. Zad68 14:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Strikeout comment based on wrong source. Zad68 16:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The source I used [10] in my edit to Marco Rubio contains the sentence: "Then-state House Speaker Rubio was on the side of creationists." It is then a mystery to me how someone can conclude that the source doesn't mention anything about Rubio taking the side of the creationists. Perhaps it's better to read the source in question before commenting on it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
the source is TPM [11], copyrghted by "TPM Media, LLC" and is credited to TPM by Yahoo. The claim is clearly opinion, and the source is an opinion column from a source which proudly states Widely recognized as the pioneer of iterative journalism, which draws on readers’ knowledge to break stories which means it is reader-generated content to a great extent, one step above a Wiki. Opinion claims which are contentious do not belong in BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
How about looking for sources that are actually about the issue, rather than taking sources that only tangentally mention the issue as a throwaway sentence. I would say that undue weight applies here since you seem to want to tell one very specific POV part of the story. Arzel (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Whoops! My genuine apologies, that was just a plain unintentional screw-up on my part. I was looking at the CNN article, fixing above and looking at it again. Zad68 15:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
For reference, here is the original TPM article. Zad68 15:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
And here is the original Tampa Bay Times article (a WP:NEWSBLOG written by Ron Matus, the Times' state education reporter, and listed by the Tampa Bay Times as a "blog") Pema Levy & Evan McMorris-Santoro reference from their TPM article, and here is a primary source, a letter, signed by Rubio and others.
My opinion: The proposed content is supported by the source cited. The source cited, a TPM article by Levy and McMorris-Santoro, is presented by TPM as "straight news" and not a blog or opinion piece. The source the TPM article uses, a Tampa Bay Times article, is a WP:NEWSBLOG which cites an article by the Florida Baptist Witness, and a letter signed by Rubio and four other lawmakers. TPM has a decided liberal slant, which does not make it non-WP:RS, but would make me more likely to want to see in-article attributions to their analysis if used in articles. It appears to me to be an unfair shading of Rubio's position to describe it as "siding with creationists" (even though it is accurate to say so) when it is not his stated position (from these sources, at least) that he believes in creationism or that creationism be taught in schools. I would not straight-up revert the proposed content if I saw it in the article but I'd like to see the analysis attributed to TPM ("Talking Points Memo stated that, as House Speaker, Rubio took the side of creationists..."), and a direct quote from Rubio used, like "A 2008 letter from Flordia House Representative Marti Coley to the Florida Board of Education, co-signed by Rubio and three others, states '[o]ur intent is not to request that science standards teach creationism or intelligent design,' but that the Board 'consider those Floridians who request that you do not present a theory that refutes, without absolute proof, the very core of their beliefs.'" Zad68 16:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Opinion ascribed to individuals regarding the political positions of Living People is a bad road to follow as it opens up free reign to inclusion of the opinion of anybody that has a beef with the subject. 2012 is not even over yet and we already have editors attacking possible 2016 candidates. Arzel (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree that this conversation is going outside of what WP:BLPN is designed to be used for--evaluating the use of sources to support proposed content at an article. I offered my views on the source and suggested the ways sources could be used at the article. Whether or not the TPM article should be used at all is more of a WP:UNDUE question, part of WP:NPOV. Probably at this point, the conversation should be continued at the article Talk page. Cheers... Zad68 18:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Subhasree Ganguly

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

Someone is adding a website link in external link and website infobox parameter of Subhasree Ganguly, but I feel that is just a fan's site. I have not reverted their recent edit. Any opinion? --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Titodutta. I've had a look at the page, but it is not at all clear what edit you are talking about. Could you provide diffs? Formerip (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for confusion! Actually an image related edit warring started after that! Here is an edit diff. I think this is a fan site and is not official website and thus should not be in infobox's website parameter, opinion please! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Any suggestion? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you have a look at the website link now? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I am another editor who has removed the repeatedly inserted link. The page has a big banner " Subhasree Ganguly' Fan Club" and no indication it is the official site of the individual. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Bozhidar Dimitrov

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

The article currently includes a lengthy dot-point summary of one of the subject's books which, for obvious reasons, makes it a coatrack article. I removed that particular section, and my edit was quickly reverted. I reverted the revert and was subsequently issued with a warning (see User talk:WavesSaid#November 2012, User talk:Toddst1#ARBMAC and User talk:Toddst1#Macedonia and Hopscotch). I have attempted to engage interested editors in a discussion on the talk page as well as personally inviting the other reverting party without any success. I am just starting out and not quite sure where else to turn. --WavesSaid (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks undue to me too - I have replied on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Archer

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

User:Betathetapi545 persistently reverts my removal of insufficiently cited, and non-encyclopedic (gossip) material from this article, and accuses me of practising vandalism in my edits despite WP:AGF. One revert reinstated "recent years" over my change to "since 2004" - obviously date sensitive usage is against WP policy. This user has previously been the subject of an inconclusive sockpuppet investigation and has a history of edit-warring. Philip Cross (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

reverted and user warned. Next time it is a block.--Scott Mac 14:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Ankit Garg torture allegations

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

Another editor is seeking to delete sourced material on torture allegations against Indian police superintendent Ankit Garg for BLP policy reasons. The main point of contention appears to be whether Garg is a sufficiently "known" figure for us to include a criminal investigation against him in his article. More detail can be found on the article's talk page; a third opinion would be welcome. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Héctor Camacho

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

Can someone please semi-protect the article Héctor Camacho? IP users have been declaring him dead for two days now, without a source, given there have been conflicting reports of his brain death. Reverting this is making it almost impossible to work on the article otherwise. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi'd for 3 days. Can be extended if still needed.--Scott Mac 18:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Ever so thank you. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Paloma Faith

The interminable edit war about the subject's date of birth, discussed in July at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive158#Paloma Faith, is still raging four months later, see Talk:Paloma Faith#Age. The latest development is that Majorbonkers (talk · contribs) has paid £9.25 to obtain a copy of her birth certificate and posted on the talk page a link to a scan of it. I have rev-deleted that, because of WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY.

Apart from the privacy aspect, the WP:RSN archives do not show any conclusive view as to whether a scan of a birth certificate is a reliable source. I would argue that it is not, because (a) WP:V requires "previously published information" and strongly prefers secondary sources, (b) the scanned image of a certificate could easily be photoshopped, (c) the object of citing published sources is that the interested enquirer could in principle check up on them.

Posting here to ask for views on whether I was right to suppress the link to the birth certificate, and to ask for some more eyes on the situation. My own view is that if we cannot allow gallantry to let the lady choose her own birth date, we should either say that sources exist for both, or omit the date altogether. JohnCD (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind my being the first to reply, but Wkipedia should not let "gallantry" get in the way of facts. Another user has interestingly pointed out that Paloma's Twitter name contains the string "PalomaFaith1981", which suggestes that she herself is not interested in disguising her age: others seem to have their reasons for this, though.
I will be watching for the views of others with great interest. The major issue here is not Paloma Faith's age: it is whether the truth is more important than what certain people would like to believe.
--Majorbonkers (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
We don't cite birth certificates in BLPs - they are primary sources, and we have no way of knowing whether the person referred to is the one in the bio, or another person of the same name. We do not use scanned documents as sources in BLPs (or anywhere else) as we cannot verify that they match the original (and of course because of possible copyright concerns). In consequence, the purchase and scanning of the document was a waste of time. This has nothing to do with 'truth', but instead is a matter of verifiability - find the necessary information in published secondary reliable sources instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
In principle it is verifiable - in this context there's not really a huge difference between buying a book on Amazon to check a detail written in it, versus buying a copy of a birth certificate to check a detail written on it - the main problem here is with primary sourcing. It's easier (and more common) for an editor to lie about the contents of an offline source rather than to photoshop a birth certificate, but we don't have an absolute rule against using offline sources. bobrayner (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I will give AndyTheGrump £1000 to a penny that there are not two people called Paloma Faith Blomfield. Anyway, the important thing here is that Wikipedia still shows her DoB as 21.7.1985, which I have proved to myself was in fact her fourth birthday. Of course it's verifiable: anyone can spend £9.25, as I did, and get a certificate, and it's a lot less trouble to earn £9.25 than to waste hours arguing with people about whether or not it's verifiable. The 1985 mistake arose from a single newspaper article, whereas the evidence for 1981 is overwhelming. If everyone else thinks Wikipedia should go on falsely telling the world she was born in 1985, then I will just have to accept that I can no longer rely on anything I read on what I used to defend as a dependable website edited by unbiased, intelligent people. Majorbonkers (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Wikipedia content is based on published reliable sources - and if you want us to change the policy to base content on contributor's own research ("I have proved to myself") you won't be able to do it on this noticeboard. And no, even if you convince everyone that there aren't any other 'Paloma Faith Blomfields' registered, it is still original research to come to the conclusion that the birth certificate is hers - the certificate itself won't state that it is the only one bearing that name, will it? In any case, according to the article talk page, a published source for her Paloma Faith's age has already been found - the Sunday Times. What is wrong with citing this? Actually, the best thing to do is to indicate to readers that published sources differ on her age, tell them what the sources say, and let them make their own minds up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Please link me to a list or describe what a "published reliable source" is. I have already linked to a newspaper article stating she was 29 in Oct' 2010 that was ignored. For me the fact that she graduated in 2002 from NSCD rules out the possibility she was born in 1985 because she would be just 16/17. I doubt it possible she went there at 14. Criggy77 (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • See WP:Identifying reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Criggy77's point, that you've missed, is that xe has identified a reliable source, and everyone seems to have ignored it and kept on beating the "unreliable sources" drum. Criggy77, I haven't ignored it. But you have ignored what AndyTheGrump just said about the article's talk page. If you stop doing the very same reading only part of what people have said that you think others to be doing, then perhaps this discussion won't be stuck in a rut for another four months. Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Before I started to take an interest in this page (or "vandalize" it, as has unkindly been suggested), it already showed that Paloma's father is Spanish and her mother English. Presumably you have read the Talk page, and also seen my link to her birth certificate before it was deleted, and observed that her father was José Ramón Blomfield, also known as Sanchez, and her mother's maiden name was Pamela Faith Oakes-Ash. The suggestion that there might be two Paloma Faith Blomfields with Spanish fathers and English mothers verges on the absurd. Majorbonkers (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • A simple question - if we already have a published reliable source (per Criggy77), why do we need to engage in original research? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • What's actually absurd here is the incessant focus by you and others upon unpublished birth certificates and who is and isn't a "member" of some WWW site, which latter really is of no relevance here. Ignore the unpublished birth certificate issue, for pity's sake! We have two published newspaper sources and one school that the subject attended all giving this person's age such that in 2012 she is 31 years old. Focus on them.
    • Marshall, Tom (2010-10-29). "My Islington school made me a star, says Paloma Faith". Islington Gazette. […] the 29-year-old pop-star […] {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
    • Munday, Matt (2012-08-05). "Time and Place: Paloma Faith". Sunday Times. News International. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) — pointed out on the talk page by 143.252.80.100 three months ago
    • "Former student has Faith in education". City and Islington College. 2010-11-05. […] the 29-year-old pop-star […] {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

So, it appears to me that whilst some people don't agree with me that birth certificates are reliable (!), there is almost unanimous agreement that Paloma Faith was born in 1981, not 1985 as her Wikipedia page still wants us to believe. Despite all this, I know that if I were to correct it, within 10 minutes it would have gone back to 1985 AND I would be suspended (again) or even permanently banned for "edit warring". Could I therefore ask someone who has not previously edited the date to attempt to do so? And at the same time replace the incessant references to the poor girl as "Faith" with "she", "her", or "Paloma". At present it makes terrible reading, as it's just a sea of Faiths, and that is not even her surname. Majorbonkers (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If people are reverting properly-sourced content, they are in the wrong - but I suspect you'd find it easier to get the point across if you stayed on topic, rather than going off at a tangent. How PF is referred to in the article is another issue entirely, and hasn't even been discussed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Leelee Sobieski

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

Leelee Sobieski's page says that she was married to Matt Davis and this is not true. It comes from a tabloid, which can hardly be considered a reliable source. I try to remove it and I've been reported for vandalism, which is definitely not the case. This is untrue information that shouldn't be on her page and I keep encountering these setbacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.145.27 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You might have a point there. Since you (or someone) has now removed the information while also using an edit summary, perhaps it will stay out. Feel free to come back here if not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Pran

Page is being subjected to continuous vandalism, pronouncing the actor dead, while he's alive and recuperating the in the hospital. [12] --59.90.179.156 (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

semi protected for 7 days.--Scott Mac 09:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott for protection. Torreslfchero (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Scott --59.90.179.156 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Philip DeFranco

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

I have been having some concern with a certain user by the name of Alizaa2.

He Mentions on my talk pageUser_talk:Joe_Temp, that "we can't choose one reliable source over the other" --Alizaa2 (talk)

I have a problem with this statement of his, It is my belief that as An Online Encyclopedia, Wikipedia is meant to deliver the most up-to-date, and accurate information available to us.

I think that in this case, he is incorrect, not only is the source that refers to Philip DeFranco's Legal last name as being Franchina, outdated by more than 4 years,

The Source behind the citation referring to DeFranco himself announcing on his Facebook page that his Legal Last name is in fact Franchini,https://www.facebook.com/DeFrancoNation/posts/10151105515124407 is far more reliable then the outdated Baltimore Sun article.

I would like to see this matter resolved as soon as possible.

JoeTemp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Temp (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this is a somewhat grey (gray) area - I am genuinely uncertain whether we would take the word of the subject on a matter like this, over the word of a supposedly reliable source.
Either way, it looks like you're both edit warring on the article, so you should stop doing that or you're likely to get blocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Crystal Mangum

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

This article certainly falls under BLP for someone, at best, notable for a single incident, and in my opinion, not notable at all. The article specifically for her is largely her arrest record. The Duke lacrosse case article has been rather obsessively edited at times with both unnecessarily specific details of tangentially related aspects of the subjects life, along with wholesale conjecture and commentary unbefitting of WP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Electiontechnology (talk • contribs)

Looking at the history, in 2007, there was a consensus to redirct this bio to Duke University students rape accusation case . Then in 2011, it was recreated with the claim that events since make her notable. The only way to go now, if you disagree, is to start a new WP:AFD nomination.--Scott Mac 00:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Antonio Seccareccia

Resolved

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

He is a music student with no commercially released recordings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.142.244.96 (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The BLP article is now at AfD. FWIW, I found a fair amount on an identically named deceased person who was probably a notable Italian poet. I've created a draft at User:JFHJr/Antonio Seccareccia. Once the BLP autobiography is deleted, the draft on the deceased poet can take its place; that should end most if not all BLP concerns for the namespace. JFHJr (㊟) 17:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ole Nydahl

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

There has been a long-running attempt (since around February 2010) to include defamatory material in this article by an IP editor, based on a opinion piece in the LaCrosse Tribune. The piece being used as a source is clearly an opinion piece, not a news article, refers to a defamatory claim without reporting on who made the claim or giving any indication whatsover as to where the claim could be substantiated or verified, asks a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type question, and then tries to make something of the subject's non-denial response. The unsubstantiated defamatory claim has been placed and replaced in the article multiple times by the IP, worded as if true (e.g. [13]).

After thoroughly analysing the situation, I have entirely removed the section based on this material per WP:BLPGOSSIP. I'd like it if someone could review this action and let me know if it was an appropriate response, and if it was indeed appropriate, to assist in convincing the IP editor that they are in error in their opinion that the material should be included. If the IP editor cannot be convinced that they are in error, I think that either the article will need protection or the IPs used by the editor should be blocked.

Thanks. Yworo (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue

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

The Kylie Minogue article, which is featured, says that the singer's fans dubbed her as "The Goddess of Pop" under this sources: 1 and 2. The first calls her "a real pop goddess", and the latter is a comment box—it is wrong in so many levels. Lordelliott (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Google shows thousands of results (for Kylie Minogue "Goddess of Pop"), just find the respective sources. Everyone can find and add new sources. There just takes time and a willingness - no more. So, user Lordelliott, instead make a fuss, can find and add new sources. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
If YOU want to add new info, YOU should present the sources, not give the work to other users just because the sources "can be found on Google". Also, I took time to search for reliable sources calling her "The Goddess of Pop" and I just found blogs. Lordelliott (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
This text existed a long time and I did not add to the article. I'm not alone on Wikipedia, if google shows thousands of results, everyone can find to add new sources. There just takes time and a willingness - no more. I do not write directly to you, I write to each other users. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
This text was added to the article after it was promoted as a FA (obviously). Google actually shows thousands of blogs and gossip sites. If you find any reliable source calling her "The Goddess of Pop", then you can keep the "Goddess of Pop" claim. Lordelliott (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a book reference about the "pop goddess" nick here here. Lordelliott, I don't understand why are you seeping this issue on BLP/N - it's hardly a controversial or problematic BLP claim, looks like a routine sourcing issue to dissect on the appropriate talkpage or at WP:3O. --Cyclopiatalk 19:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Cyclopia, that's because this issue would not be replied on her talk page. According to the ref you presented, we should keep "pop goddess" on her article, not "The Goddess of Pop" as it was. Lordelliott (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
"that's because this issue would not be replied on her talk page" - That's the kind of small issues for which WP:3O or WP:RFC is for. We deal with egregious violations of the WP:BLP policy here, not with every issue about BLP editing . --Cyclopiatalk 19:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the remark. :) Lordelliott (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Responsible Management Official

Responsible Management Official (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page was brought to my attention via OTRS - it appears to be a weakly sourced "naughty list" outlining complaints against various officials. Could an interested editor please review the entries to ensure they meet BLP standards with regards to sourcing and WP:UNDUE? Note there is some discussion started on the talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The offending material has been removed. Not sure if it was a BLP violation, but it was highly inappropriate. Whether the stubbed article is worth keeping, I'll leave to others.--Scott Mac 21:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting. The offending material was inserted by C4CFED (talk · contribs). However, the article was created by wardjordan (talk · contribs). Wardjordan also created Coalition For Change (The Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C)), the founder of which is one "Tanya Ward Jordan". Hmmm.--Scott Mac 22:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ankit Fadia

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

Since the previous report, this article has continued to have a series of strange edits (mostly content removal) and it ended up a stub. An editor is now looking to restore the controversy section, which I've reverted as the source given doesn't look RS to me, and obviously it would be undue to have the article with just a controversy section. Is there anything suitable in the history that could be used? This is the last version before the latest round of content removal started. January (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think restoring last 'stable' version of the article will be good idea. I know why the removal of the content of this article started. It all started when is official website got hacked, he was criticized all over the web that He couldn't protect his very own website and calls himself a hacker. He himself or any of his supporter tried to remove his critics and other questionable content from his Wikipedia article. --Ak47art (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I brought this here because I don't think anything should be restored without being thoroughly reviewed. This article has been a persistent target of BLP violations, the criticisms added were from unreliable sources (blogs, self-published sources and even a "We hate Ankit Fadia" Facebook page) and when I first came across the article it was a blatant attack. The attack material was in fact removed by me and I'm not a "supporter", I didn't even know who he was. January (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Eduardo Saverin - Ethnic focus

"Born a Jew, always a Jew."

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

This revert is disputed - diff - born a Jew always a Jew?[citation needed] - Youreallycan 18:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note. I removed the infobox ethnicity twice. However, when the IP insisted, I stopped, not because I agree, but because of previous contentious/futile discussions about this topic and because I didn't want to edit-war.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
the IP comments - "Religion would be self-indentified. Ethnicity he is born with. Born a Jew, always a Jew." - are we now identifying living peoples .. ( often disputable and confused with religious beliefs ) ethnicity? I am English with Scottish ancestry but I have to put British on all the forms - I have a British passport - Savarin doesn't have a Jewish passport - he is Brazilian - don't know if he is religious - there is no mention of religious belief in his wikipedia biography. Has/have we any citations where Eduardo Saverin identifies himself as an ethnic Jew? Per WP:BLPCAT I agree with Bb23 and would remove the ethno religios tagging.Youreallycan 18:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree and have reverted "pending discussion" here. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no particular interest in this article and don't intend to edit it. But I think that YRC's posts here are clear violations of the RFC conditions to which he agreed, and I hope not to see them repeated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
    • If you see clear violations then go report them - get on it - I have three weeks of a four month BLP editing restriction left - At my last arb...ish I got a user ban from Prioryman , I want one from you also User:Nomo - Youreallycan 22:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Come now, YRC. It's a pretty unambiguous breach. What are you trying to prove? And why, for pity's sake? Please, just come down off the ledge without making a fuss about it. Formerip (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh? I suggest that it is not a "breach" of anything at all/ Cheers. Find an admin to back your position up if you feel strongly on this. Collect (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
You might not be aware that YRC is under an editing restriction, part of which is: "do not start or involve yourself in discussions about the application of BLP policy". Formerip (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

To return to the content issue. There's no evidence his "ethnicity" is a key part of his identity - so it certainly does not have to appear as a highlighted fact in any infobox. If the sources say he belongs to an "Jewish Brazilian family", then the article should record that and not extrapolate to his "ethnicity". We need go no further. We tell the reader what the sources say, and stop. Ethnicity isn't simple like nationality (which is a legal fact), it has much to do with how people self-identify. But we don't even need to get into that - tell the reader the facts and let them draw their own conclusions.--Scott Mac 23:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources indicate that the subject of the biography is Jewish:
"As members of the Jewish faith, the Saverin family could have easily emigrated to Israel under the Law of Return."[14]
"The author of The Accidental Billionaires, on which The Social Network is based, says being an outsider was a big part of what led Zuckerberg and his original business partner, a Brazilian Jew called Eduardo Saverin, to set up Facebook."[15]
"Religion: Jewish."[16]
"Zuckerberg knew Saverin from Alpha Epsilon Pi, a selective fraternity for Jewish students to which both had recently pledged."[17]
"Eduardo's family were Jewish and had barely escaped the Holocaust to move to Brazil before being forced to relocate again to Florida, where Eduardo's father had become very successful in banking."[18]
Are there any sources suggesting otherwise? Bus stop (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Busstop, I'm not going 5 rounds with you on your favourite "who is a Jew" rants. What he's said about himself can all be narrated in the article - no one is doubting his Jewish lineage. But there's no need for this to be in an infobox as there's not indication it is particularly significant.--Scott Mac 00:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
"of Jewish descent" seems like a reasonable thing to say. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The article is already categorized that way, which is appropriate, and the article says he comes from a Jewish family. That's more than enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we need a template [Photo of cock needed] .Formerip (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
For the infobox? I agree with Scott; it's not that important that it even needs to be in the infobox, even if there were a field called "Descent".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Did I hear somebody say "cock"? --Malerooster (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

We should keep an article topic's religion excluded from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Again?? Same editors making the same claims?? "Ethnicity" and "religion" not backed by self-identification whould in no way be used in an infobox or categorisation of a person. I thought we settled this aeons ago? Collect (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The bus came by, I got on, that's when it all began...it was cowboy Neil, at the wheel, of a bus to never neverland...--Malerooster (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

John Moschitta, Jr.

John Moschitta, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject of a content dispute, apparently involving the subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Amweder's edits to Robert Bringhurst

Amweder has posted libellous, unsourced material to Robert Bringhurst on three occasions: First: October 22, when she made unverifiable and potentially libellous claims about the subject's education and made several edits to made the article's tone negative (diff link). We talked about the edits, and everything seemed fine until... Second: November 18, when again made unverifiable claims about the subject's education, removed cited quotes (challenging an article she herself wrote about the subject in 1999, see the separate COI complaint) and made more libellous, uncited, and unverifiable claims (diff link). Again, we talked it through. I pointed her to WP:BLP among others, but she persisted. Third: November 25, when she removed the same cited, verifiable quote from the article (again, probably trying to make her article appear unchallenged, see dif link). Please see her talk page, which is dominated by discussion of her edits to Robert Bringhurst and my talk page for further discussion of her edits. She rarely, if ever cites her information, and she's made libellous statements three times now. She either doesn't get (unlikely, she writes for a major Canadian newspaper) or refuses to heed WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. --Rawlangs (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving paragraph into separate block. --Rawlangs (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rawlangs, I'm just really really busy--I have a full-time job and now realize that I can't and shouldn't try to address inaccuracies or egregious dismissals of Jeff Leer and other scholars; just want to set it straight that my own article was thoroughly fact-checked and it was reportage. That's all. I realize (and can no longer afford the time to care) that Wikipedia is partly based on whichever contributor has the most time and motivation to spare, it doesn't have a solid means of verifying the facts in its entries because it does not take articles' fact-checking process nor primordial research into account, which is its prerogative; but I respectfully suggest you contact the folks at IJAL yourself to get the facts. ~~Amweder~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amweder (talk • contribs) 05:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
My defence of the article's compilation stands. If the IJAL received a legal threat, and felt it was groundless, they should have (and probably would have) called Bringhurst's bluff and taken him to court. The IJAL is published by The University of Chicago. Bringhurst is an academic of modest means. To suggest an unfounded lawsuit against the IJAL was any threat to them is ludicrous leading me to believe either: 1. That the IJAL was never contacted (in which case the additions were fabricated and should be removed); or 2. That the IJAL received a threat, though it had grounds, and retracted the article without mention of the threat (in which case the threat is unverifiable for the purposes of wikipedia, and should be removed according to WP:BLP). I made this stance very clear to Amweder. If I contacted the IJAL, and they confirmed Amweder's additions, I still wouldn't be able to add that to the article because I couldn't cite it (unpublished). These are basic principles of verifiability and I am disappointed Amweder refuses to take them into account. Wikipedia's rules of verifiability are in themselves a solid means of verifying the facts in its entries, and the "facts" cited by Amweder were nowhere to be found in her article. Again, this suggests two possibilities: 1. Either they were shaky to begin with, and weren't included in the article (in which case they can't be included on wikipedia); or 2. The facts were fabricated (in which case they can't be included on wikipedia). This is a bright line, and must be respected lest wikipedia fall into hearsay. --Rawlangs (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Holly Valance

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

Holly's in the 24 November 2012 news, saying only 'freaks' are allowed to change her Wikipedia entry: "It only lets freaks upload – not me, with my actual biography. My 'Wiki’ is laughable."[19] I looked over the article. It seems a little gosspy and tilted towards a negative light. Those items are source and I wasn't able to figure out what to trim (since I've never heard of her and am not aware of her career). She's obviously upset about something, but didn't say what in the news article. Perhaps someone who has heard of her could give the article a once over to see whether there is anything to change/delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a couple of images that look like possible copyvios. Apart from that, no sign that the article needs urgent attention. Formerip (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like this is over her place of birth – she tweeted that shortly after tweeting "Why do ppl think I was born in New Zealand? I've never even been there?", I'm guessing someone told her at that point it came from Wikipedia. An unsourced claim that she was born in New Zealand was added in August 2011 [20] which stayed there for three months [21], some further attempts to re-add it have been reverted. January (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The legal troubles section looks like undue weight compared to the rest of the bio, but not that big of a deal. I also removed here given name until that can be properly sourced. What else? --Malerooster (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, if Holly or her "handlers" read this, they can certainly email the Wikipedia foundation or even post here or whathaveyou. It seems like the project really bends over backwards to "protect" biographies of living persons and do want to "get it right". Also, I am not a freak, just saying :)--Malerooster (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
ps, Am I allowed to say she is beyond smoking hot, or will my POV now be questioned. Maybe I am a freak :) --Malerooster (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Holly Valance 1800-1.jpg is almost certainly a copyvio. Source etc seem dead. Can someone with more savy on these things review it.--Scott Mac 15:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Er, no. It's not a copyvio, it's licensed on flickr as CC-BY-SA, and is in the photostream of a professional photographer. It is however only visible to friends and family of the photographer (not sure how I count). You will notice it's flickrreviewed as well, so even if you can't see it, you know that the bot checked it. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Can we verify that? I can't. If it isn't verifiable, then it doesn't count.--Scott Mac 23:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm a Commons admin, I verify it now. The flickr review bot verified it when the image was uploaded. The whole point of flickrreview is that it gives us proof of licence if the image ever becomes unavailable - if you don't think that's good enough, take it to commons:Commons:Village Pump/Copyright, this is not the place to argue it. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, that you personally are unable to verify it is neither here nor there. We have images verified by OTRS - I can't check the ticket to see if they're ok, does that mean they should be deleted? No. We trust the systems we put in place for verification. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't do Commons, but it is perfectly valid to ask that the use of an image on en.wp is settled on en.wp. The definition of verification is that it can be checked. The reality is that most people can't check this, so they have to go with "trust me". Now, I've no reason not to trust you, so probably I'll let it lie, but it isn't verification.--Scott Mac 00:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is a screenshot of the two images showing that they are still freely licensed (oh wait, I didn't include a photo of a newspaper, I MUST BE LYING!) http://mattbuck.irongalaxy.com/temp/holly.jpg
You're wrong though. Issues about Commons images should be settled on Commons. en.wp can ask whether they want to use them - that's an entirely en.wp issue - but whether they are freely licensed is a Commons issue. If you want to take issue with our verification structure, do it on Commons. However, you are treading a dangerous path. The flickr review process ensures that at the time the photo was uploaded, the image was available under a free licence. Flickr accounts and photos can be deleted, licences there can change, things can be made private. But that doesn't matter, because we have proof of the licence, and the licence is irrevocable. If you're not willing to accept the system because you cannot check it yourself (do you argue with your calculator about what sine of 25 degrees is?), then the logical conclusion is that nothing we can do is ever good enough, because you cannot check everything. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The bot thing only checks the licence as entered on flickr, though, not that the uploader is entitled to grant a licence. Like Scott, I'm not sure I care enough to make a big issue of this, but the image has definitely been through a lossy process, which doesn't necessary scream legitimacy. Formerip (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you have to use judgement. You never saw me take the 5k photos I've uploaded, how do you know I'm not perpetrating a massive copyfraud? You don't. But we assume good faith unless we have a good reason to doubt. The photostream belongs to someone who (claims) to be a professional photographer. The images are clearly done at a photoshoot, so it's reasonable to assume they were done by a professional photographer. The flickr user has several thousand images in their stream of professional quality. Now, we cannot say for certain that the images were taken by the flickr user, but it seems like quite a stretch to assume that all those thousands of photos are copyvios. At some point you have to just assume a reasonable amount of good faith. Without that, everything breaks down. To use a wikipedia example, we'd have to ban all offline references, because you can't verify them yourself. Further, you'd have to ban online references, because you have no idea whether the reference is complete bollocks. Without assuming (until shown otherwise) that people are behaving in good faith, wikipedia - heck, society - cannot exist. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the photos were obviously done by a professional, which makes it a little surprising that they've been given to the world for free. Where are you seeing thousands of professional-quality photos? The stream is private, so all I can see is one dodgy-looking photo uploaded to Commons. Formerip (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The stream is private, and I apparently qualify as a "family and/or friend", I think because I was the person who first asked the photographer if she'd release the photos for Commons. I see 19,885 photos, almost all with all rights reserved, but with the ones I specifically asked about licensed as CC-BY-SA. There are 78 photos in the Holly Valance set, which are in the collection "production stills". They clearly show one event (maybe a few extras, unsure), with all the entourage etc of the shoot. I can provide screenshots of that too if necessary. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Beyond arguing about images, which are not the problem, are we going to take any action on this issue? -mattbuck (Talk) 04:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Dale Bozzio

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

I think we may have been here before, but let's do it again. The constant back-and-forthing in this article over a minor conviction (90 days) for animal cruelty is a bit disruptive. In my opinion, the matter is of undue weight in this BLP. Now, Doc2234 is a bit of a defender of the article and may make a different argument; I don't know how involved The Master is (haven't checked in the history) but their arguments should be heard here as well. In the meantime, I have reverted (again) to remove the matter from the article; I'm kind of hoping that some attention to the matter on this noticeboard can lead to a permanent consensus that can maybe be codified on the article talk page. Thanks for all y'all's attention, Drmies (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Crap, this isn't easy :). I am a deletionist/minimalist, see Dario Maestripieri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for not wanting to include FB controversy, but here might be a little different or not. How much "press" did this recieve? Were there BIG ramifications? Was this really a big deal or are people trying to make more out of this. How biographical is it really? I would like to see the arguments from both sides. --Malerooster (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm reviewing article history, and drafting my arguments with the intent of uploading tomorrow. Doc2234 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll start with the notion that WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply because the subject is WP:WELLKNOWN and there was a conviction. And not everything within an article need be independently notable. But the event here neither derives from nor adds to this subject's notability. Neither the event's relevance to what makes this biography encyclopedic, nor the event's enduring biographical significance, has been demonstrated. There's also the very reasonable question of the reliability of the sources supporting adverse BLP content. If you're looking for a WP:CONSENSUS, the material in question was removed with an edit summary describing the coverage as tabloid. I agree. The same very material was removed again describing the passage as WP:UNDUE. I agree even more. Unless and until the topic of animal cruelty is clearly part of a noteworthy aspect of the subject's life, the topic should remain out of the BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 02:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
After following the sourcing links provided, I have to agree with JFJr that this does not merit inclusion (and said the same at the RfC). a13ean (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
There are many sources covering this. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. The Master (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
All of them are tabloid quality, and none indicate any particular importance of the events themselves along the grand scheme of things to merit inclusion in the subject's biographical entry. If her notability beings to rest partially on animal cruelty, better sources will avail. JFHJr (㊟) 06:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
They are not "tabloid quality" (by the way, "tabloid" is a layout term, one of the variations from broadsheet, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the reporting. Simply utilizing the tabloid layout format does not equate to the National Enquirer). Either you don't know what a non-RS is, or you haven't looked at any of the above links. The Boston Phoenix is an award-winning arts and music publication. The Tampa Bay Times is a mainstream newspaper that has won 8 Pulitzer prizes, two of them in 2009, and has been published since 1884. The New Times Broward-Palm Beach is a weekly alternative newspaper published by Village Voice Media. Salmon Press (New Hampshire Lakes and Mountains) is owned by Stonebridge Press, which publishes weekly mainstream newspapers in New Hampshire. Seacostonline is the online presence for a series of mainstream daily newspapers published by Dow Jones Local Media (including the The Portsmouth Herald). So what are you looking at exactly? If you want to say that mainstream and common alternative newspapers are not reliable sources you'll need to establish that at the reliable sources noticeboard. You can't just claim "tabloid quality" for mainstream news sources. The Master (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am actually leaning towards including this material. If there is a question of reliable sourcing, maybe take it to the RS board. If they ok these citations, I would include this. --Malerooster (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My concerns:
Poor quality sources - Sources prominently available from a search are tabloid quality, including the Phoenix. Sources that may be considered reliable present ongoing material during the course of the trial or just after sentencing. No sources identify the ultimate outcome of this three year old case. One source that an editor has promoted as being reliable, the Tampa Bay Times, has its material content derived from an unacceptable source, TMZ. If some of the sources would be generally considered to be of reliable quality, their specific coverage of this case must be put to the test. For example, the Phoenix articles either include or link to State’s Evidence photos, used by the prosecution during the trial. Those photos were intended for courtroom use. All but one of the counts that those photos were used for as evidence were dismissed. Major reliable sources that I have searched through have either never covered the case, or if they did cover it, they have retired the report from view. It did not register as significant with broad countrywide coverage. It was covered by certain tabloids and in areas where she was particularly well known.
Undue weight - There is no prior history of the promotion of or engaging in animal abuse by the article subject or any of the article subject’s bandmates, associates, or relatives. There is identification in one source that the article subject entrusted a sitter (who did not show up) with the responsibility of taking care of the house; that the article subject was not present during the situation that resulted in the conviction, and that the article subject had no intention that the situation should unfold as it did or had any direct involvement with the crime. The conviction in this case was based upon the article subject’s being ultimately responsible for the events. When this information was initially uploaded, the page included 19 lines of text that explained the article subject’s notability and 10 lines of text devoted to the case. Dale Bozzio’s professional music career had extended over 30 years at that time with significant vocal work with Frank Zappa, the founding of and role as lead singer of Missing Persons, the design and fabrication of creative stage attire, the continuation of Missing Persons under her own name, and a solo career that included working with Prince. Those aspects of Dale Bozzio’s career define her from an encyclopedic standpoint. The cat incident does not factor into that.
Past reporting of this event on Wikipedia – Past insertions of material related to this case have been uploaded primarily through IP addresses. References actually used in the past have included the Phoenix, State’s Evidence photos through the Phoenix, True Crime Report, TMZ, and WMUR (local NH TV station). Not only has the information been uploaded to the Dale Bozzio page, it has also, at times, been uploaded to the Missing Persons (band) page; and the band members had no involvement at all.
This is a matter of responsibly reporting a case where the trial ended three years ago. Only the outcome should be considered for reporting, not the arguments during the trial. It is extremely inappropriate to include information that was presented during the trial, since that was ultimately decided upon and the great majority was dismissed. Even the judgements in this case concerning the time served have been inaccurately reported. In addition, it is my understanding that the lack of severity of this case may make this case eligible for being expunged from the record in the State of New Hampshire in the very near future, if not already. The sentence was for 30 days (not 90) actual time and it is my understanding that less time was served to satisfy that requirement. I am not sure how Wikipedia treats that type of issue, however, if the record is expunged that could be another factor to be considered when determining whether or not to cover information about the case at all in Wikipedia. Doc2234 (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The sources are not tabloid quality, no matter how many times you repeat it. And thanks for the additional WP:RS in the form of WMUR, a TV station that apparently reported the incident. The status of the article before it was expanded to its current length is of no consequence to the current start of the article, which goes into quite a bit of detail regarding her career. Past "reporting" of this case on Wikipedia, whether by IP addresses or not? Totally irrelevant. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, anon IP addresses included, and in any case, their contributions have no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. Finally, speculations regarding whether the case could be expunged are just that: speculations, not to mention WP:OR. We deal in facts, written from NPOV and reliable sourced. The content I added states what the sources said. If you feel something was not factually paraphrased, then that can be edited to match the source. Otherwise, I don't see much of a rationale here for keeping this content out. What I do see above is you attempting to make excuses for the article subject (she hired a sitter, she was away, etc.) and puffery about her career. What does any of this have to do with the article? The article already covers her musical career. In fact, until I and another person deleted it, it contained a number of unreferenced claims, statements sourced to blogs, self-published sources, etc. I note you didn't seem to have any problems with those. These attempts to keep all negative content out of this article strike me more and more as whitewashing, given the past history of sourcing puffery to blogs and self-published documents. The Master (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Michael Bush

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

I am highly doubtful that Michael Bush, the African American running back for the Chicago Bears, is related to George W. Bush and Jeb Bush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.240.240 (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The challenged content was added by an IP, then tagged {{cn}} soon afterward. I've removed it because the claim is about several living persons and wasn't supported by a reliable source. It can be replaced when a reliable source is offered. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 11:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

James T. White

James T. White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
edit

I noticed that there are two sources from Scamtracers, and Scaminformer which are not credible sources and it appears to be a rant more than any credible information.

^ "James Timothy White Scam - James Timothy White James T White. Eurotex Finanz Inc. Scammer. Sues Broke People. Big Fraud. Declared Bankuptcy and claims to be a millionaire.:". SCAMTRACERS. Retrieved 9 November 2011. ^ "Ripoff Report". Ripoff Report. Retrieved 9 November 2011. ^ "James Timothy White Scam Report - James Timothy White James T White. Eurotex Finanz Inc. Scammer. Sues Broke People. Big Fraud. Declared Bankuptcy and claims to be a millionaire.:". SCAMINFORMER. Retrieved 9 November 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.89.213.127 (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Matthew VanDyke

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

Subject is extremely upset about this article. Needs thorough review. Public complaint on Facebook here, and here's the text for those without Facebook:

Thank you whoever corrected #Wikipedia page about me by removing #journalist description. Hopefully someone will also finally remove that Joel Simon nonsense that has been in the description for months. Simon's accusations were made in his blog and are outright lies that have been disputed now in a few press articles, and these lies have been overwhelmingly demonstrated on my site to be untrue. I am astonished that anything about Simon's libellous blog lies was ever written on Wikipedia (why would some guy's ridiculous, self-serving blog post ever be appropriate or relevant enough for Wikipedia?), and I am even more astonished that it hasn't been removed already considering that his claims are in dispute and all evidence actually points to him having lied in that blog post! If you are a Wikipedia editor, go for it and clean up that page by deleting the Joel Simon line - one man's opinion blog is not a valid source for Wikipedia from what I understand of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Maybe then the Wikipedia page will eventually be a fairly accurate and unbiased source, with your help!

Really, blogs? - David Gerard (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • To which the appropriate response is, of course, "Really, Facebook?". ☺

    The disputed material was actually removed a year ago, with a lengthy edit summary. Then someone with an automated editing tool reverted the edit as "unexplained". Although a reasonable suspicion has been raised on the article's talk page that Lrmf (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest in writing about this person, there is no way that that edit, given its summary, could be reasonably characterized as "unexplained".

    Ironically, there's a proper source covering this very dispute, if one decides to swap Facebook for reporting by a journalist in a newspaper.

    • Rogers, Katie (2012-11-09). "Matthew VanDyke: US citizen held in Libya emerges on Syria's frontline". The Guardian. But some of the people who searched for him say he was deceptive about his motives, namely that he and his supporters claimed he was a journalist in order to save his own life. […] VanDyke said he never called himself a journalist, and if his documentary teaser is any indication, he had never maintained any journalistic distance between himself and the rebels. […] {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Uncle G (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been previously involved in editing this article, namely in the face of AfD. I think the subject's (being accused of) having claimed to be a journalist is part of his aggregate notability in the first place. I'm unsure of the appropriate WP:WEIGHT, though I've offered an edit. JFHJr (㊟) 05:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

someone keeps defacing John Giuca's article

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

The user Overagainst keeps making defamatory and slanderous changes to John Giuca's wikipedia page. I have asked repeatedly to have this user either blocked from making changes or John's page to be protected. This is getting ridiculous every single day we are back and forth with this guy. Please finally help us this is getting ridiculous. Mdavis2 (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I checked out the recent edits by User:Overagainst. They seem to be improving the style, organization and referencing of the article. I didn't notice any effort to slant the material any particular way. The above claim by Mdavis2 that Overagainst is 'making defamatory and slanderous changes' would need to be justified by diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Doreen Giuliano

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

I've encountered the work of the above named WP:SPA Jritts (talk · contribs) and PravdaSpiel (talk · contribs) at Doreen Giuliano, which appears to be a daughter article of John Giuca. I've corrected the most egregious problems and posted at talk. If anyone has a moment, I'd like more eyes to see if AfD is appropriate. I'm wondering whether deletion or ultimately redirecting to the John Giuca article would be best. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Having a separate article is a convenience. Giuliano's crusade to free her son, which is apparent notable or at least widely-covered, can be kept separate so it doesn't clutter the main article on John Giuca, which is already highly detailed. I wouldn't favor an AfD on Doreen Giuliano at this time. PravdaSpiel (talk · contribs) has not edited since March, so it seems unnecessary to worry any further about their edits. I hope that any regular editors who may be following the situation will check periodically to see if Jritts (talk · contribs) should be warned for their activities at John Giuca. This editor created the John Giuca article. It seems that they are still active in editing there, but never use the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Clutter can be remedied; that's a BLP maintenance problem separate from the mother's notability. I see it as a matter of topical relevance and enduring noteworthiness. Could the following not be inserted in the Giuca article? His mother, Doreen Giuliano, independently investigated what she believed was juror misconduct in her son's murder trial. She produced recordings of the juror admitting he did not disclose his connections to Giuca's clique, which were presented in her son's appeal. The appeal was denied, with judges stating that even if it were true that the juror had such acquaintances, it would not entitle Giuca to a new trial.<ref x4 or so> All of the reasonably reliable sources available could be used in conjunction in support of the above text. There's not much else to say about her. Her crusade is entirely within the context of the 1E, the trial of her son (appropriately in his article). JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Alex Jones (radio host)

At issue is a new edit at Alex Jones (radio host) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

He is accused in the Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Files of "exploiting racial animosities" to "appeal to the fears of the antigovernment Patriot movement."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/alex-jones |title= Alex Jones - Southern Poverty Law Center|publisher= splcenter.org|date= |accessdate=2012-11-25}}</ref>

Taken from an attack piece on Jones which includes the following passages:

Every week from his studio in Austin, Texas, he dives into red-faced tirades...

and

Although it hardly seems possible, Jones’ fecund imagination now seems to be sprouting even more conspiracy theories than before.

The reference is also a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. My reversion was reverted by an admin. Your opinion is welcome. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

When?? I don't see your name in the first page of history. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
this diff Mangoe (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah -- okay, but the section here was first created with reference to Alex Jones -- a different article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec)IMO, an opinion from the SPLC clearly labeled as opinion, and not making any criminal allegations etc. can be used. Opinions that someone has committed a crime, etc., again IMO, should not be placed in any article subject to WP:BLP at all. Thus the use of "antigovernment" to the extent that advocating the overthrow of the government is a crime in the US, is likely past the pale. Collect (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"Anti-government" is entirely appropriate as a description of the Patriot movement. The source is satisfactory as per many discussions at WP:RSN. This is a content dispute that can be worked out on the article talk page. Consensus should be established for including the material -- but including it is not a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
So you think descriptions like "red faced tirades" and "fecund imagination" are ok in an opinion? Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia which is based on rational analysis rather than attack pieces for its material? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
As long as they are clearly shown as opinion, I see no problem. And no, this is not meant to be an encyclopedia based on rational analysis, it is meant to be an encyclopedia based on what the sources say about the subject, and we have criteria for these sources and those criteria do not mention rational analysis. And to Collect, antigovernment does not necessarily mean wanting to overthrow the government. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
You mean that even if it is demonstrably obvious by their comments that the sources are attacking a subject the attack must be included in the article despite what BLP says. And let's not forget the original research of the proposed edit: He is accused in the Southern Poverty Law ...: The verb "accused" is the editor's own opinion and is not present in the original source, and this is another characteristic of trying to transcribe primary sources: original research and WP:SYNTH are often present to ease the primary source's opinion into the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
You've been reverted again. The discussion on the talk page is interesting as it suggests that 'red faced tirades' is a reasonable description if you look at videos of him, but that's a digression and OR. You clearly don't have a consensus there to remove this and so far no consensus here that it is a BLP violation. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

*This source appears reasonable. SPLC is opinionated, but they're generally considered a reliable source. And they are NOT a primary source in this matter. I wish you'd stop saying that Dr. K. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

First don't use loud capitalisation when you talk to me and don't make dramatic exclamations like I wish ... What you wish has no bearing on this discussion. This barely notable website's comments have not been reported by the press. Going to every barely notable website and scouring for attacks against BLP subjects and then using WP:OR fillers like accused to enter them into articles makes Wikipedia editors reporters of primary, non notable material. If the material were notable it would have been reported and analysed by the press. We should leave reporting and analysis to the press otherwise Wikipedia editors risk becoming reporters themselves; a risky activity fueled by WP:SYNTH and OR. But don't let me stand in your way. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I will capaitalize a single word for emphasis when I deem it appropriate until you can produce a policy that prohibits it. Further, I will express my wishes as I see fit. It is not impolite, uncivil or any other negative. If you want to complain about annoying conduct, look at your own overuse of Wikilinks (see WP:OVERLINK). OR and SYNTH have already been linked in this discussion and everyone here is an experienced editor that has likely read those policies more than once. But thanks for totally ignoring the actual point about your misinterpretation of what a primary source is. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I missed that false claim. Nomoskedasticity did not revert my edit. Reverting it would have put back your improper tag. He changed the word that you are complaining about. Of course that didn't keep you from complaining about the word long after it was gone, but it did give you the opportunity to misrepresent something else. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I really thought that my unpleasant exchange with you was over. But you come here to add more misleading comments so I will set this straight because what you are claiming is false. *Nomoskedasticity wrote: Revision as of 17:36, 26 November 2012 (edit) (undo)Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs)(→‎Reception: "accused" is not an attractive construction here) meaning that the trem "accused" is misleading and improper. You removed the tag from the term "accused" and therefore you validated an arbitrary and according to Nomoskedasticity not an attractive construction. I told you that above as well: Also Nomoskedasticity agrees with my interpretation of what OR is because they reverted your validation of the OR filler accused. I told you that you validated the term accused by removing its tag. But you are still complaining. This basically means that you still don't understand what you were doing by removing my tag. And the whole point of me as you claim didn't keep you from complaining about the word long after it was gone was to indicate to you that you didn't know how to remove OR even when I pointed it to you with the tag. You did not remove the original research implicitly present in the term accused. Instead you validated it by removing the [according to whom?] tag which I added, thus misleading any hapless reader who happened to read it. It took Nomoskedasticity to remove it. I would have removed it myself but your petty reversal of my tag put me at risk of 3RR so I played it safe. The net effect of your misled action was to deter the proper fix of that ugly term. But don't let your incomplete understanding of WP:OR deter you in the future. Next time learn something from it instead of trying to discredit me because of your lack of understanding of what OR is. But you can have the last word. As long as you don't start any other false accusations I am done here with you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You said you were done before. Guess not. He changed the word sunshine, not restored the tag. There is nothing in his edit about OR. The tag wasn't restored. In short, my edit was NOT reverted. Period. Your claim that is was is false. Had my change been reverted, the edit summary would reflect "undid" and that improperly placed tag would hav been back. It wasn't. Now if that fairy tale you conncoted above helps you sleep better or bumps up your self-esteem, that's one thing. But anyone with a brain can look at the diff and see the tag was not restored, thus my edit was not reverted. Being lectured about competence from someone with the lack of reading comprehension as you've displayed here is amusing to say the least.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You said: You said you were done before Is this why you keep coming back to malign me? Because you thought I wouldn't come back to defend myself from your ignorant statements and false accusations? Your latest reply to me proves that you can't read or comprehend what I wrote. I am not going to diagnose the cause. Be well. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I know exactly what I said, but thank you for quoting it so we can point out one more time how you say something that turns out to not be true. You aren't being maligned. Rather you enjoy playing the victim. I just wish you played it better or at least more entertaining. While your initial portrayal is funny, you run out of material fast and turn into a broken record. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Now you use psychobabble to cover your tracks. I assumed good faith in the beginning that you were simply misinformed. So to help you I started a conversation with you and provided you with valid information. What a waste of time. Take your trolling somewhere else. I will not waste any more of my time with you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Psychobabble? Wow, talk about hyperbole. "Playing the victim" is now psychobabble? For someone who professes to be educated....never mind, I need not state the glaringly obvious. Your assumptions are what has caused you difficulty, such as your assumption that you know what you're talking about. You're doine with me? Again? That's the third time you've made that claim. Maybe the third time will be a charm. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • So much bickering. DrK, if you had wanted to deal with the "OR", you could have done what I did instead of merely adding a tag. Then you would not have been at risk of 3RR. Anyway this discussion has long ceased to be fruitful; if it is to continue, it should do so on user-talk pages, not here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Nomos, I did not want to change anything in any edit because I did not want to risk 3RR even in the slightest. I already wrote about it above but I will definitely excuse from having to read my long reply. :) Otherwise I agree with you, although I have no intent to continue this garbage on any talkpage. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If you don't want to be present, you need not return. Otherwise, produce a policy or quit complaining. Your demanding and misled attempts to give me orders could easily be construed as rude, even uncivil. As for substanative matters, I removed your OR tag because it was misplaced. There was no doubt at all who was making the allegation. The sentence clearly said who made it. If there is OR, I have no issue with it being tagged. That wasn't OR. Just because Rubin agree about primary doesn't make it fact. Also, keep in mind that primary sources are not prohibited. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If you don't understand that the term accused is the personal interpretation of the Wikipedia editor who added this information into the article then this is your problem and not mine. Same goes about the source being primary or not. As far as your claim that my telling you to stop your insulting remarks to me constitute "orders" and a breach of civility, this is in itself uncivil. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The tag you placed was the [according to whom?] tag. There is no ambiguity about who said it or the source of the allegation. That is why is didn't belong and was removed. Why you are still griping about it is beyond me since the sentence was reworded hours ago. As for the rest of your whining commentary about what you think is or isn't civil, I invite you to take that matter to ANI and see how it flies there. I'll wait here until the laughter subsides. Now, continue blathering on about a single word being put into caps or go back to addressing the issue. Your choice. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You still don't understand that the function of the [according to whom?] tag attached to the verb accused is exactly that: To ask: who came up with the verb "accused". Answer: The Wikipedia editor who put it there according to his own personal interpretation. But enough. You obviously don't have a concept of what original research is or what are primary sources and no intention to learn and you are trying to divert attention by continuing your insults to me and adding new silly arguments like ANI. Take your circus of incivility somewhere else. I am done here with you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No, that's not an accurate use of the tag. But again, I ask WHY you are moaning about the choice of a word that is no longer even there? (had to cap it since you apparently missed it before) Stop living in the past sport. My suggestion for ANI isn't silly. If you feel you truly have a case for incivility, then by all means, go plead it there. Otherwise, your endless bitching complaining about it here is pointless and just an excuse for you to pollute the discussion with redundant wikilinks and little green type. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Please spare me the analysis of what clear consensus is. And don't make this personal: You've been reverted again. I have not been anything of the kind. My reversal of a controversial edit was reverted, not me personally. Don't make it sound as if I have done something wrong by trying in good faith to uphold BLP. If you think that this tirade against Jones really enriches his article you can have it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The quoted bit at top is fine, except for the deprecated wikilink within the quote. The second and third quotes are inflammatory and cannot be used per WP:NPOV. The first quote is as neutral as that kind of thing can be. The SPLC is a reliable third party source, widely quoted by scholars, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV can be applied in this case to tell the reader who is saying that Jones has animosities toward other races. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This discussion made apparent the practical inability of Dr.K and Niteshift36 to work collaboratively with regard to the biography of Alex Jones (radio host). In fact, this discussion quickly became a cage match of insults. Folks, cut it out. Concentrate on building the encyclopedia rather than on antagonizing each other.
    The stated BLP concerns are not significant; the SPLC is widely cited on these kinds of issues. A brief mention of SPLC's statement is okay per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

More eyes at Kenneth Clarke please

If a few of the regulars here could add Kenneth Clarke to their watchlists, I'd appreciated it (the subject is a hihg-profile British politician, for the benefit of non-Brits). I've just RevDel'd a gross BLP violation that was in place for over an hour. It seems this has been going on for a while so I've semi-protected the article, but more eyes might help to keep order when the protection expires. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisted.... Yworo (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Lance Henriksen

Resolved
 – Bifocals. JFHJr (㊟) 05:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It say he struggled to find work as a waitress... he's a man; it should be waiter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.126.218 (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you looking at the sentence about his mother? "His mother, Margueritte, struggled to find work as a dance instructor, waitress, and model." -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

David Codikow

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Codikow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This person is not notable. The content is written like a press release, by a publicist. Merely starting a law firm is not notable, and "consulting" in the music business is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.246.210 (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The article was WP:PRODed by Nomo and de-PRODed by by Arxiloxos with the summary "Codikow was reasonably significant figure in music business, article has a few sources already & GNews ARCHIVES & HighBeam show potential sources; thus PROD not best option, AfD better if necessary." I've removed unreliably sourced content based on various WP:BLP guidelines. Claims involving third parties, themselves notable, was a rather problematic recurrence. As was the apparent use of cites to support minutiæ but not the substance of claims. As far as I can tell, this subject hasn't actually been called a creator of anything in reliable sources; at most he co-manages and co-produces. I also removed a lot of text sourced ultimately to blacklisted URLs. I've inserted a bit that shows coverage but may or may not pass the test of time in regards to WP:BLPCRIME, as it is applicable to lawsuits in general. JFHJr (㊟) 00:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated for deletion. JFHJr (㊟) 06:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Kevin O'Leary

Kevin O'Leary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No source for his favorite dessert being peach pie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.146.86 (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

David Rodriguez (heavyweight boxer)

Resolved

David Rodriguez (heavyweight boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

They continue slanderizing the individual, after repeated attempts to delete.

David Rodriguez (heavyweight boxer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaboom (talk • contribs) 00:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Daniel C. Ferguson

Daniel C. Ferguson was initially created at Articles for Creation but was speedily deleted as an attack page [28]. I have no idea what that version looked like, but shortly thereafter it was re-created in main space with some clear BLP problems remaining which I removed, e.g. [29]. The article's creator has now insisted on adding this assertion. It was originally referenced to this source which not only fails to support the assertion, but is also an improper use of WP:BLPPRIMARY. I left a note to this effect on the editor's talk page. The response was this thinly veiled legal threat and a restoration of the assertion [30]. I'd appreciate some extra eyes on this article and a view on whether this assertion (currently unreferenced) should be kept in the article. Voceditenore (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. His source doesn't back that up, and he needs a block per WP:NLT  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Main Page / Selected Anniversaries

Left a note at Talk:Main Page, but received no response as of yet, so hoping this noticeboard is more responsive. The current "On this day…" day section contains a blurb that unequivocally states that a person was "severely beaten by Royal Canadian Mounted Police constables". The article itself says that no charges were ever laid, and that two inquiries rejected police brutality. Assuming any of the constables involved are still alive, which would seem likely, that would seem to seem to be a quite serious potentially defamatory statement, violating the BLP guidelines. As the Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 28 is locked, I'm wondering if an admin could remove this particular blurb and/or edit the blurb to insert "allegedly". IgnorantArmies – 11:14, Wednesday November 28, 2012 (UTC)

Absurd. Just because the inquiries were a whitewash, it doesn't mean the person wasn't beaten. There's no BLP problem here as long as the individual cops aren't named -- and indeed they're not. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The blurb's wording is pretty explicit, and both constables involved are named in the article. Would not "severely beaten by Royal Canadian Mounted Police constables" + "RCMP constables Daryl Bakewell and Peter Eakins responded" = "severely beaten by Daryl Bakewell and Peter Eakins" in the reader's mind? Probably less likely now the article's lead has been changed, but still, the blurb is still misleading, considering the RCMP received no legal blame for the incident. IgnorantArmies – 12:17, Wednesday November 28, 2012 (UTC)
The question is, does the article need changing. If yes, then it should be fixed. Getting it deleted from the main page is not the point, particularly when the entry itself did not contain a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Sure, fine—I probably should have just left this at Talk:Main Page, considering my lack of experience with the specifics of the BLP policy. I'm done here, marking as resolved. IgnorantArmies – 12:40, Wednesday November 28, 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Reyes-Chow

Rolphaquino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added a paragraph to this article repeatedly, initially without references and then adding two references which simply do not support the claims he is asserting. Basically, he's saying "X is controversial" and then linking to the blogs of the two people he is accusing of being controversial. I've reverted his changes a few times but I don't want to get into 3RR. This is a visible BLP since it made some news outlets [31]. I recommend blocking this account, or protecting the BLP. §FreeRangeFrog 19:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've also got my eye on this one. Yworo (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. I was worried this might get 'notable' again, so to speak. Here's a diff for reference since I forgot to add it initially. §FreeRangeFrog 19:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau

I apologize in advance for the tl;dr issue here, but I'm raising this issue here and taking pains to explain myself as it involves a wp:blp and a revert I just completed per that policy of an (involved) administrator's undo.

The article in question, Justin Trudeau, had some fairly biased and significantly undue coverage of a media story that apparently had a few days of traction last week in the midst of an election in Canada. The tone of the content was inappropriate and not even remotely "disinterested." For example, using "revealed" when it should have just been "reported" and some blatant original research describing the comments as "negative and discriminatory" and labeling some of the commentary as "denounc[ing]" without any of that terminology actually appearing in the sourcing. (The bias of whatever editor wrote the content was pretty obvious by their title for the sourcing, "Outrageous comments by Trudeau." The word "outrageous," for example, did not appear anywhere in the source.) There was then some coatracking to try to tie it to a separate story and, to top it off, about three times as many words as the actual biographical facts devoted to commentary from apparently every political commentator in Canada. (I exaggerate on that last point, but only slightly.)

I boiled the content down to the facts, improved the sourcing, and removed the commentary (which just isn't appropriate for a single, passing event in an encyclopædic biography). User:CharlieEchoTango (an administrator who actually has done some significant damage to the neutrality of the content of the article in a few of his earlier edits: [32], [33]) undid my attempt to bring it inline with wp:npov and wp:undue and left an edit summary calling my edit a "whitewash." I left a note on his talk page and per wp:blp have reverted.

If someone desperately wants more coverage of the political kerfuffle than I managed to simplify it down to, I think that should be considered on the talk page for the article (or here). But I think it's inappropriate for an administrator (folks who should be intimately familiar with the requirements of wp:blp and the requirement to get it right now, rather than later for biographies) to be adding non-neutral and undue content and, even worse, reverting to protect their opinions and original research. jæs (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The administrator involved just acknowledged some of the issues I mentioned above, admitted socking to try to cover his bias, and has resigned the tools. jæs (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Bozhidar Dimitrov

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

Further to this report, the matter has yet to be settled and the associated template still remains on the talk page despite the report being closed without notification. --WavesSaid (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

North Preston's Finest

I'm not sure how to handle this article, but I certainly don't want to wade into editing it. It uses mostly sources that are several years old, including tabloid newspapers, which makes me wonder what became of all of these "charges". We see repeated instances of years-old serious charges and claims, including the names of the alleged perps, but no indication in most cases of whether they were convicted or acquitted. With sources that old, surely that kind of information is available, so it looks like this article is damning an entire group without giving us updated information about what resulted from any of these charges. Although it is cited, I'm also unclear why it is important to mention ethnicity in an infobox. I see a concern has been lodged on article talk, but if this article needs BLP cleanup, it will be quite a task. This is a new article, so why are we dealing with four-year-old unresolved charges? There is something very awkward about this article, that smells POV-ish. I don't know, but hope someone more experienced in similar will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Pulling out just a handful of names, like you, I can't find anything indicating that there were ever resolutions to any of the legal cases? I'm particularly worried that Wikipedia and a bunch of mirrors are the primary hits for a number of these living people (regardless of the horrible things they're accused of), since we're not Wikinews and there's no guarantee our article would ever be updated to indicate the outcomes of the cases. The article is about the gang itself. My feeling is the names of its living or recently deceased members, unless they're convicted of activities related to the gang, aren't appropriate for an encyclopædia. Is that a reasonable theory? jæs (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
That's what I see. An additional concern is that Wikipedia's finest already featured this on our mainpage. And to correct this article, I felt I'd have to go do a lot of research to determine if anyone was convicted. Or just blank most of it-- I didn't/don't know how to proceed, hope someone will. Google news turns up one-- and only one-- source, that could be used to write an article about the gang, without going into individual names. [34] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there likely to be any further feedback or action here? The text stands ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Its well sourced for almost all controversial/negative statements about the gang members. Bad people do bad things. If you want to 'correct' the article by doing a lot of research and adding more info go ahead. Otherwise try taking it to an AFD. Because all those named look to be sourced correctly. Pulling gang members from an article on their gang is asking for someone to create a direct BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:BLPCRIME; perhaps your talents would be more useful on another noticeboard. At any rate, I see another editor has begun removing the BLP vios. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps your talents would have been more useful in doing it yourself rather than making snarky comments on noticeboards and in edit summaries. But if you want to be a policy-lawyer WP:BLPCRIME says "editors must give serious consideration to not including material". This is not the same as "Editors must never include material absent a conviction." As you know perfectly well. When you request more feedback, dont be rude to people who respond because you dont like the response. It generally puts them off attempting to do anything for you in the future. As someone else has taken it on themselves to do the work required, any further discussion can be dropped at my talk page where I will give your views the "serious consideration" they deserve. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's the deal, OID ... "attempting to do anything for you in the future" ... it's not for me, it's for the article, the project, and the (potential) victims of BLP vios. That is why this board exists. I have no vested interest here. The editor who brings something to a noticeboard's attention may or may not have the time and the sources to fix it (I don't)-- that doesn't mean the board should disregard discussing how to best handle it, brushing editors off with "go do it yourself". Anyway, I went out on my own and found someone who would/could. So now, you've been rude to me, and I've been rude to you. Even Steven. Truce? Peace out, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I had intended to try to address some of the issues with the article last night but simply ran out of daylight. It looks like you were able to recruit some other folks to take a closer look, the article is vastly improved today after the recent edits. I only wish this noticeboard was more of a catalyst in bringing necessary attention to biographies with issues (obviously the intended purpose)... jæs (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks , Jaes. Yes, Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) is an experienced admin in addition to being a competent editor, and she pointed us to BLPCRIME, and began work, and the original DYK editor is in there now looking at sources. In a few days, you should be able to mark this resolved ... work underway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Trio The Punch

The user repeatedly adds [35] [36] [37] [38] unsourced speculation about the pope's sexual orientation to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI, after it has been pointed out that it is a BLP violation, after the user has been warned[39].

He also edit wars to include a POV tag to the article in question without reasonable justification and without any support, based on his personal POV that "The article currently portrays the pope as a defender of the children, which is not NPOV, because there are quite a few reliable sources saying the opposite" (the section in question has been stable for years, I have worked on this article for several years). We don't add POV tags to high profile articles like Barack Obama or Pope Benedict just because a new user with a strong POV comes along and dislikes a stable article. Jeannedeba (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not a new user, and never claimed to be one. Jeannedeba thinks she can remove anything she dislikes. She does not seem to understand WP:TPO and WP:BLP. She is a POV warrior who used to try to get the word "rape" in a section header in the article Julian_Assange. Check her talkpage User_talk:Jeannedeba#Julian_Assange. She has repeatedly vandalised both the article and the talkpage for her POV. The rules are simple. Someone tags and article and explains why. The tag contains the text: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". The dispute has not been resolved. Jeannedeba is not allowed to remove the stuff she repeatedly removed, see both WP:TPO and WP:BLP, I warned her more than once, but she continues. Trio The Punch (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
You are a disruptive user who adds BLP violations to the talk page after being told to stop. No, you cannot tag spam a high profile article. There is no dispute going on, only a new user with a strong POV who seems incapable of contributing productively to our encyclopedia and who thinks an article must have a POV tag because it doesn't portray the subject as an enemy of children or something silly, POVish, unencyclopedic. Jeannedeba (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Your ad hominems won't help you. You are a religious povwarrior. Your interpretation of both WP:BLP and WP:TPO are very personal. Trio The Punch (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


I have removed the POV tag, but I'd trout smack both of you for edit warning. On a contentious and popular article, the fact that one person questions its neutrality is not significant to indicate a dispute by tag. Trio, when the tag was removed you should have let it be and simply noted on the talk page you thought it should be tagged - if there was a significant dispute someone else would have replaced the tag. Jeannedeba, once you had removed the tag and it was replaced, you should have left it alone. If others agree there's no significant dispute, someone else would have removed it (as I just did). On a heavily watched article, a 1RR is generally to be preferred - then go to the talk page. If you are in line with consensus, someone else will also revert.--Scott Mac 14:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Cresencio S. Arcos, Jr.

This person is not notable. The entire entry is written like a personal bio/resume and I cannot ascertain any accomplishments or unique aspects of his career that would warrant a Wikipedia entry. The sources provided do not mention the person or otherwise substantiate the claims in the biography. The number of editors is very limited and repetitive, which may indicate a close-knit group maintaining this entry. This entry should be deleted. Nixfix99 (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixfix99 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitely some problems here. It was created by a SPA in 2008 who has never returned. Some copy vio content added by an IP in 2011. It has no citations and is not formatted properly. I've hit it with BLP Sources and CopyVio tags but it could use some serious clean up.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Adam Nash

In the end of this article, it says that the parents destroyed the other embryos created in their search for the correct embryo to help Molly. That is not true because in later years, the parents actually used one of those fertilized embryos to have a third, unaffected child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.161.188 (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've edited that sentence to attribute and quote the source. If you have a reliable source for the claim that they save the embryos we can add that for balance. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Peter Thomson (diplomat)

Dear Wikipedia Help desk

I am writing on behalf of Ambassador Thomson who would like some editing/corrections made to his entry in Wikipedia. He, as the author of his own entry on Wikipedia, can verify that his requested changes are authentic and factual relating to his biography.

Collapsing draft

Peter Thomson (diplomat) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photo to be inserted (unable to attach-please advise)

Peter Thomson, born in Suva in 1948, is a Fijian diplomat of Scottish descent, and Fiji's current Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

Contents 1.Biography 2.Civil Service 3. Varied Experience 4. Citizenship 5. United Nations 6. Bibliography 7. External links 8. References

Photograph inserted

Biography

Family

Thomson, a fifth generation Fijian, was born to a prominent public servant, Sir Ian Thomson and his wife Lady Nancy Thomson. His father was born in Scotland and was posted to Fiji in 1941 as an administrative officer in the British Colonial Service. Sir Ian served the bulk of his career in Fiji, including terms as Acting Governor-General of Fiji in the 1980s.

Peter Thomson married his wife, Marijcke (née Rolls), in Suva in 1973. They have a son, James, 

resident in New Zealand, and a daughter, Nicola, resident in Fiji.

Education

Educated at Suva Grammar School and Natabua High School, in 1966-67 he attended the 

International Centre at Sevenoaks School, Kent, UK. He later obtained a B.A. in political studies

at Auckland University and a postgraduate diploma in development studies at Cambridge University.

Civil service

Duties

Thomson began work as a Fiji civil servant in 1972, working in rural development as District Officer in Navua, Macuata and Taveuni. In 1978 he was posted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He was seconded in 1979 to the Forum Secretariat, before being posted by the Government of Fiji to Japan in 1980 entrusted with the task of establishing Fiji's embassy in Tokyo. He served in Tokyo until 1984, when he was appointed Fiji Consul-General in Sydney, Australia. Returning to Fiji in 1986, he served as Permanent Secretary of Information, and was a member of the boards of the Fiji Visitors Bureau, Fiji TV and Fiji Broadcasting Commission. He also co-founded the executive committees of the Australia-Fiji Business Council and the New-Zealand-Fiji Business Council. He was elected to honorary membership of the New Zealand-Fiji Business Council in 2007.

In 1987, he served at Government House in Fiji as Permanent Secretary to Governor-General, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau. During this time between the two coups of 1987, the Governor-General was the sole executive authority of Fiji.

Gaoling

After the 1987 coup, he "found himself a target as the high-profile white permanent secretary to Fiji's governor-general, embroiled in a constitutional crisis and with indigenous supremacists demanding his head." He was gaoled by the Fiji Army for four days, and was placed under house arrest thereafter. He resigned from the Fiji Civil Service at the end of 1987 and moved to New Zealand, then Australia.

Varied experience

From 1988 onwards, he worked as an investment and management consultant on Pacific Island affairs for various government agencies, regional organisations, universities and investment corporations. In 1990, the East-West Center published his diagnostic study "Trade and Investment in the Pacific Islands." During this time he was founding director and shareholder of Tabua Investments Ltd, one of the prime developers of Fiji's premier tourism resort, Denarau Island Resort. (http://www.denarau.com/history)

Citizenship

Having lost his Fiji citizenship by taking on New Zealand and Australian citizenship after the 1987 coups, he regained his original citizenship in 2009, following a Fiji Government decree authorising dual citizenship.

United Nations

He resumed diplomatic duties for Fiji in 2010, when he was appointed Fiji's Permanent Representative to the United Nations. He took up the post in a context where Fiji's long standing tradition of providing peace-keeping forces to the United Nations was facing opposition from New Zealand and Australia due to the 2006 military coup in Fiji. A few months before his appointment, Thomson had publicly criticised what he described as Australia's "ongoing campaign in New York to choke off Fiji's role as an international peacekeeper." In 2011, the United Nations requested Fiji to increase its deployment of peacekeepers in Iraq.

As Fiji's Representative to the United Nations, he has worked to establish diplomatic relations with new countries, and consolidate Fiji's existing relations with a variety of countries. He has been described as "spearheading vital elements of Fiji's Look North Policy, pursuing closer ties with China, India and the Arab world - among others - as a means of breaking free of its dependence on Australia and New Zealand." Graham Davies writes that Thomson has "forged a new network of international relationships for Fiji outside the (Australia/New Zealand) orbit, including membership of the Non- Aligned Movement", and that he has been a "a prime influence behind the formation of a formal independent Pacific voting bloc at the UN".

In August 2011, he was elected as one of twenty-one vice presidents for the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly, under President Nassir Al-Nasser of Qatar. During this time, on several occasions Ambassador Thomson was appointed Acting President of the UN General Assembly. (http://youtube.com/watchv=6Hjebk4kw)

In July 2011, Peter Thomson was elected as President of the Assembly of the International Seabed Authority's 17th Session, at its Kingston headquarters in Jamaica.

He has supported Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama's government declaring in 2010, "An immediate return to democracy would mean a return to the Fiji of old, where politicians were elected on the basis of racial rolls, ethno-nationalism was rampant, corruption was rife, and coup-culture was ingrained." In July 2010 he told The Australian's Graham Davis: "I'm a passionate advocate of multi-racial, multicultural Fiji so I fully support Prime Minister Bainimarama's programme. Race-based constitutions and political parties have been very divisive for the nation. We're now working towards a future in which citizens will vote without regard for race for the first time."

He spearheaded the 2012 election of Fiji to the Chairmanship of G77 and China, the organisation of 132 developing countries of the United Nations. Fiji's Chairmanship will run from January to December 2012. (http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=213225)

Bibliography

Thomson is the author of Kava in the Blood, his account of the 1987 Fiji coup. The book was the winner of New Zealand's' E.H. McCormick Prize for non-fiction in 2000. He is the editor and publisher of the pictorial/historical book Fiji in the Forties and Fifties, written by his father, with photographs by Rob Wright, published in 1994.

External links

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.195.170 (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
We will need reliable sources, the subject's say-so is insufficient. If you can provide reliable sources, the matter can be addressed.--ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Snyder of the U.S.A.

This mans advocates deter me from saying anything positive about operation "Barbarossa". They consciously distort the truth and keep people, at least me, from coming up with a meaningful discussion.

Jaakkola, Helsinki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.17.197.24 (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Everything has been deleted as I supposed it would be. Snyder remains king, and you are his soldier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.17.197.24 (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are being 'deterred' from adding gibberish like this [40] and this [41] to our article on Timothy D. Snyder, the 'advocates' (most likely ordinary Wikipedia contributors) are getting it right. Article content is based on published reliable sources, and not on the opinions of random individuals who appear to know little about history, but consider themselves qualified to make negative aspersions regarding those who do. Actually though, you have raised this at the relevant noticeboard - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies applies to all statements regarding living persons, including those made by you. If you persist in posting such nonsense, you are liable to be blocked from editing. I suggest you instead find reliable sources to back up your proposed edits (if any exist, which seems unlikely) and then discuss them on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
"Gibberish" is too kind a word. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Clifford Irving

There is a huge amount of content in this article that has stood unsourced since 2010. Of that, much is very questionable, e.g. describing criminal forgery and fraud. This article is in need of a thorough review and deep cuts. --causa sui (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Criminal forgery and fraud? He wrote a book admitting to it. And a film was made of the book. No BLP violation here. Qworty (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
There was also some puff in it, as well as unsourced claims - needed a bit of a cleaning. As an aside -- did you know the Irving Trust Company was on the bottom floor of the McGraw-Hill Building? Collect (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Unsourced claims that could defame the subject are BLP violations. Period. Please review the policy. --causa sui (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Considering that almost everything is in his book, the NYT etc. there were a few too many "cn tags" placed -- I added the salient sources in a couple of minutes. I found no defamation other than that which he writes about himself. Collect (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, these edits are good progress. For future reference, that it is in the book does not help if it is not actually cited. It would be worthwhile to consider removing the uncited content until sources are found. causa sui (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Jacqueline Hassink

Hello there,

My name is Jacqueline Hassink and I edited my text today (14:53, 29 November 2012) on wikipedia since it was outdated and incorrect. My user name is Jacobien Kyoto. After usign several hours edting it I see that you did not accept it and returned it to the old text. All information is true and I would really appreciate it if you bring it back to my latest edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacqueline_Hassink&oldid=525543031 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobien kyoto (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Bot reverted addition of text from blog (wordpress). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I've left a note on her talk page offering assistance if she needs it. All these policies and rules can be confusing and discouraging to new users.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Joao Carlos Pereira

Dear Sirs,

First, I appreciate the work done to inform people and I would like to thank Magioladitis, Always Learning, Yobot, Mr.Z-bot, Sir Sputnik, amoung others.

I am the responsible for the comunication of Mr. Joao Carlos Pereira, a football coach, and I state that the changes on the information I put is totally correct!!! I decided to change the information given by you before, because it was either not totally correct or some of the information had perspectives that I consider not clear and honest, due to the purpose of Wikipedia:

a) The person in question started coaching at the age of 32 (1997) and not at 33.

b) Let`s call things by its name. The league 2nd B exists (in Portugal there is 1st league, 2nd league, 2nd league b, third league and then regionals).

c) Do not forget you are informing people about a living person and this person has to be shown in an unpartial way. Not as the best of the world, but also not showing a negative side.

d)I inform you that in the end of the season at Ermis Aradippou, he was not "released at the end of the season". He was invited to continue and he decided to leave!

e)Why are you putting the information about another coach in his page? Why making a managerial statistics comparison between them if the contexts are completely diferent? Mr. Joao Carlos Pereira worked at Servette in a moment of crises, no money and no board of administration, bankrupcy... I think that is not correct to make comparisons and mention another person in his page, right? Wikipedia is not supposed to be an opinionmaker, right? Anyway the Europa League was acomplished in the end and with his contribution, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.155.150.224 (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP, you are asking Wikipedia to place information in a bio of a living person (BLP) that is authenticated only by it being typed here by an anonymous person. Fortunately for the subject of the article, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which prohibit such actions. Instead this encyclopedia requires citations to reliable sources for the information in it's articles and especially its BLP's. So if you can refer us to news articles, books etc (personal web sites don't qualify) that give reliable information then changes can be made to the article on that basis. Also, your requests and sources would be best served if they were posted on the talk page of the article so editors that are active there can respond to them. Please read WP:V to under stand futher our policy and if you need assistance, feel free to contact me. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Chris Burton (businessman)

I really do not see why this page has been allowed to be created and published on Wikipedia. It is clearly the ego-propelled product of someone who is pursuing self-aggrandisement and self-promotion rather than enlightening the reader on the life of someone significant or interesting. Who is Chris Burton (businessman)? Seemingly a polymath whose achievements are legion. A veritable Leonardo da Vinci for the modern age. Please can someone investigate and then remove this non-entity? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodseats44 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, now at Afd - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Burton (businessman).--ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Fred Savage

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

I removed the exact DOB of his children since they are non notable and this really doesn't add anything significant to the understanding of this individual. Can anybody point me to a MOS or policy or anything that covers DOBs of non notable individuals, especially minors? TIA --Malerooster (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If not explicitly, it is certainly covered in spirit in Wikipedia:BLPPRIVACY#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources. "that the subject has made available" - non-notable minors cannot have made their personal information widely available particularly in conjunction with WP:NPF "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, " and just plain common sense.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I would also think in this example that the actual names are not really needed either, they are not notable or public figures. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The names I am not that concerned with and can go either way. Certain celebrities, like Tom Cruise, the name/s are going to be mentioned because they are so widely covered. Thank you TRPoD, that was the policy I was looking for. I also linked to WP:IINFO as well. --Malerooster (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dewald v. Dewald and Dewald v. Wrigglesworth

Two articles on court cases. I declined A7 CSD on them, as court case are outside the limited scope of A7. But they definitely appear to likely be not notable. Both are sourced only to primary sources. Both involve negative decisions against the same person. So, despite being ineligible for A7, I got a BLP issue thought nagging in my brain, and figured I should bring them here. They *are* sourced, but again to primary sources, most court records it appears. I doubt that they would survive AFD, but are there enough BLP issues here that something needs to be done sooner than AFD would take? - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

RPoD took a hatchet to one of the articles, and then submitted it for PROD deletion. I've followed his lead and done about the same with the other one. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
And for future reference, there are two other case articles involving the same subject. Dewald v. Clinton and Dewald v. United States. Neither of these look like BLP issues like the first two, but neither of them look particularly notable either. Both have already been submitted to PROD by RPoD. There's a fifth case article, Friends of Phil Gramm v Americans for Phil Gramm in '84, created by the same account as the first four in the same timeframe. This one does not have such an obvious connection to the living person from the first four, but similarly shows no sign of notability. I've submitted it to PROD myself. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Marcia Falkender, Baroness Falkender

There is a continuing attempt to misrepresent the claims of the 1976 Resignation Honours List as having involved the sale of honours. There is absolutely NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for this claim. None. The Sale of honours is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE. Because it is a criminal offence had there been any suggestion that such activity taken place in 1976 there would have been a police investigation and a full inquiry, neither took place or were even suggested.

Because the sale of honours is a criminal offence, knowingly claiming that a living individual has committed a crime when you are aware that they did not is itself a criminal offence. And reprinting false accusations or misrepresenting forged documents as authentic, such as a counterfeit diary, is also a criminal offence.

There is no doubt or ambiguity over the truthfulness of the historical record only about the role of MI5 in British democracy. If a thirty year old smear campaign is being repeated in plain sight then there is a problem. If people continue to violate the law, as they are on this subject, presumably because they think they are above the law, then there is a problem. The solution is not to reprint false accusations from the 1970s but to consult reputable academic textbooks, not ONE of which substantiates anything that some contributors are saying on this subject.

Again: As the subject of this is still alive, false accusations of criminal activity may be subject to criminal prosecution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.205.34 (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it was a crime to sell honours in the 1970s. It is also, by the way, illegal to buy honours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.205.34 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, in any event, there is nothing in the article about selling honours; not even the passage you were trying to delete says that. That passage is well rooted in the source provided. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's been a criminal offence since 1925 following the Lloyd George honours scandal. But as Nomoskedacity says the article doesn't claim that she was involved in sale of honours. However, I would say (a) there's a large chunk on the resignation honours list that is generally about the incident and isn't really anything to do with her. I would think that should be shortened, and (b) the article as a whole contains a lot of claims/allegations which, as the article properly points out, are unsubstantiated or proved to be wrong. Individually, that's fine. But bundled together it looks like innuendo and the article's objective is just to be scurrilous. The difficulty is that the subject's notoriety revolves around the fact that there were a series of sensational allegations which, on the whole, were never proved or were disproved. Absent those allegations the subject's notability might be questionable. DeCausa (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Fair warning: You're going to get a lot of responses from the U.K. Wikipedians if you assert that someone who is in at least two other encyclopaedias, books on 1960s British politics, and numerous biographies of a past British Prime Minister, and who was a member of the Kitchen Cabinet, is not a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia. ☺ That is, however, one messy and top-heavy biographical article. A quick skim of the books indicates that there's a lot more to write about this person than just the single subject of an honours list that people have concentrated upon for the past two years. To put it another way: The sources seem to exist for a full biography, but Wikipedia editors, on both sides of this dispute, only seem to want to write about one small part of it. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
A. I only said "might". B. I'm a UK Wikipedian, and one that's old enough to have been around for the 1976 kerfuffle. I'd be interested to see the addition of material that supports the contention than that there's more to say than "the list" - I don't mean that facetiously. DeCausa (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct: it has been illegal since Lloyd George. Also correct about the overall effect which is certainly part of the problem since smearing is cumulative as well as qualitative. This, by the way, is exactly the technique used by the newspapers (or MI5) for thirty years to keep this going. There is also the repeated attempt by some contributors to take from one source - Joe Haines. Joe Haines has a long long record of criminality and dishonesty and is not a credible source, when there are literally dozens of reputable books about Wilson and Falkender out there none of which are ever cited and all of which contradict his claims. Nor can you discard the main accusation from Haines but retain other smears from the same source, since the source itself is obviously tainted. And no-one who was trying to portray the subject honestly would do that. The question therefore boils down to whether Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (which will apply standards to sources used) or a low rent smear sheet or bulletin board. The encyclopedia Britannica would not use Joe Haines as the sole source for anything I think, certainly not after a defamation suit. Regardless, more circumspection and restraint is required for living individuals because of the law on this subject (civil and criminal). The same goes for associated articles on the "Lavender List" and Wilson both of which I have also had to edit. The entry I deleted is defamatory (untrue) and implies criminality, it is given an exaggerated significance by putting it in the article when it is in no way representative of her character or life - it is also dishonest to pretend that this is a neutral environment where such entries will be judged solus and not against the background of defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.205.34 (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

If there are other sources that contradict something currently on the page, please feel free to add material drawing on them. No one here wants a false portrayal. But I strongly suggest you stop with the accusations of criminality and defamation: if you prefer to address this issue via legal means, you will end having only that path open to you, you will not be able also to edit the article(s). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The claims which are violative of the letter and spirit of WP:BLP are now removed. And the court libel suits make it clear that such claims were viewed as libel by British courts as a statement of fact. Collect (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ankit Fadia

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

Please could another editor take a look at the material added in this edit, I'm not sure that the sources cited support the claims, other than attrition.org which sounds self-published according to the linked article. I've been removing various versions of it over the last few months but it keeps being readded. January (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

elizabeth_chan

Article of Elizabeth_chan has been edited and deleted by Rosepetalcrush. Need to revert to previous versions if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.251.91 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There do appear to be BLP problems with the article, though not the ones the complainant is speaking of. A WP:SPA, 69.204.251.91 (talk · contribs), keeps re-adding WP:COPYVIO material and unsourced material, appears to want to WP:EDITWAR over it, and has refused to discuss proposed changes on the article talk page. There might also be WP:AUTO or WP:COI issues here, though that hasn't been absolutely determined yet. Certainly WP:OWN is an issue. With all of this going on, the article could sure use a lot more eyes. Qworty (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Derek Laud

The subject of article is threatening me with legal action on twitter via direct messages. Myself and another editor, User:Rangoon11 added reliable citations to the article around the beginning of November. The subject subsequently contacted me on twitter disputing the information from the reliable sources, which I removed. [42] This was then reverted by Rangoon11 and taken to talk [43] [44]. Shall I copy the direct messages here? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I think you should stop adding tedious tabloid twaddle to the article about him, and then perhaps he'll find something better to do with his time than direct messaging you on Twitter. Single-sourcing controversial information about living people to the Daily Mail isn't the best of ideas.
(I do also vaguely wonder why you've made it possible for him to interact with you on Twitter about your Wikipedia edits.)
I've also repeatedly blanked some potentially defamatory material from the talk page of that article; it'd be useful for a few extra people to keep an eye on it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I dont see a problem with the two pieces regarding his membership of the conservative 'club' and his driving conviction. Both are properly sourced, but beyond that, both are directly related to his political career. The driving conviction very much so. Or at least, it has been reported by reliable sources to be. I dont think it needs that much detail however. The SA apartheid stuff is tenuous at best though. RE the defamatory stuff, totally agree that needed to be nuked, have put on watch for now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't consider the Daily Mail, nor indeed the New York Daily News, as reliable sources for controversial information about living persons, certainly not when one of them is used as a single source to support an assertion that "it has been reported by reliable sources to be directly related to his political career". If there are multiple reliable sources that say so, why not cite them? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Well the Mail piece references the driving incident, as does the Telegraph, I suspect the Independant one does as well given the citing in the article but their website appears not to be processing search queries at the moment to check. Whoever did the citations only used one for each sentence/claim, rather than citing them to all the articles that can confirm it. It looks like any news item mention of him ends up with 'And he pulled out due to being convicted yadda yadda' as that is the most interesting thing about him. If you disregard his Big Brother claim to fame. Looks like there are multiple sources beyond the Daily Mail, and some are used elsewhere in the article for other claims. I agree for the most part about the Daily Mail btw as a reliable source, however that should probably be run by RSN. It doesnt help he actually writes/wrote for the Mail on Sunday. His membership of the conservative club in itself doesnt seem controversial at all, he has talked about it openly (and his reasons for leaving). The pulling out of the election due to his driving conviction might qualify as controversial. He only said 'business reasons', its the press that blame it on the driving. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
He has disputed with me factual elements of the articles cited. Should this not be an issue between the subject and the publications cited? This article experienced some very high traffic at the start of November, and will continue to do so. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
If you mean by that "is the mere fact that the subject has disputed the content enough of a reason to remove it?" then, no it isn't. Say what you like about the Daily Mail but an article in it written by Derek Laud which says Derek Laud was a member of the Monday club is a reliable source, regardless that he has since denied it on Twitter. (i.e. The issue appears to be between him and himself and need not involve us). I also found this for corroboration. Formerip (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I am puzzled about Laud's denials of being a member of the Monday Club, since he wrote an article for the Daily Mail discussing it. And the Daily Mail is a national midmarket newspaper and a perfectly reliable source.
I also query why an editor has been discussing the article with the subject in this way on Twitter. This seems inappropriate, even if not a stict breach of WP rules.
It is worth noting that there have been repeated additions of unsourced attack content about other issues, so the article will benefit from more people watching it.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
On the attack content (unrelated to the Monday Club membersship or driving conviction) I've asked for semi-protection. JASpencer (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Following a request on WP:RFPP, I've just semi-protected the article for a week and activated pending changes for after the semi-protection expires. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The name of mr. Beji caid essensi in arabic letters is incorrect. The current transliteration is libelous, defamatory and injurious toward this great politician. Please correct. This basic factual information. Best regards

Please verify and correct the arabic spelling of mr. Caid essebsi's nameThe existing one has nothing to do with his name and is an arabic insult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.198.161.160 (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Vandalism reverted and vandal warned. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum

the original page for this person was deleted mostly because of lack of information, and barely being notable. i asked the deleting editor if i can try again, and he said sure. so i did. i posted it a few days ago, and it has been ransacked from A to Z, mostly by an editor who appears to be the subject himself. (if you look at the previous edits of this editor - Rastiniak - you will see he admits that this is he, but now he doesn't. in any case, please look at the article history to see my original article - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amiram_Goldblum&oldid=525509548. and then look at the talk page and the main article history page to understand his style of editing and "discussion". in an ideal world, he should learn the rules of wiki, and follow them. but since i don't think that this is likely, based on his track record, i think he needs to be sanctioned if it continues. help, please..... Soosim (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum has been engaging in disurptive editing in the ikipedia article about himself. Using the editing pen name Rastiniak, he just violate dthe 3RR rule, once again. He has also repeatedly posted slanderous statements on Wikipedia about other people. He has violated every rule in the editing book and must be blocked from further editing. The 132.64.165.121 IL, which is his own personal IP at the Hebrew University and has also been used for dirsruptive editing, should also be blocked indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.193.217 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hang on -- are you the one who has been inserting unsourced crap in the article? It's not Rastiniak who needs to be blocked, I think. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
This IP editor, almost certainly a sock of the Runtshit vandal, is edit-warring to introduce clearly defamatory material into the article. It was because of Runtshit's behaviour that an earlier article on Goldblum was deleted. RolandR (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, the Steinberg source is rather definitively inappropriate as a source for the material you are attempting to add -- it is quite clearly an opinion piece. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  • The article has now been put on "pending changes" (thanks Mifter). Soosim, I suggest being quite careful about accepting any changes that would have even a whiff of inappropriateness about them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a good source from academic print house that could be used [45]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A good source for what, Shrike? Soosim's agenda has to do with an episode that took place a couple of months ago; the book you are citing was published in 2010. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
A good source for the article of course.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

a) unsourced crap is indeed unsourced crap. let's remove it, tag it, or something. b) while my agenda might be obvious, let me state it: here is a well known professor, holding a named chair at a major university, highly involved in the public eye in israeli politics, is involved in some nice things, and is involved in some controversial things (which is not a surprise since israeli politics is full of controversy). the orginal article i wrote and posted a few days ago showed 90% postive or neutral things, and 10% controversial. i accept the issue that the steinberg remarks might not be appropriate here. i have re-edited the page without them. please review the current version, and let's move on to a positive and constructive edit. (and as to the rastiniak/goldblum comments below, i have no clue what he is talking about. i have no rivalry with the professor, not politically not legally - well, i do seem to be having a wiki editing rivalry, yes? - in any case, this editor needs to be watched as he is violating many wiki rules. he is not a new editor, but is clearly a single-subject editor - his page only. that's fine, but the rules, while bendable, shouldn't be carelessly broken.) thanks, Soosim (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Soosim's role

The Soosim claim is not true: there was no problem of information, but the information was not considered to be important, except for the right wing rivals of Goldblum who started that page in order to smear his name. The deleting editor of the article in August 2012 is requested to study in depth the current page and to analyze the reasons for re-starting this article. At the time, it was deleted because it was clearly introduced for political and legal smearing, a fact that was validated subsequently by the submission to the court of the smearing (and already obsolete) wikipedia page by Steven Plaut who was charged for libel by Goldblum, together with others. All are extreme right wing sites or organizations, and it is suspected that the current initiator of this article is associated with that group. It is also quite revealing that except for mentioning the murderer of Emil Grunzweig the Goldblum article does not attempt to smear anyone. It was also concluded then that there is no reason to keep the Goldblum article for greatness in Chemistry or in Political activity - Goldblum is not an Israeli politician, but a political activist who resurges once in a few years with an article or a speech (probably not more than once a year on the average since he left Peace Now in 2000....). Goldblum is not even mentioned on the Hebrew Wikipedia....Therefore the Soosim claim for the importance of this page is probably due to his political or legal rivalry with Goldblum. Rastiniak (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

Lenore Skenazy

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

Violation of WP:NPF This relatively unknown person's entry is merely self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.61.118 (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The article seems somewhat promotional in tone, but she is certainly WP:Notable after a quick glance. She is a nationally syndicated columnist. Her bio has plenty of references to independent major media coverage. Probably needs some more in-line citations. Is there anything in the article that you consider to be false or defamatory? Sperril (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I've rewritten this so it doesn't sound so self-promotional. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Recently this content was added with out discussion to the Prem Rawat article."Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports,[2][3]and in anti-cult writings[4][5]" I added contextual content, and an other view from a RS to add balance.[46] The balancing view was removed describing it as peacock and gush worthy praise. In fact the source uses these words, "an extraordinary man whose one pointed dedication to spreading the message of peace remains unadulterated and full of promise" so the addition I made, "as well as a man with a desire for spreading peace" is a more neutral version of the source itself. This content is representative of the positive aspects of Rawat which adds balance in a BLP to the pejorative, creating NPOV content. I refuse to edit war with these editors, so outside eyes will be appreciated.

the sentence before the addition:

Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports,[1][2]and in anti-cult writings[3][4]

and with the addition:

Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports,[5][2]and in anti-cult writings[3][4]as well as a man with a desire for spreading peace.

the source: Cagan, Andrea. Peace is Possible. Mighty River Press, 2007.(author forward)

The author:

Cagan has written, edited, and collaborated on a variety of biographies. She has brought seven books to the best seller lists including to NY Times and LA Times best seller lists. Per Cagan's own comments and description of the research process, its unlikely she was paid to write this book since there is no sense that Rawat assisted her to make the process easy as would happen in a paid for biography.

(olive (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

Uninvolved editor comments

Andrea Cagan isnt 'popular press'. Or any sort of 'press'. She is a celebrity biographer. Your addition is sourced to a biography on Prem Rawat for which she was undoubtedly paid, she describes them as her 'clients' after all. This doesnt mean info cant be sourced to it, but as written you are using a paid-for-biography to say that there is a 'balancing view' that he isnt a cult leader, and in fact he is a pretty nice guy. Well of course his own biography would say that... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I have never edited the Prem Rawat article but I have participated in a few of its noticeboard discussions and RfC's. So just for kicks I did search just now for Prem Rawat to see what popped up. Here is how he was described in the first seven sources that came up in my High Beam search:
“He founded The Prem Rawat Foundation, which promotes his message of peace and spearheads significant humanitarian initiatives around the world.” --Prem Rawat Tours North America With a Message of Peace., China Weekly News, October 13, 2009
He was the keynote speaker at and international conference: “Ambassador of Peace Prem Rawat spoke from the heart and without notes”…..”The Foundation promotes Prem Rawat's message of peace and his vision of addressing fundamental human needs so that people everywhere can live with dignity, peace and prosperity.”-- European Parliament Welcomes Back Ambassador of Peace Prem Rawat., Journal of India, December 13, 2011
“Prem Rawat was invited to be the keynote speaker at an event called "Notes on Peace," held at Moscow's nationally Library of Foreign Literature “….”Rawat spoke in simple terms, making the point that people look to world leaders to bring peace, but in reality it already exists within each person”---Prem Rawat Keynotes at Synergy University in Moscow, Manufacturing Close-Up, July 25, 2012
“Prem Rawat received the award at a forum called "7 Billion Reasons for Peace" held in conjunction with a United Nations International Day of Peace 2012 observance in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. He became only the fifth individual to be given the award, which recognizes individuals for their work to positively impact the lives of people around the globe. Previous recipients are former South Africa President Nelson Mandela; U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Mahathir bin Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia from 1981-2003; and Heinz Fischer, President of Austria.” -- Prem Rawat Accepts Lifetime Achievement Award for Peace Efforts, China Weekly News, October 16, 2012
“Prem Rawat's focus is on helping individuals find peace and fulfillment within.”-- Pursuing peace means knowing where to begin--Virgin Islands Daily News, February 5, 2003 | George Miller
“The Prem Rawat Foundation executes its mission in a fiscally responsible way and outperforms most other charities in America." -- The Prem Rawat Foundation Has Been Awarded the Highest Rating by America's Premier Charity Evaluator., Science Letter, August 11, 2009
None of the sources above characterize him as a cult leader (though I'm sure some sources do) and surprisingly none of these positive characterizations from these news sources (above) from all over the world are represented in the lead. Instead, as of this writing, [47] we have this lead:
Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born 10 December 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge[1] and leads a movement known as the Divine Light Mission (DLM) (Divya Sandesh Parishad). DLM has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect, and as an alternative religion. Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings.[4][5]
It would seem that some editor(s) are in a rush to include off topic info about him (DLM) and to paint him with a dirty brush. Its clear that Prem Rawat is widely known as an ambassador of peace and so the removal of sourced content to that effect gives the appearance of POV pushing. I'm sure that was not DeCausa's intention when he/she removed the content but he/she could certainly rectify that error now, by re-adding the content they deleted, restructuring the sentence, and including all the sourced information.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Nope. Random "nice things" about him that have nothing to do with the sentence they are attached are fairly obviously not relevant IMHO. I haven't substantively added anything: I moved Little Olive Oil's new paragraph from the end of the lead into the opening paragraph but deleted the bit about "he wants world peace", or whatever it was. DeCausa (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Involved editor comments

Thanks. This is my first exposure to Cagan and I have until recently been uninvolved in this article.The issue is in fact not the source as the reverting editors have stated. There are multiple sources that describe Rawat in a positive light probably equal to those that don't. The issue is that the both must be added. The wording from this source is so neutral as to be almost non existent yet it is being deleted. This article is under arbitration and I am starting to see why. I can easily find and have seen other sources that are positive to balance that cult allegation, but I have no hopes they will not be deleted as well. I'll let others comment . I have no interest one way or the other in this article but I hate to see a BLP treated this way. (olive (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC))
I'd add that if sources are part of the issue we need to look more closely at some of the the sources describing Rawat as a cult leader. There may be better ones than what we have.(olive (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC))
I deleted the phrase you are concerned about because it was simply a random bit of praise that was unconnected with what went before. The relevant paragraph in full is:
"Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born 10 December 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge[1] and leads a movement known as the Divine Light Mission (DLM) (Divya Sandesh Parishad). DLM has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect, and as an alternative religion. Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings.[4][5]"
Saying (in terms) "he wants world peace" after talking about whether he's a cult leader or whether DLM is a charismatic religious sect, new religious movement etc is just a non-sequitur. You'd have a point if your addition (reliably sourced) was something like "while others see him as a charismatic leader and insightful thinker" or something like that. As it is you've just thrown down a random "nice thing" about him. That's a misunderstanding of balance. DeCausa (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
"You've thrown down a random [sourced] nice thing about him".. hmmm.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
i have watched the development of the article over the years and all i can say is that the former neutral editors involved in he article were much more informed and engaged than making just a few google hits. Prem Rawat has a huge public relations machine going on to present him as a leader for peace, this has been discussed before and is buried in the archives that no one wants to dig in anymore so it seems. The most ridicoulos part was him renting a hall at th UN building and promote him as speaking in front of the UN. But i have to admit that one day his efforts(money) will reach the goal and gullible people will fall for that. Surdas (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that 'a random "nice thing"' sums it up nicely. I'm sure that positive things have been said about Rawat, even by people not paid to write biographies about him, but this one appears to have nothing to do with the start of the sentence. If you think that the reference to the term 'cult leader' is badly sourced, say so. If you think the article lacks neutrality say so - but don't try to fix it by tacking on irrelevances to the end of the negative bits. I'm not sure that 'a desire for spreading peace' is a particularly useful thing to say about him anyway. You'd be hard put to find anyone who wouldn't at least play lip-service to the 'desire'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Our job isn't to go around trying to find positive (or negative, for that fact) things to "balance" reliably sourced, relevant, and proportionate material. If he's been called a "cult leader" repeatedly in reputable and reliable sources, and if that description is significant to his biography, then we don't need to seek out and cherry pick a "positive" fact or quote from a dubious source to try to make the "cult leader" description sound nicer. (For the record, I don't know anything personally about the guy, so I'm just going by the sources listed above and at his article.) jæs (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Per weight and the extensive sources which view Rawat in a positive light both must be included. Cult leader is only part of the story on how the sources portray him. Content was added in the article body with the opening sentence that states both cult and any other comment that describe the man are examples. The lead simply summarized that. This was brought to this NB because as is, the lead is not balanced per the sources and is a NPOV violation in a BLP. Nothing was cherry picked nor was there an effort to add positive to the pejorative. There was an effort to represent the considerable sources that represent Rawat as more than a cult leader which is how the lead reads now. If the community thinks this is appropriate per the sources and the standards of a BLP, that's fine. I think its not only mistaken per Wikipedia but morally wrong to allow pejorative content to stand unopposed without the content and context that would represent a major part of the mainstream sources, in so doing slant the BlP and harming another human being. We must be fair and neutral and that means representing the scope of the mainstream. (olive (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC))
Then find appropriate material, discuss (here or on the article talk page) whether it actually merits inclusion per WP:WEIGHT, and propose a new sentence for the lede to include it. 'Neutrality' applies to articles, not sentences... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Neutrality refers to articles nor did I say anything else. While I agree that the sentence removed could have been better, I used it to summarize multiple sources that describe Rawat in this way. I reduced it to the most neutral language rendering it almost meaningless to avoid contention, but still the content was removed because it was described as "peacock" and "glowing". This is a mess, pure and simple and I can't see that anything else I add which will have to be, of necessity, to represent the mainstream sources, even more "glowing", have any different outcome. Although I have concerns about this article, I'll leave it to others do deal with. I don't have the stomach for this. Thanks to all who took the trouble to comment.(olive (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC))
(edit conflict)"There was an effort to represent the considerable sources that represent Rawat as more than a cult leader which is how the lead reads now." That's a gross misrepresentation. The references to "cult" are in two sentences in the lead. But the lead then goes on with three paragraphs about him with plenty (argaubly more than plenty) of "positive" stuff: "In 2001 he established "The Prem Rawat Foundation" to fund his work and humanitarian efforts. His message is now distributed in more than 88 countries. The TV series "Words of Peace" is transmitted via satellite and cable in six continents." "The core of Prem Rawat's teaching is that the individual’s need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning within to contact a constant source of peace and joy. Rather than a body of dogma, he emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence that he says is accessible through the meditation techniques he teaches." etc etc etc DeCausa (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A major problem with the Rawat series of articles has been that the pro-Rawat editors (devotees, a/k/a premies, adherents, or followers) have spent the last eight years attempting to erase the history of Prem Rawat's life, making this biography essentially a hagiography or puff piece. Former followers (sometimes called ex-premies) have tried to keep this article balanced. The incivility in the past and some in the present has stemmed from the attempt by adherents to take the article over, hence, claiming ownership and making the other side as it were, persona non grata. They've ignored us and made edits without concensus and they've done this with impunity.

Another very major problem is that Prem Rawat is virtually an unknown person since the 1970s when he first came to the western countries from India at age 13 and received tons of negative press and the production of studies, papers, and books by scholars. The actual fact of the matter is that Prem Rawat is not notable by today's standards of notable people, nor by Wiki standards, imo. There aren't many recent or current reliable sources from scholars and the press except those that have been contrived and invented outside of Wikipedia by adherents, including the Cagan vanity book Peace is Possible, and paid-for articles or "interviews" with self-promoting, paid-for magazines articles like "Leaders." But, there are so many issues with the construction of this article, that unless one has been involved in editing the article since 2004, it's nearly impossible to catch up unless one spends all of one's time on this article alone. The contentiousness between editors (adherents, former followers, and uninvolved editors alike) has been so constant throughout the life of the article. During the past several months I came to throw my arms up in the air when the now-banned devotees started to gut this very well-sourced article in order to return it to a puff piece. New editors like OliveOil have come in cold, not having the full context of all the previous discussions (and still not nearly up to speed), intimate knowledge of article content, and the already established reliable sources, which took years to resolve and reach concensus about. Another fact is that Rawat adherents have learned how to game the system here very well (those editors are now banned) by being excessively polite to newcomer editors, when in fact, those new editors have been snowballed. Oliveoil is one such editor who has bought into contrived civility when the only goal of those editors was to whitewash. It's a travesty that those adherent editors have been allowed to go on for so many years on Wikipedia. Honestly, I don't see how any uninvolved editor can possibly make a decision or comment on this article without having an in depth knowledge of this subject, and the general subject of NRMs/cults.

The background of the terms "cult" versus "NRM" in the academic world of religous studies, is that certain religious scholars have quite successfully attempted to erase "cult" from the English lexicon as a viable word to use to describe certain "NRMs," and their leaders. Their attempts caused an enormous rift between those certain scholars in academia (some considered "cult apologists") and so-called "anti-cult" scholars ("anti-cult" is a complete misnomer). Those scholars against the term "cult" also made up the term "anti-cult" to label their rival experts/scholars, in order to discredit them and their academic work. As such, editors of all the NRMs/cults here have used that rift to their advantage in order to reinvent their leaders and the groups to which they belong and to purge the word "cult" from Wikipedia. This is a true story and fact. I know how "cult" became termed "perjorative" on Wikipedia. It is a perjorative, btw, and for good reason. I understand the issues about biographies of living persons here, however, people must also consider that if something is true, factual, and reliably sourced, it's not libel, nor negative. It's simply a fact that needs no balance. Neutrality does not mean "positive." True is true, and false is false, after all. If the truth is negative, it's negative. I've dismayed at what's going on now by watching the edits being made in the past months and weeks and days. I know this subject inside and out. What's gone on in the past months with Momento, et al, purging the article, gaming the system, Wiki-lawyering, incivility, personal attacks, and much more, has been going on for years unchecked. This article sat untouched for two years until banned editors came back to take it over once again, ignoring other editors by using pretzel logic and refusal to have cogent discussions, in order to wear us down. Look at the talk page archives -- all of them. This particular "cult" issue, along with countless other issues, have been long-ago resolved through consensus, use of reliable sources that have already been reviewed by noticeboards like this, and the discussions have felt like Sisyphean tasks most of the time because of the behavior of adherent editors. Please don't destroy years of work because Wikipedia allows for it. Not unless editors learn the subject well. I think this article should be reverted to the version before Momento, et al, edited started gutting it earlier this year. It also ought to be locked until uninvolved editors get educated and up to speed. After all, one wouldn't edit an article on say, science or math, unless one had some expertise or education and knowledge of the subjects. It's no different for biographies like this one. I don't have the time nor stomach to revisit this article again but I do keep track of what's going on. This notice board subject is ridiculous. This has been resolved over and over again. Best wishes. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

By its placement and unopposed by contextual material, placing the cult leader content into the lead with out discussion labels Rawat as nothing but a cult leader. This is inappropriate in a BLP and per NPOV in any article. When I brought this issue to this NB, the reasons for deletion of content that acted to summarize other views (however poor that content might seem) were that it was peacocky and too glowing. The source was not then, but now has now become the talking point. I am reminded that consensus changes, and that the cult leader content as is, did not have consensus in the past and that it was added with out consensus now, that incivility and abusive language is not acceptable, that dealing with editors in a civil way does not mean I have been duped by the so-called "devious" Rawat editors, or am too naive or too stupid to see or understand what goes on on such an article. Further, I do not condone abuse for myself or for any other editors for any reason, and there has been lots of that too.(olive (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC))

I don't like your uncivil tone. Please don't put words in my mouth Littleoliveoil -- that's not fair. I did not use the words "devious," "duped," nor did I say that you were naive or stupid. I also didn't say incivility or abuse are acceptable. Where did you get that from my post? It's not a rhetorical question. What I meant and should have said is that those editors have been trying to manipulate the situation here for years and have been successful, and you've been favoring them over the less patient of the other side because of your perception of their tone of voice. One has to remember that when posting online not to read too much into tone (matter of perception and one's own projection) and take what someone writes at face value because one doesn't have benefit of eye contact and tone of voice. PatW, for instance is an English gentleman and his recent posts were surprising because of that, yet I know his frustration well. But, I have to say I don't like the changes you've been attempting to make, which are evidence of your lack of knowledge of this subject matter, especially concerning the terms "cult" and "NRM." There's nothing wrong with the use of the word "cult" if it's properly sourced. It's just a word. And it's a legal fact in the U.S. (where this website originates) that something isn't libel if it's true. That's a flaw of Wikipedia, especially when it comes to biographies and I attempted to explain the origin of "NRM" over "cult" which is true if you read the literature about such scholars. I don't know why you're editing this article, frankly. You're not helping at all and making errors as a result of your lack of knowledge, which btw, does not mean stupidity. It means you're not educated about certain things and that takes time. All the best and have a good weekend. Sheesh... Sylviecyn (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
My tone is not uncivil, its strong. And my points were not directed at you they were general points to this whole messy situation. Still you are saying things that are not true and while I could walk away, miscarachterizing me has been an unfortunate by product of all of this. Cult is not only seen generally as a pejorative term it is also per scholars like Chryssides a general term that fails to have specific meaning. But this isn't the whole issue. The issue is that the term is unopposed. If what had been added was that Rawat was god's gift to man I would oppose that too and ask for context. I won't discuss Pat's behaviour here but to say I'm sorry he had a bad time. I haven't been favouring anyone I've been favouring discussion about edits and not editors, and I favour civility over personal attacks. Not condemning a group of editors outright is what should happen on an article. But what has been made clear to me is that if I treat editors outside a certain group with respect, I am naive as to their intentions. Civility is a way of treating human beings, and is not dependent on whether I like or agree with them. I made one change, not "changes", an attempted change which was reverted. Content was in place with out consensus. I realized that adding content for context with a word like cult would not fly with some editors but for the sake of neutrality I did it anyway. Can you not see how this article is controlled so that the whole thing explodes when one outside editor dares to place a contentious term in context of other terms. I have no grudge against anyone. But coming into this article I have been attacked because I dared to question the status quo of a group of editors. That's ownership and its not a good thing. Best wishes to you. (olive (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC))
And if you felt my tone was uncivil I do apologize, it wasn't meant to be that way... but it was meant to be strong.(olive (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC))
I'm the only editor on the Rawat article who has declared a conflict of interest and as such have limited my editing to the talk page only for years now, so accusing me of ownership is very unfair. Once again, the word "cult" means something. If that meaning is negative, it's not proper to attempt to balance that term with something positive. Neutrality and weight don't mean creating a contrivance such as that. It's not the fault of Wikipedia that Prem Rawat has virtually stayed away from any public scrutiny since the 1970s, thereby greatly limiting current information from reliable sources. The Cagan book was contracted by close followers and paid for by The Prem Rawat Foundation. She interviewed people from Prem Rawat's closest inner circle and she was given material by them to review. I agree that it's strange that Cagan admits she never once spoke to her subject and that fact lessens the reliablity of the book as a source. I strongly object to using her book as a source for anything contentious. It's okay, I suppose, to use it for dates (some of the dates in the book are incorrect, btw), people's names, places, etc. but it should never be used for contentious material. Best wishes. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Once again my comments are clearly general and refer to the the treatment I received on the talk page and on a user talk page.They do not specifically refer to any one editor.
  • PatW has apparently declared a COI and only posts on the talk page
  • As I said what cult means is general per Chryssides, for example, rather than specific, I didn't say it didn't mean anything. Further, cult, because of its tendency to mean different things to different people cannot be used in a context free manner. The word has emotional "meaning". I made two edits (sorry I did say one above.)
  • The first edit added context to the way DLM has been characterized that included cult. Then defining Rawat as a cult leader is somewhat redundant, and adds weight to that characterization. If left in the article, and I did not suggest removing it, the characterization cult leader needs content that characterizes Rawat in other ways as well.
  • Cagan's book describes the process she took to write about Rawat. There is no sense that she was paid in fact the opposite is true. However, she may well have been. No one has confirmed that with a source. Still I have no problem, as I've said several times with using other sources as suggested here by uninvolved editors and per a past consensus should I decide to go back to the page. Or perhaps another editor would like to add the context. (olive (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC))
  • I used to edit this article but have gotten fed up with all the pushing and shoving. The citations for the cult leader label in the lead are atrocious: a fringe writer and an Evening Standard article, if I recall correctly. Embarrassing. The cult reference should be there, but cited to something scholarly. And in my view there should also be something more neutral or up to date in the lead, as the major cult controversies were quite a few decades ago. At least something about how he presents himself today. But I have no interest in arguing about it any more; Wikipedia is what it is. Andreas JN466 20:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Callinan, Rory. "Cult Leader Jets In to Recruit New Believers: Millionaire cult leader Maharaj Ji is holding a secret session west of Brisbane this weekend" in Brisbane Courier-Mail. 20 September 1997
  2. ^ a b Mendick, Robert. "Cult leader gives cash to Lord Mayor appeal" in Evening Standard. London, 2007-05-31, p. 4. At HighBeam Research
  3. ^ a b Larson, Bob (1982). Larson's book of cults. Wheaton, Ill: Tyndale House Publishers. p. 205. ISBN 0-8423-2104-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  4. ^ a b Rhodes, Ron The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response, Ch. 1: Defining Cults. Zondervan, 2001, ISBN 0-310-23217-1, p. 32.
  5. ^ Callinan, Rory. "Cult Leader Jets In to Recruit New Believers: Millionaire cult leader Maharaj Ji is holding a secret session west of Brisbane this weekend" in Brisbane Courier-Mail. 20 September 1997
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive165&oldid=1136465507"