Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive169

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

aspartame controversy 2

In the aspartame controversy page the statement:

"critics such as activist Betty Martini have promoted claims, undocumented in the medical literature"

Is demonstrably untrue. please look into this or advise me what further to do. Arydberg (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

17 hours ago you were advised "Those claims are fully sourced in the article. If you wish to remove them, post in the talk page to gain consensus" when you asked this same question 2 threads up-screen. I advise that you read and follow the advice you were given. DMacks (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about double posting. My mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 01:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Kamal Haasan page

Dear Wiki Volunteers/Admins,

I'm Thilakan (user id: Thilakan_1980) and I've been using Wikipedia more of a user than a contributor. I have been using Wiki as a good source of information to learn about lot of things that are not otherwise readily accessible to me.

This (Kamal Haasan) is one page where I have made quite some contributions alongside several other users with correct, relevant, true and unbiased information. Me and all other contributors to this page got it to a point where this page was tagged as "Good Article".

However, I'm sad to note that in the last few days (little more than a week now) that there is a specific user (or specific set of users - namely - Title hero, Sweetrascal123, Ajith009, Rajani003) repeatedly making edits that are either incorrect and/or suspiciously with a malicious intent to bring down the quality of the already posted/verified information. Also, based on the actual edits made by these users, there is a clear pattern of those edits that it seems highly suspicious that either it could be the user with multiple id's or set of users making a co-ordinated set of edits despite being reverted back to the original content with reasons/comments by other users.

Hence I kindly request for the benefit of this page, if you could lock this page for at least couple of weeks by reverting back to the latest revert/change made by me. That would be greatly helpful to keep the quality of this page in chec. Thanks in advance for your help and consideration.

Regards, Thilakan

I've requested the page be semi-protected for now, and I'll open an SPI to see if the accounts are related. Either way, their contributions are disruptive and out of place. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Done Page protected and SPI open. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Eyes needed and help at Michael Jackson and Joe Jackson (manager)

A user is trying to press for inclusion of information regarding a supposed extramarital affair. As yet, no scrupulously reliable source has been provided. No comments are needed here on this message board, but a discussion is going on at Talk:Michael Jackson which could use as much input as anyone has to give. Thanks. --Jayron32 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If the offended user would just follow the discussion this would have been over hours ago :\ §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Kenn Thomas

Per comments in User talk:24.207.224.181, a user claiming to be Kenn Thomas is requesting that his birthdate, which can be found in a Library of Congress source, be stricken from the article. Not sure how this is normally handled, so I thought I would bring it here for further input. Thanks! Location (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The information is perfectly well sourced - it does not get any better than the Library of Congress. As per WP:BLPPRIVACY, the month/day can be omitted as a matter of courtesy and privacy, but the year is OK. It would be a very different situation if the source was not reliable, or dubious. However, it should be noted that the LOC authority information seems to rely on his book (Popular alienation). I don't see the problem with removing the year as a matter of courtesy, however it's impossible to ensure that it will remain removed forever, and if the subject (if that is him) claims he'd rather not have those details on the web, I'd remind him that it's extremely easy to find them anyway. I am not familiar with any precedents in this area, so it would be good for someone more experienced to chime in. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable - (as has been done) to remove the day and month as per a good faith request - the exact day and month of his birth are close to worthless to readers anyway. - Youreallycan 22:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

john bloom

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

I believe your editor Brandon has helped clear up many errors about John Bloom in the past.

As an old ex employee the latest revision is wrong especially regarding Bloom alleged lover, BLOOM NEVER WAS THE LOVER OF CHRISTINE HOLFORD. IT WAS PART OF THE DEFENSE IN THE BLUE GARDENIA MURDER CASE SO IT IS ONLY FAIR TO SAY IN 1962 BLOOM HAD AN ALLEGED LOVER. she also was never murdered after a tryst with Bloom.

The 1520 Theatre Restaurant were in many cities in The U.S.A. AND CLOSED IN 1977 NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VIDEO PIRACY.

His mother did die of multiple scleroris, BUT THE WORD THOUGH IS NOT NEEDED AND IS DEROGATORY.

HE DID NOT OWN A VILLA ON THE FRENCH RIVIERA

I understand that you just quote from blogs and newspapers but they are not always right..

If your editor CJ1340 whO I see cleaned up the page would like to contact me I will give him the true facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xol2008 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed (or at least, changed to my satisfaction) all of this except the French Riviera villa part. I'd be grateful if someone else could check whether the reference given for that supports the claim (or consider whether it's worth including in the sentence at all). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

- Many thanks for your corrections I spoke to Mr Bloom tonight and he was very happy with your changes, he informed me that he did rent VILLA LA FIORENTINA ON CAP FERAT SOUTH OF FRANCE,and it was used as an incentive scheme to send salesman and their wives when they made nine sales a week for four weeks they received a weeks holiday at the villa. the story was featured in the Daily Express and other media at the time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xol2008 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Rolf Harris

Didnt particularly want to bring more attention to it, but my pleas have fallen on deaf ears so far. There has been persistent attempts to put a particularly problematic (from a BLP point of view) piece of info both on the page (which is why its semi-protected) but also on the talkpage. IMO its bad enough that its not something that should stay visible at all even in the revision history. Firstly its sources is not even close to being reliable. (A really obscure website and a tweet from someone involved that has subsequently been removed.) No reputable source has named the person involved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this cannot be allowed to remain on the talk page - BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia as you know. You should request oversight and if the other users persist after due warnings, take it to WP:ANI.--ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It may just need revdelete. I added a link to the IRC at the top of this page. They usually fix faster than email.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well oversight have been mailed. I might try IRC if it gets it done quicker. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Matt Dallas

An editor keeps adding Dallas to Category:Gay actors, ignoring WP:BLP, WP:BLPCAT/WP:EGRS#Sexuality and WP:NOR.

Aaron Swartz

With this edit I removed a thread that appears to me to be a BLP violation. In particular "alleged criminal" and " allegedly decide that he was above the law". Adding "alleged" does not defuse the comment, if anything it strengthens it in the second case, since it implies the view is shared by others. I would appreciate confirmation, or otherwise, that I am correct in considering this a BLP violation. Rich Farmbrough, 10:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

Good call, IMHO.--ukexpat (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

AFAICT, multiple felony indictments were made, thus fully meeting BLP requirements for "alleged". I think you might have been overly sensitive here. Collect (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree with the removal of the information as per User:Collect, it would be useful to remember that the subject is deceased, so this is a matter of accuracy and NPOV, not BLP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We still have a duty of care with articles about people even after they are dead - we shouldn't stop caring just because they have died. BLP issues remain valid with deceased people - think of family, friends etc. Giant Snowman 16:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that would be true since he is recently deceased. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman is absolutely correct, and that principle is mentioned in WP:BLP itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, the indictments were withdrawn after his death -- so it is no longer appropriate to refer to him in the present tense as an alleged criminal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

In general death is the operative word - the indictments become moot, but are not "withdrawn" in the sense that an allegation is withdrawn. The allegation ("indictment")) remains. Collect (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The charges were dismissed because he was dead, not because they weren't applicable. It is completely appropriate to refer to him as an alleged criminal, because he was an alleged criminal. Ryan Vesey 18:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes -- was. Not "is". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I'm getting over a sickness and I read "it is no longer appropriate to refer to him in the present tense as an alleged criminal" as "it is no longer appropriate to refer to him in the past tense as an alleged criminal" obviously causing a significant misunderstanding of your statement on my part. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Ryan Vesey 18:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Trial of Binayak Sen and Binayak Sen

Binayak Sen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a controversial Indian civil rights activist. Despite my efforts, the lead in his article says "He has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment" but doesn't mention that he is out on bail after a court released him on bail saying that the evidence showed no evidence for sedition. Trial of Binayak Sen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be a content fork of his article. It also doesn't mention what the court said when releasing him on bail. Half of this article is "the list of Punishments awarded to Binayak Sen". I'm not convinced this article should exist at all as there is more detail in his BLP on the trial then in the article, and will change it into a redirect. I suspect this will be reverted, as were my efforts at his BLP. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Carrie L. Lukas

There is no listing for a Carrie Lukas in the Harvard Alumni Directory. I do not know what the Wikipedia policy is, but it looks as if her MPP from the Kennedy School is not valid and should be removed from the listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.107.83 (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, her Forbes articles say she is a Kennedy grad,[1], and her book back cover says she is.[2] So I think we'll need a bit more than "one of our editors couldn't find her listing". Maybe she asked not to be listed; maybe she's listed under a different name (maiden name, perhaps?); maybe there was a clerical error... --GRuban (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Indexing BLP talk page archives

From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disappointed in search results, it occurred to me there's a problem in that while we noindex BLP talk pages if they have an appropriate template (per Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing) but we don't generally do that for BLP talk page archive pages as they generally lack any such template. While archive pages should hopefully be less bad as the worst stuff should be deleted before it is archived, this situation still seems to be undesirable. One possibility is to add a template to BLP talk page archives, but this will be a maintenance nightmare if it needs to be done manually. We must already have a very large number of archive pages needing it, and more will arise since someone will need to add it each time a new archive page is created. (When the BLP template is no longer needed, removing this new template will also be annoying although that's a less pressing issue.) So really the only solution barring some fancy wikimedia change or achieving consensus to noindex either all article talk page or at least all article talk page archive would seem to be getting a bot which will automatically add and remove the noindex tag to any archive page belonging to a page with a noindex template. Anyone have some other proposal? Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Options:

This is an easy bot task, either someone will lap this up at WP:BOTREQ, or you can wait until I am allowed to do it, and give me a hoy.
Another way that is obvious to me would involve doing something I advocate anyway - moving persondata to a sub-page, then having the archive header (and possibly the normal BLP header) transclude and parse the /persondata (which is not that hard in theory, and could be tweaked to be easy) and add a noindex tag to the page if suitable conditions were met (living, dead < 5 years, no death date and born < 120 years ago)
Very clean but people might hate it: the BLP tag on the talk page of John Smith categorises the talk page in a (probably red-linked) category Category:John Smith living person. The archive header template noindexes selectively with something like {#ifexpr:{CATEGORYCOUNT:{BASEPAGENAME} living person}>0|_NOINDEX_}.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

Talk:Discipline Global Mobile

There have been a number of BLP violations at Talk:Discipline Global Mobile, at the Village Pump, etc.: e.g.,

"crass lack of professional competence by the webmaster and/or lawyer" by Andy Pigsonthewing, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Noting prior discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Prohibited (sic) links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No individual is named in that statement. Perhaps there are others.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Other than Keifer's ad hominem comments on me; no. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases

I haven't got time to look at this in detail, but I noticed there is a list of individual cases. I checked one at random and both links are dead for me 1 and 2. I rather think there are BLP implications here. Rich Farmbrough, 00:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC).

Done Fixed one reference to the same site but different URL, and replaced the second one with a valid ref. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

aspartame controversy

The statement that "Betty Martini have promoted claims, undocumented in the medical literature" is totally untrue. Please correct if possible. 68.9.187.198 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Arydberg (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Those claims are fully sourced in the article. If you wish to remove them, post in the talk page to gain consensus. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Fully sourced to about.com as far as I can see. Is that considered a thoroughly reliable source for statements about living persons like "Around the same time, one of many Usenet posts authored by Betty Martini was possibly slightly altered (but still largely identical with originals) and then widely circulated..." ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It's probably the location of the footnote markers but this seems like a perfectly valid source to me. A search for 'Nancy Markle Betty Martini' returns enough hits to support the general idea of the paragraph. Perhaps it's badly structured, but I see no BLP problem there at all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this author really a good source?

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Michael+Newton%22

Arydberg (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Would someone please commit on the above question which relates to reference 8. From your rules I read, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation."

To me this is not a high quality source. Arydberg (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The author has had a book listed on the American Library Association's list of Outstanding Reference Sources (2006). The publisher, Infobase Publishing (imprint "Facts on File"), is sound.Novangelis (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the style and quantity of his output, I don't think one of his books having been listed as an outstanding reference source is much of a guarantee of anything. Also, from examining what's visible of this source on Google books, there is a distinct mismatch between the quality of the Introduction, and that of many of the entries - some of which appear to be little more than summaries of material from the internet. This is far from a solid source for BLP-problematic statements.

If the issue is caused by "the location of the footnote markers" then the best solution will be to remove the name of the living person until the footnotes can be fixed to provide multiple reliable sources establishing the "indisputable" nature of this person's exact actions. The page is still entirely coherent without the use of the name itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus consists of a few people that control the page while dozens of people come and go driven away by the difficulty of making any change whatsoever. Many are banned as i have been solely for preserving. I was told that i would not be banned if i was not impolite but that advice was wrong. I was also never told that after I have been banned I can be repeatedly banned with no chance to be heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 20:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That last statement is not the case. You only need to be banned once; once you're banned, you stay banned until a decision is taken to unban you. Thus there is no need for you to be "repeatedly banned". WP:BAN has more information on this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

All I know is what i was told. I was topic banned for 3 months. Then it ended. I got back on and was topic banned for 1 year with no discussion. Then it ended. How do i find out my present status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 01:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Could we re-phrase it to: "A person claiming to be Betty Martini has been quoted as....." type thing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's actually "A person claiming to be Nancy Markle, who was later revealed to be Betty Martini..." Thus the problem. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The description is accurate and sourced. TFD (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Folks, the issue cannot be that she made these claims (which is indisputable)--I believe it is the characterization of those claims as "undocumented in the medical literature" that is under dispute.Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That was my exact point when I started this thread. To call her claims "undocumented in the medical literature" is not true. There is a wealth of documentation. Here is one example.

http://naturalsociety.com/aspartame-alert-diet-soda-destroys-kidney-function/Arydberg (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Arydberg that after several decades of having Aspartame approved, there is STILL independent research showing adverse reactions. That's the controversy, and that's what the article should be about: reporting this controversy. There's no reliable source that states that Nancy Markle is Betty Martini. As a matter of fact (!), Betty Martini denies on her website to have been Nancy Markle. Immortale (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Betty Martini denies sending the "Nancy Markle" email, but states that content was plagiarized from her, and some other material was added. In addition to websites, she said as much in an interview with a local magazine. The Markle-Martini connection is not ambiguous. Martini denies sending the version which became famous, not generating the bulk of the content. The simplest approach to living persons is to discuss the "Nancy Markle email" rather than "Betty Martini's claims". Since Nancy Markle is fictional, never having spoken at the World Environmental Conference, BLP should be satisfied. The undocumented medical claims (e.g. causing 6000 Gulf War deaths) in the Markle letter clearly fall into "tall tales" territory.Novangelis (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this sounds sensible. I've updated the article accordingly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

john bloom

I wanted to send you an email but the address you give is rejected each time I try please give ma an alternative amail address — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xol2008 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If you copy/paste some wikipedia emails then the @ symbol doesn't paste to stop bots. Is that the issue?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Xol2008, I'm not sure if you're trying to email Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or just any Wikipedia editor. Anyway, if you click on "Demiurge1000" at the end of this comment from me, and then click on "E-mail this user" under "Toolbox" on the left, you should be able to email me. (You need to be logged in to your Xol2008 Wikipedia account for this to work.) I thought the issues regarding John Bloom (businessman) were basically fixed, though? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Nurul Izzah Anwar

I know nothing abut this person or the wider issues they are associated with, I merely reverted a user when examining their contribs in response to a WP:UAA report. To me they seem poorly sourced and possibly libelous. If anyone familiar with Malaysia is also aware of the possible meaning of the username of that user (Ihatemno) in the context of their chosen subject area that would help evaluate whether or not it is in fact a policy violation. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the username issue. I did however remove some contentious stuff sourced only to a blogspot. I suspect it will be back... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ihateumno2013 (talk · contribs) = "I hate UMNO 2013." Giant Snowman 23:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you very much for clarifying that, here comes the blockhammer... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Not that it matters much, but having looked at the specifics of a number of their contribs I have doubts the user name accurately reflects the editor's feelings, more likely the opposite. Perhaps they were hoping it would distract people from the purpose of their edits. Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

john bloom

I sent you the mails and am now reminding you thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xol2008 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Siim Kallas

An IP has inserted what appears to innuendo that seems to violate WP:BLPCRIME here[3]. I reverted him[4] but he has reinserted it again[5]. --Nug (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

- I agree with you that the IP 's desired addition is WP:UNDUE and violates WP:Policies and guidelines and I have removed it and left the IP a link to this discussion and requested them not to replace without discussion and WP:Consensus - diff - Youreallycan 11:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

They added it again -- I think "may have been involved in a scandal" is prety much a huge red flag. Collect (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Peter Russell (author)

Peter Russell (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is all very suspicious and inconsistent.

The article opens with asserted credentials: Peter Russell M.A., D.C.S.

In his books he claims to be a physicist: From Science to God: A Physicist's Journey into the Mystery of Consciousness, (2002).

Yet his education doesn't seem to have any substance: In 1969, he gained a First Class Honours in Theoretical Physics and Experimental Psychology.[citation needed] He then went to Rishikesh, India, where he trained as a teacher of Transcendental Meditation under Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In 1971, he gained a post-graduate degree in Computer Science.[citation needed] From 1971 to 1974, he studied for a Ph.D. on the psychophysiology of meditation at Bristol University.[citation needed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.54.40 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Totally unsourced BLP (the lone ref is from his own website) and cn tags have been in place for a vey long time. Is this guy actually notable by current Wikipedia standards at all? Collect (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

John W. Douglass

Political opponents vandalized General Douglass's wiki page to include manufactured controversies that were supported by non-journalistic/conservative blog citations without factual support or adequate context to support the characterizations. The section in question is now removed:

Controversy

Douglass came under fire during his campaign when he was found to be lying about his military service. Douglass led voters to believe that he had served in a combat role during the Vietnam War. ^[1] After continued criticism from citizens about his false claims of combat duty, John Douglass’ campaign was forced to admit that Douglass in fact had never served in a combat role. ^[2] Douglass again faced controversy when falsely attacking his opponent for having interest in a uranium mine in the district. It was later exposed that Douglass himself had solicited and accepted donations from executives at the United States Enrichment Corporation, the U.S.’s only uranium enrichment company. ^[3] ^[4]

References

^ "John Douglass: A question about military service and action".
^ "Concerns over military claim". Fauquier Times-Democrat.
^ "Douglass took uranium industry donations". Chatham Star-Tribune.
^ "While harping on Hurt, Douglass took uranium-industry money". The Daily Progress.

None of those sources seem particularly reliable to me, so I would have definitely endorsed the removal. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Two of the sources are newspapers, are they not reliable? RNealK (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Jacob Zuma

Concerns have been raised via OTRS regarding the Jacob Zuma article. The concerns are specifically related to the negative content in the following sections:

Corruption charges
Rape charges
Continued support after corruption charges

I have explained that outright deletion of these sections is not possible, however the content should be reviewed to ensure that the sources meet WP:RS, that the sources support the content, and that any allegations made do not run afoul of WP:BLPCRIME. I understand that this is a huge task, however, given the high profile of the subject, it would be extremely helpful. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I know there are many more urgent and pressing matters on this board, however I would like to be able to close the OTRS ticket to advise the sender that the community has reviewed the article for potential BLP violations, even if it is to simply note that the sourcing is solid and no changes are required if that is the case. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Rumors of divorce

Is it appropriate to cover, in a stand alone section, Mahira_Khan#Family_problems, coverage of a rumored divorce? One of the "sources" used to validate the the fact that there are rumors, contains the subject " Mahira Khan has shrugged off these baseless divorce rumors and have said that she can never imagine leaving her husband Ali Askari" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

So you two, it is a bit to me suspicious, on article of Mahira, there have been involved several IPs addresses from Karachi, Lahore and UK to remove subsection "Family Problems". Problem is that how the user Demiurge1000 come to know for editing that subject of area, especially "that subject", first IP from London, then Demiurge1000 and then you RedPen removed the subsection without discussing. I consider that were "authority-based removals". You know "technology is very fast by email, sms or mobiles"?. You both demanded more reliable sources, that are provided, I made the passage accurate,but RedPen rejected saying unreliable sources, I changed passage with another reliable sources in Urdu from multiple mainstream newspapers. Five sources state "Mahira has asked for divorce, only one source which RedPen has rejected as unreliable source, and now he is claiming of "rumor coverage". It is pure nonsense, Pakistani media is not irresponsible,if one or two, we can may be think that, but not multiple newspapers publishing rumors to give her unnecessary publicity. With those reliable sources, there is no any question of due or undue weight.Justice007 (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::: Illegitimate removal of the subsection without discussion by User:Canoe1967, surprises me, while undue tag clearly states after discussion tag can be removed, but that did not happen?.Justice007 (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This noticeboard is supposed to present issues that have arisen on a page so that other editors uninvolved in the article can give their views. My starting point for this topic is that articles for BLPs have to have strong reliable sourcing. Unconfirmed reports of rumours wouldn't meet that standard. There is also the WP:CRYSTAL policy that wikipedia should reflect things that have happened, not things that might. Until a divorce occurs, or at least there are quotes from the parties which indicate that it might, then the existence of rumours somewhere does not merit inclusion.Martinlc (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed it as contentious as per blp undue, not news, not a tabloid, consensus, RS, etc, etc. If you can get consensus to add it back then that is a different story. We are not in a hurry here. If readers want tabloid news they should go to tabloid sites.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Of the 5 sources provided, 4 state 'family sources say' and the 5th is the denial article by the LP. I don't think wp respects sources that have vague and un-substantiated sources themselves. I did use google to translate. The four sources may just be sourcing each other. The one source of the LP denial is the only one that mentions a name.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"Problem is that how the user Demiurge1000 come to know"

You say this is a problem for you, so let me solve that problem right now. You'll see here that some IP came to WP:BLPN with some sort of a problem. I watchlist WP:BLPN and I saw that indeed there seemed to be some sort of a problem. Have a nice day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it is now clear.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Asaram Bapu

Multiple external links in article body, POV pushing etc! --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Can someone help in this article? --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Gregory Baum interview.

User TheCatholicPimpernel are continually re-editing a certain text in Thomas Rosica article with intent of mudslinging and libel. Please review. Where he spoke (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, with questions regarding the reliability of a source also arising. I can see nothing to suggest that there is anything remotely libellous being added however. I suggest you raise the question of the reliability of the source cited at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and then discuss the issue on the article talk page if necessary, rather than escalating what appears to be a minor matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Negative commentary, based on editorializing around a youtube clip [6] is not a mere content dispute. It is a clearly unacceptable BLP violation and reporting it here is the right thing to do.--Scott Mac 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wes Welker

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

After the Ravens beat the Patriots in yesterday's AFC championship game, Patriots star Wes Welker's wife Anna posted some unpleasantries at Facebook about Baltimore's great, controversial linebacker Ray Lewis and his complex life history. This has made its way into the "Personal life" section of the article about Wes, written in far less than objective terms. Some basic facts can be cited to sources like The Baltimore Sun [7] and USA Today [8] but this leaves the problems of (1) whether this material should be included in the article (which is about Wes, not his wife) and (2) the need to respect WP:NPOV as well as other WP:BLP standards. Since various versions of this content have now been inserted several times, it could use attention from BLP-sensitive editors. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed the current section that was so over the top POV that there was no reason to keep any of it. It's pure WP:GOSSIP and frankly doesn't belong. If Wes comments on it and that gets significant media time, maybe. Otherwise, I don't see any reason to include any version of it. Ravensfire (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Good call. Whoever posted it need WP:UNDUE written on their computer monitor with black sharpie. --Jayron32 23:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

After some more juvenile edits, I requested semi-protection. Materialscientist just came along and semi'd the article for 10 days which should be plenty for this to stop. Ravensfire (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone may wish to mention it at the revdel IRC link at the top of this page. Just click the 'connect' and follow instructions. I am a hockey fan, so I don't really care to take the time, sorry.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it gets to the level needing RevDel. It's essentially taunting by someone pro-Ravens or anti-Pats. Ravensfire (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP violation on a User page

User:PinkBarbieLush on their User page is claiming to be the daughter of Master P. As this seems to be untrue based upon information I can find in a reference search, should this information be removed from their User page? RNealK (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to MfD as being the best and quickest course -- the denizens there are famiiar with user pages which violate the appropriate policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. RNealK (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple notability templates on a BLP unseemly

I just edited this BLP to remove three templates: one was a standard lack of notability warning template and the other two were noting agreement with a proposed deletion. It seems unseemly to have multiple notability templates on a BLP as it is unnecessary and creates an impression of "piling on." It's understandable that some people become offended or confused when we say that the subject of a BLP is not notable so we should we do what we can to alleviate that (mistaken) impression while keeping firm to our principles and procedures. ElKevbo (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted; these tags are all valid and should not be removed without dealing with the issues they raise. Giant Snowman 14:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just dealt with the issue of the proposed deletion, thus rendering all three PROD tags unnecessary. I'll leave the notability template there while interested parties decide whether or not to take the article to AfD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the orphan tag. Giant Snowman 15:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no problem with the orphan tag from a BLP perspective (it indicates the article is an orphan, not that Manish Sharma is), although it does have the problem of being glowingly inaccurate (it says "no other articles link to it" which is not the case). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just discovered the few= parameter for the orphan tag... Giant Snowman 15:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks right :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Please explain why it's necessary to have multiple templates that all address the same issue. And please be sure to do so in the context of BLP. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A PROD is something completely different from a notability warning template, that's why. The first proposes deletion and puts the article in the proposed deletion queue, the second simply warns editors who want to gauge the situation. This has nothing to do with BLP. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

ElKevbo already explained what it has to do with BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

But I disagree it's a BLP issue. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well in that case you can either explain why you believe that statements about a living person are not covered by WP:BLP in this circumstance, or you can discuss it in whatever place you believe is appropriate for matters that are not BLP issues. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have huge concerns about having the prod and the notability template on an article; the point that they place the article into different categories is a compelling one although I think we might want to think about how to do this differently for BLPs so they don't have prod templates and warning templates that amount to the same thing.

Again, my concern here is that it discussing the notability of a BLP has to be done with some sensitivity and respect because we are - by definition - discussing another person. The discussion should definitely be held and it can be held to our standards while also being held with sensitivity and respect. Placing four templates on a BLP that all basically say the same thing is not in line with our policy or basic decency when they all say that the person we are discussing isn't important enough for Wikipedia. Surely one or two templates is enough especially when two of them are completely unnecessary and don't belong in article space in the first place? ElKevbo (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I am honestly baffled by the fact that a notability tag is seen as problematic. Is being not "important enough for Wikipedia" an insult now? Did I miss some memo? By a quick calculation less than 0.01% of living people has a biography on Wikipedia -is it so insulting to belong to the other 99.99%? --Cyclopia ^talk 16:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We actually see plenty of individuals who want their articles deleted as they believe they are non-notable! Giant Snowman 16:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Then we should just delete our BLP policies because they're obviously not needed! Problem solved! ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you're trying to be sarcastic but I don't get what you mean. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My point is that "it only seems to affect a few people" is a specious argument. It may be true but that has little weight on how we understand and carry out our ethical obligations. ElKevbo (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"My point is that "it only seems to affect a few people" is a specious argument." - Yes, but it's not my argument at all. Read again. My argument is that being "not important enough from Wikipedia" can't be seriously considered problematic because it doesn't imply anything reasonably negative, given that being on WP is a privilege (or curse) reserved to very few. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone having been born out of wedlock, or being gay, or being descended from slaves, aren't things that "imply anything reasonably negative" either, but when I see them added to a BLP for no good reason, I zap them with great speed. The bar to cross for a negative statement to be "something to do with BLP" is very, very, low, and it's going to stay that way. A statement doesn't need to be "insulting". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

So we should stop putting notability templates on BLPs at all? Stop putting AfD or PROD templates on them? That the bar is low, I agree, but so low that we stop functioning as a work in progress? I doubt this is a consensual view, but if you want to start a RFC, hey, be my guest. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with a notability tag, plus a PROD tag. The basic notability tag suggests that the person doesn't meet GNG, and that guideline concerns an relatively straightforward question of "how many available sources of a certain type are available". Moreover, it leaves the need to reinstate the tag in many cases (no consensus AfDs, contested PRODs).

What I (paradoxically) would support, and there's absolutely no way we'd ever get support for this, is simply changing the use of the word "notability" throughout our standards, recognizing that commonplace and wikilegal senses of the word generally overlap, but are not identical. If you want to view "non-notable" as a problematic negative, then we should address that concern broadly, and pick a non-negative term to indicate a topic whose available sourcing or other properties does not happen to comply with our guidelines. Preferably one with a warm, fuzzy connotation. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed, that the article on John Doe be deleted for insufficient warmth and fuzziness. Naah, can't see it... --GRuban (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

earl mindell

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

Earl Mindell's PHD is valid in 48 states. Not valid in Texas and Oregon. Please make the necessary changes to the accrediation.

Thank you,

Alanna Lewiston — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alannna (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Validity of a diploma is in the eye of the beholder. In the eyes of most, a degree from a diploma mill isn't going to cut it. Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The CBC ref is a deadlnk. I can not find any mention of Mindell and degree on that site. As a result, all claims based on that site are, as far as I can tell, unsourced. Collect (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the diploma mill comment above - it looks like (assuming he did get the diploma) he recieved it through a for-profit university that, at the time, was not accredited. But subsequently has become so/legit. Given the diploma was earned at the time it was not accredited, is accreditation applied retroactively? I imagine for recent degrees it probably would be, but there was a significant difference in years between his receiving it, and the uni gaining accreditation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To me, it sounds like kashering meat after it has been eaten. Anyway, best to go with what sources say about Mindell in this regard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bob Uecker

A Community Portal Group recently experienced a problem with individuals Rivertorch, and Favonian who appear to be users with the ability to freeze pages normally for the liberty of public editing and contribution. The reason sited for freezing, we thought, seemed to be abuse or vandelism, but it seems to now be something due to claiming to have multiple user accounts or sock puppets. We feel this is unnecessary prevention of free access and ability for the public to edit and maintain the Wikipedia knowledge base. We feel the comments are also not necessary.

It is important to read the rules. It is our feeling that users should also be required to read and agree to the rules. It is our opinion that the actions here were unnecessary. It seems that the rules regarding images were violated and the burden of proper use is on the person who has loaded the image. That also is stated in the rules. Thanks. Here is the commentary from the talk posting:

Copied from talk board:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SecurityW (talk • contribs) 03:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If this was posted four times it was by mistake. The links posted are for specific Wikipedia reference links to legal rules on the use of copyright. There are "special circumstances" and specific issues with images if they involve public figure, privacy, copyright, on Wikipedia that relate to approvals and permissions. If you read through it, it is significant for Wikipedia's legal protection.

Wikipedia is a fair use website. There was no abuse or vandelism, whereby action of a user required freezing a Wikipedia public page from individuals public access. No issue reviewed by us warranted that. If you have an issue with what you suspect of multiple users, that would have to be addressed with each user, again nothing seemed abusive or determined as vandelism. (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.92.140 (talk)

I have to say you're not making a lot of sense. I know perfectly well what the links are to. What you haven't explained is how they relate to any image being used in the article. Please explain that, and please use one Wikipedia account only. You attempted to sign this post manually with a non-existent account name while logged out, which is confusing. (Read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry if you don't know why that's a bad idea.) The page was protected because you and/or other parties were making disruptive edits and failing to explain what you were up to. Now would be a good time to explain. If there's a legitimate issue involving copyright or fair use, it would be great to clear that up. Rivertorch (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.92.140 (talk)

The editors in question appear to be behaving appropriately as there was indeed sockpuppetry in the page in question. As I have noted in the talk page, your other claims also don't make much sense. Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sherlyn Chopra

Sherlyn Chopra has NOT appeared nude in Playboy magazine or on its cover. She is reported to be planning to do so in 2013. But this has not occurred yet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.30.107 (talk • contribs)

The Hindustan Times is the source cited, which I'm going to presume is tolerably reliable on such matters. It talks about the photoshoot in the past tense (i.e. already happened), which is not inconsistent with what the Wikipedia article currently says. (Neither claim that the results of the photoshoot have already been published in the magazine itself.) So I'm not sure that there's actually a problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Scott Menville

This article lists Menville as having a baseball career -- baseball-reference.com does not mention him, nor does the wikipedia entry for the 2011 Baltimore Orioles season. I also looked at Google, and found no supporting evidence for the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.150.25 (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed I've reverted the two most recent edits. I've also put the article under pending changes protection. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Khalaed Niazi

Khalaed Niazi was born in Laghman, Afghanistan on 04/06/1988. He has done BA(Political science)from Delhi university in 2010 and BBA from Skimm Manipal University in 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamshid omid (talk • contribs) 12:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place to create a new article. Please read WP:BIO and if the person meets those guidelines, please go to Articles for creation.--ukexpat (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Zuill Bailey

This young man was born in Woodbridge Virginia -not Alexandria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.9.22 (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The article says that Bailey is "from Alexandria, Virginia", which isn't actually a statement about where he was born - it is rather ambiguous. Unfortunately none of the references cited which are accessible via the web seem to state where he was born - and we'd need a published reference to add this (the article is badly in need of references for some material as it is) If you can find a suitable reference (see WP:RS) for his place of birth (or indeed for other biographical information), it would be useful, as unfortunately we can't take your word for it - post it on the article talk page if you don't feel confidant adding it to the article. I'll see if I can find anything more myself, though I'm not sure that I'll find much that isn't sourced either from our article, or from Bailey's own website - which doesn't give a place of birth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ray Nagin biography inaccuracies

In the current biography of Ray Nagin under the header Controversy and indictment:

Item 43 states: "David Hammer of the Times-Picayune incorrectly reported on April 23, 2009, that Nagin had taken "plenty of other trips" at the expense of NetMethods, a company owned by city vendor Mark St. Pierre."

Hammer was quoting a trial attorney, Glad Jones. Here is the exact segment of Hammer's story:

"Meanwhile, the attorney for two companies who are suing the city over a controversial crime camera project told The Times-Picayune that he plans to question the mayor about a series of other lavish trips when his deposition resumes. The attorney, Glad Jones, said credit card statements show those trips were also financed by NetMethods, owned by the city vendor, Mark St. Pierre."

It was later established in the Mark St. Pierre trial that Ray Nagin had indeed taken multiple trips at vendors' expense. Regardless, David Hammer did not incorrectly report the matter. He was quoting a trial attorney who was representing plaintiff's that were suing the company Netmethods.

Item 44 states: In a subsequent (June 7) article Hammer described potential technicalities wherein the benefits received by Meffert may be legal depending on whether he received them inside or outside New Orleans and whether the source was NetMethods or merely someone associated with the company

There is nothing incorrect about this statement but this was by no means a retraction of the original statement in the original April 23, 2009 article. Items 43 and 44 are misleading and factually incorrect in regards to Item 43. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.17.60.173 (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Article needs input, please

A discussion is forming at Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd regarding the person accused of abusing her. BLP experts would add value to the discussion, please. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeated addition to the talk page of the name of a living person who is alleged without proof to be involved in the matter [9]. WWGB (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This needs to be removed from the edit record. Does anyone know how to make a request to do that? FurrySings (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AN. I'm not 100% familiar with the RevDel policy and whether this qualifies for that, but at least it will get some admin eyes on the issue. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFO is the place to request revdel/oversight.--ukexpat (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that link! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a link to the revdel IRC at the top of this page that may be faster. Just click the green 'connect' and log in as a guest.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Derby sex gang

From the troubled Derby sex gang article: "The Derby sex gang was a group of Asian men who sexually abused up to a hundred girls in Derby, England". "The gang of thirteen men, from Asian backgrounds, lived throughout Derby and the police believed they met through a shared attraction for young girls". Reading the two sentences together, one could only assume that the 'thirteen men' had all been convicted of sexual abuse. This is untrue. There were only seven convictions for sexual offences. Is there any reason whatsoever why this article should not therefore be seen as violating WP:BLP policy in a rather fundamental manner? Given my previous attempts to deal with the sensationalist tone and rather obvious slant of the article, I'd like an uninvolved opinion - though I think it needs urgent attention.

Incidentally, the assertion that the 'gang' were all 'from Asian backgrounds' appears to be highly questionable, to say the least - which source describes Graham Blackman (convicted of breaches of Sexual Offender Prevention Order) as 'of an Asian background'? And why is it that the religion of other individuals is mentioned, but not his? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Do any of the sources mention his religion? And he is not Asian, he was the only one from the gang who was not. Who added that to the lede? I have removed it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We need to bear WP:UNDUE in mind; personally I don't think the ethnicity/religion of the perpetrators deserves mentioning in the lede, especially given the propensity of people of certain political persuasions to focus solely on that aspect. Giant Snowman 17:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And what about the assertion that the 'leaders' were "considered devout Muslims and family-orientated men": sourced to the Telegraph, which fails to state who 'considered' them so - thus a frankly meaningless statement, clearly added to emphasise the individual's background. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It gets worse: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A gross breach of WP:BLP at the 'Derby sex gang' article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Shayan Anique Akhtar

Could I get some extra eyes at the above article, please. It was created earlier today as a basically positive simple article. Others have added detailed allegations that the subject is involved in a hoax of some sort. The original creator blanked, and I G7 CSDed. This was protested on my talk page by one of the other editors working on it. Which really did invalidate my G7. But the article looks to have major BLP issues. Given the extremes of the positive and negative versions of the article, I think that it needs careful watching, and the sourcing for the negative version needs to be looked at closely, all by someone who knows the ins and outs of BLP better than I do. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The original creator is now edit warring to blank the page... - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And the page creator appears highly likely to be the article's subject himself. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The situation with the page's author/subject appears to have stabilized. He has filed an AFD, and is participating in the debate there, though he seems understandably confused by WP's bureaucratic elements. Any extra eyes on the page itself are still welcome, given the weight of the negative content about the hoax scandal. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The AFD should handle this just fine. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerry Weintraub

Someone inserted the word "greedy" before "Jewish family" when describing Jerry Weintraub's childhood. Since the adjective "greedy" was unsupported and totally irrelevant, it was probably included for anti-Semitic reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.230.170.26 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Done It has been reverted. In the future, feel free to do so yourself. We take our policy on biographies very seriously and we need all Wikipedians to chip in when they see problems in articles. Thanks for the report. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles Eisenstein

MarieGoodwin (talk · contribs)
Sacredresonance (talk · contribs)

Article is undergoing multiple promotional attempts. At least one user has stated COI [10]. May require page protection if this continues, but for the moment I'm requesting more eyes, because I'm tiring of riding herd on this. Thanks, 99.136.252.89 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Page had been protected, with much of the fat removed, and now re-puffed with primary references and a section promoting books whose notability has not been established. If the primary claims here are a book charting as the 11th highest seller in Amazon's monetary category, and authorship of several articles in The Guardian, does the subject meet notability guidelines, or is it eligible for AfD? If not, please watchlist this, because there are continued attempts by fans to use the article as a promotional venue, and one doesn't anticipate an easy acceptance of Wiki guidelines [11]. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Juggalo" listed as an "ally" of criminal gangs

Juggalo is a music fanbase. This can be confirmed and verified. There is no evidence that the music fanbase is a gang. Insane Clown Posse, the subject of the fanbase, is suing the FBI for not providing evidence asserting claims of gang activity. And yet in spite of evidence and the fact that members of this fanbase are directly and negatively affected by claims that their fanbase is a "gang", despite lack of evidence, this false claim is being pushed as fact on articles listing Juggalo as an ally of real gangs despite the fact that Juggalo is a music fanbase, not a gang. I have made this point numerous times, but two editors with an obvious bias against the fanbase have continually added "Juggalo" as an ally of gangs despite the fact that this is not a gang. This is clearly contentious editing. When an issue involves real, living people, it is not good faith to assert that their music fanbase is a gang, and it is blatantly patronizing for an editor to deny doing this in spite of continually listing a music fanbase as an "ally" of a criminal gang.--BigBabyChips (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this already covered over at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? bobrayner (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. This is more forum shopping. And, BTW, at least 5 different editors have restored that info from the numerous articles you've been edit-warring on. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In contrast to your statement, no edit warring has occurred on my part. This is a clear BLP and NPOV violation which you have had explained to repeatedly, but you have not listened to due to your fanatical bigotry against Juggalos. BigBabyChips (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

At least 5 different editors have told you that it's edit warring, yet you claim to be explaining it to me? Whatever dude. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that the sources supposedly being cited for the Juggalos being a gang don't actually say they are - they say that some members are... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Juggalos have been classified as a criminal street gang by numerous government and law enforcement entities, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Gang Intelligence Center, and the states of Arizona, California, Pennsylvania, and Utah" - complete with references. The gangs they are allied to are also references. Giant Snowman 12:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. The solidly reliable sources said it. We are simply relating what they said. This notion that every single person has to be "bad" to call the organization bad is wrong. Not every German in Nazi Garmany was a Nazi. Most people living in the Soviet Union weren't members of the communist party, but we still say it was a communist nation. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Joseph D. Morrissey

Obscure Virginia legislator Joseph D. Morrissey got some media attention recently by waving an AK-47 (unloaded) in the air during a debate. Now, we've got a couple of editors (one of them brand-new) determined to pack as many NPOV violations into the article as possible, in order to paint him as having "a criminal past", using pro-gun blogs and non-reliable local bloggers as sources. Efforts to keep to WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V are met with ad hominem attacks on our supposed "Liberal slant". --Orange Mike | Talk 22:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Should we post this on our Liberal and Conservative BLP notice boards as well so we can balance the POV?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

After looking at the article history, I've semi-protected it for three days to prevent the BLP-violating text dumps that have been going on. Gamaliel (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Autobiography on Wikipedia is allowed?

Most of it has no citations and it's painfully obvious that "mack2" is steven goldman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.244.196 (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that's the same person, but even if it were, as long as the article is written according to WP:NPOV, not using primary sources, everything is correctly referenced, and the subject is notable, there is no problem. We prefer that people don't write autobiographies, but it's not explicitly forbidden. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This guideline causes me to disagree that autobiographical articles are no big deal. All the best, Miniapolis 02:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, "strongly discouraged". Not forbidden. Ideally a biography is created by someone who believes the subject is notable, since they have to be notable to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Brendan Rodgers

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

This chap is a fairly prominent football (soccer for you Yanks!) manager, who is in charge of one of the biggest clubs in England / arguably Europe. His son, a young professional player who is not yet notable for his own article, is currently on trial for sexual offences. I feel that mention of that on the father's article violates WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE; an IP hopper, who told me to go "fuck yourself" when I advised him of the above, disagrees and does not want to use the article talk page, despite me asking him twice. I am bringing this here for wider discussion - I have already notified him of that. Giant Snowman 15:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP has now accused me of bias towards the club (I'm not a supported in the slightest) and says he will continue to add the information regardless of any discussion outcome. Giant Snowman 15:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(redacted statement below in parts. Wifione ^Message) You have told two blatant lies:

1.) You have not once advised me to "use the article talk page".

2.) I am not an "IP hopper".

Furthermore, you have failed to include the rationale behind my decision to add this information: which I have made clear on your page.

I think that your inherent bias and telling of mistruths is seriously damaging the site.

Regards, John Smith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.22.216 (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I add the statement that I wrote on your page, which you have pointedly (and revealingly) decided not to include: "His son, already mentioned on Rodgers' page, has gone on trial charged with serious criminal charges: how exactly is writing one referenced sentence on that giving "undue" weight to the story? You're being entirely ridiculous and probably biased (do you support LFC?): it's an important story, which has gained significant media attention. Rodgers has also attended the trial. I'm going to continue adding this. And I don't care if you abuse your discretionary powers to try and have me banned: I know that I am right and that your bias is clouding your judgement. Shame on you." Regards, John Smith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.22.216 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He did tell you to bring to the article talk page see here so the only one lying is you. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe you have previously edited as 82.132.223.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I asked you here and here to use the article talk page. As I told you here I have no bias towards either Rodgers or Liverpool F.C. - please stop accusing me of it. I have made no "mistruths" either. Your comment on my talk page was made at the same time as my post to BLPN, so I have not "failed to include the rationale behind [your] decision to add this information." - see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Giant Snowman 15:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(redacted in parts. Wifione ^Message)I suggest that you retract your suggestion that I have edited this page with a different I.P. address. Thank you. Regards, John Smith.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.22.216 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The evidence speaks for itself - compare the contributions of 82.132.223.94 and 94.116.22.216. Both IPs geolocate to London; both have edited this article and this article alone; both have added the same information; both have accused me of pro-Liverpool bias; both use similar edit summaries.Giant Snowman 16:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Redacted a few statements. GS, from your comments too. Blocked the ip. Next block would be indefinite. Wifione ^Message 16:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I redacted a bit more as one of the statements didn't make much sense in light of the other redactions. Nil Einne (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Libertarian Republican

Libertarian Republican (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is basically a list of public figures that subscribe "to libertarian philosophy while typically voting for and being involved with the United States Republican Party." I'm not sure how I ran into it, but when I found it I noted that some of the sources were pretty poor. I removed a number but some of them have been replaced. See [12] to see the most recent additions. Sources include Twitter, LewRockewell.com, Antiwar.com[13], Big Jolly Politics[14] etc. And some of them are described a 'leaning'. It seems to me that sources for a BLP article need to be multiple and much better than most of the sources used. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if no one wanted to touch this. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Brian Fallon

I work for the management company of The Gaslight Anthem. The issue is not with Brian Fallon's actual wikipedia page but with when you search his name and the info. that wikipedia posts to the right side bar. ie. name/spouse/record label (under images).

Only this sidebar lists his spouse as Hollie Fallon, but his wikipedia page doesn't even mention her. We want this removed immediately as this is inaccurate.

Also, the side bar lists his labels as "SideOneDummy Records, Resist Records" when it should really be "Mercury Records, SideOneDummy Records." The actual wikipedia page acknowledges that they've worked with SideOneDummy Records in the past and now are working with Mercury — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.110.240 (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's something you'll have to take up with Google, they might have an out of date copy of the current Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has no control over what other companies do with the content they pull from here. Although Google does have a way to report that something in those sidebars is inaccurate. I think I reported an image a few days ago. But I have no idea how long they take to correct something, if ever. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you'll need to take it up with the New York Times. They write "Fallon’s wife, Hollie, is a Jewish girl from the Bronx". "Jersey? Sure; Is Gaslight Anthem’s Brian Fallon the True Heir to Springsteen?" --GRuban (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Flake

Please note that on the right hand summary column, it says that Jeff was in the 6th District of Arizona. This is correct but it shows him preceded by J. D. Hayworth who actually represented the 5th District until he was defeated by Harry Mitchell. In the 6th District Jeff Flake was both preceded and succeeded by Matt Salmon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.75.145 (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So did you try fixing it? All you need is a valid source. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Mashonda

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

There's a considerable amount of information in the "Divorce" section that seems to breach NPOV and could be construed as libellous to Alicia Keys, but I'm not sure how to reword it and source it correctly so that it provides a balanced view. Can anyone help? 80.169.196.182 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Guðmundur Jörundsson

This article is written either by the subject themselves, or by the subjects company/ press representative. The signature on the edits is the same name as the company referred to in the article. The topic of this article does not meet the notability guideline for biographies, and uses quotes that do not relate to the subject. This appears to be a press release, with a press photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.230.155.113 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Taryn Khanam

Just a headsup that the subject of the article Taryn Khanam has apparently requested that it be deleted. The AfD discussion page may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taryn Khanam. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ray LeBlanc

Article about a retired hockey player. An editor, whose comments on their own talk page claims to be the subject's wife, is reinserting a statement about his faith in this diff: [15]. It's been reverted before, most recently by myself, for a) not being sourced and b) the "gave his life" phrase that while traditional to some regarding faith is hardly wiki encyclopedic in tone. Some also argue that the subject's faith doesn't belong in the article. Comments, eyes welcome. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Polina Such

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

Article about a model of dubious notability, with long term edit warring in an attempt to introduce poorly sourced BLP violations. Recommendations: action against Wrvasd (talk · contribs) and nomination of article for deletion. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this, I've brought it to the attention of the project's administrators. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

My thanks to you, and to Future Perfect for taking care of this. I think the article is a very good candidate for AfD process. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Kerry Wendell Thornley/Grace Zabriskie

Kerry Wendell Thornley is still dead, but I am concerned about some new content in "Personal life" (diff) that involves another living person, Grace Zabriskie. For the purposes of BLP, I am also assuming that Thornley and Zabriskie's purported daughter is still alive. The edit does indeed cite sources ([16], [17]), but in both cases they are self-published (policy says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."). These sources include some very sensitive information (e.g., page 5 in the 1st link) and I have to wonder how well (or if) it was properly vetted by the respective publishers. That isn't Wikipedia's problem, but at the same time, I'm not sure these are good sources for WP:BLP. (I thought this was a better venue than WP:RS/N.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed No, they're not, and more to the point, that's speculative at best. I've removed the paragraph and placed the article on my watchlist. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Heymann

Article contains undue, non-neutral statements about Heymann that use sources that are not directly related to the topic of the article [18]. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The AfD on this article was closed as an over-whelming keep just a couple of hours ago. The article is about a prosecutor. The sources complained of here are all secondary sources, about people he investigated, prosecuted, and/or convicted. Far from being "not directly related to the topic of the article," the coverage of these investigations, prosecutions and convictions, in reliable secondary sources, are what make the biography notable.

It's been suggested, not without merit, that the article started out as an attack piece. It's evolved into a fair, balanced biographical treatment of one of the nation's pre-eminent, if controversial, cybercrime prosecutors, because of the addition of the very sources now, quite properly, subject to your scrutiny. Please review the AfD and the edit history of the article. I know the nominator has done so. We both worked so hard on rescuing the article that, at one point, you'll find that we were tripping over one another with edit conflicts. In genuinely collaborative good faith we've turned a blot on wikipedia into an article to point to with some modicum of pride. That we now disagree is no great tragedy. It provides an opportunity for editors with fresh eyes to provide a reality check.

As you review the AfD and the article's edit history,you'll see that both Hirolovesswords and I have stricken comments and refs in response to one another's work. It sure beats the hell out of the way we've watched some of our fellow editors stake out rigid positions and brook no talk of compromise or consensus. David in DC (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Blue Angel (person)

I don't think we accept interviews from Youtube as RS because they can be doctored. This video should be the same case. Even if it isn't doctored she may have been confused by the question because Her english is not the best. She later states it was her only sexual encounter with a girl when she was a teenager and hasn't had any since. Just food for thought.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't actually think it's a heated discussion; to be honest, I don't really even care about it that much anymore. Basically, one user doesn't agree with the source I added and is now trying to discredit my comments by accusing me of violating guidelines and essays that s/he is actually violating. Anyway, there really is no proof that Blue Angel's English isn't the best (although she does have a thick accent). And if she hasn't had any off-camera lesbian relationships since her first time, that's her choice; it doesn't necessarily mean she no longer identifies as bisexual (unless she explicitly states so, that is; see Jenna Jameson). My thing is, she clearly states in the interview that she is bisexual around the 2:20 mark. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't thing the English issue is that significant. However if the only source where she mentioned this is in a 'behind the scenes' 'interview' shot during a pornographic shoot intended I presume to be released along with the pornographic video in question (or other videos in which she appears) then I would suggest we do not have sufficient reliable sourcing establishing she identifies as such and the claim should remain out of the article. Note that this doesn't mean the claim is untrue, anymore then the claim she has a 'love for pussy' (evidentally established in the same 'interview') is necessarily untrue, simply that claims made in such a context aren't sufficient for wikipedia purposes as we have no guarantees the intention of the interview was for her to tell the truth as opposed to telling whatever the director thinks their viewers want to hear. In addition, it's unlikely the site in question would be consider a reliable secondary source. We sometimes accept self published sources in BLPs when it involves people making claims about themselves, but not when it involves people making claims about other people, and the publisher here is not the person in question. Of course, even when people make claims in reliable secondary sources, it may sometimes be part of maintaining a persona. In such cases we would generally accept such claims at face value, and publish any later retractions or clarifications, but that doesn't mean we should lower our standard of reliable secondary sourcing, particularly in BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your last two sentences were a little confusing. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 20:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In my view the BLP as it stands is fine. It is (to be honest) impossible to see the relevance or not of the sexual orientation of a porn star. She is acting out sexual roles and unless this takes on some larger dimension I don't think it is relevant to the BLP. XcommR (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Suzy Favor Hamilton

Article as it currently stands has next to nothing about this person's long running career (includes state, national and Olympics), charity work or business dealings. Predictably, I guess, some editors want to keep expanding the section on recent news that she had worked as an escort recently. Previously it was to mention how much men paid for her services, now we have an IP address adding her ranking on some escort review site. Lacking a massive increase in coverage of the things she is primarily noted for I think the escort section needs to be as brief and objective as possible, and even if the rest is updated there are certain kinds of trivial details that would not serve any appropriate purpose ever being in the article. It's not hugely active right now, but I'd appreciate other people keeping an eye on it too. DreamGuy (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

On my watchlist. Seems fine, given the size of the article. And the source (NYT) is pretty much impeccable. I do worry about the image that comes up in a Google search, which is not part of Wikipedia or Commons, yet is somehow associated with the GFDL content slurped by Google. We've had a few complaints from folks demanding we "fix" what Google is doing. Sigh. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Page has been semi-protected for 1 week.--ukexpat (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Rogers (activist)

Shall we include alleged reports about people by this subject? He is known for reporting on politicians who have anti-gay record but then ends up involving gay things. I wonder if that is necessary. --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As long as the information is sourced to something other than the guy's blog, sure. Reliable sources and all that. In fact I'd rather see that sort of thing in his bio than in the bios of the people in question, since that sort of thing tends to run over WP:UNDUE rather quickly. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Bergmann Hotel

Article was recently greatly expanded, mostly turning it into an attack piece on the current owner. Hard to say whether this is a one-shot deal or if this user is determined to keep at it. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 00:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Done Looks like an admin deleted the offending revisions. If the issue persists let us know, or head over to WP:RFPP to request temporary protection. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It was just the one IP and they have been blocked for 31 hours. If they vandalize again after the block then it may be extended. Btw the geo data doesn't seem accurate, I may try and fix that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Leonardo Jardim

In the last few days a libelous comment has been added to the biography of Leonardo Jardim repeatedly. This is libelous for all involved and an unsubstantiated rumor that has been circulating on the net as part of a joke. Someone has been repeatedly adding this rumor to the article. Myself and user Alexrexpvt have removed it two times but this someone keeps adding it back. He does not have a Wikipedia nickname but only an IP address as a name, which keeps changing. I will remove it again, but someone should assist us. Please see below diff links

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonardo_Jardim&diff=535267712&oldid=534832080

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonardo_Jardim&diff=534644725&oldid=534482328

Wikisportedit (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've requested temporary semi-protection of the page at WP:RFPP. This will temporarily prevent IP editors from editing the page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikisportedit (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ramush Haradinaj

Certain users continue to claim that up to 9 witnesses were murdered during the trials of Ramush Haradinaj at the ICTY. The International Criminal Court, and the International Criminal Courts chief prosecutor have both refuted these claims. To suggest that 9 witnesses were murdered undermines the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court and is potentially a libel against Mr. Haradinaj. It is factually inaccurate.

ICTY Spokesperson: No witnesses were murdered. ^[1]

ICTY Trial Chamber: "None ... was in the Tribunal's protection programme, nor were any of them under protection measures ordered by the Tribunal in the Haradinaj et al. case. Some of the alleged killings took place before the ICTY had started its investigations in Kosovo against Ramush Haradinaj and his co-defendants. Furthermore, some persons ... were reportedly named as witnesses in a trial before a court in Pristina, in which the ICTY had no involvement," it said. ^[2]

ICTY Chief Prosecutor: There is no evidence that any witnesses were killed...^[3]

I have tried to reflect the fact that witness intimidation was an important feature of the first trial by giving it its own section on the page. In doing so I took great care to read the Court judgments and documents to accurately reflect the trial. They can be found here.^[4] The individual changing my edits does not and as a result engages in potential libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeos (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Court documents should generally not be used; see WP:BLPPRIMARY. That said, there are some valid references to allegations of witness tampering, see for example this. So it's not all unfounded speculation. I do agree that referencing all of that to a single source is a bad idea. But again, sources do exist. An article should strive to presents all sides to an argument, and instead of trying to remove the information already there you should discuss with the other concerned editors about the addition of the counterweight your sources suggest. Finally, if you have edited that article while logged out, I'd suggest not doing that again. Logging out to engage in an edit war might get you a block from editing under WP:3RR. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Peter Thomson (diplomat)

This is not the correct place to create a draft article. Please go to articles for creation

Peter Thomson (diplomat) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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." 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) 19:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have collapsed the draft article, with comment.--ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Juan Vicente Torrealba

Hello My name is Juan Carlos Torrealba I'm one of Juan Vicente Torrealba son and I have a concern about some aspect in his biography whoever wrote it not totally correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan Carlos Torrealba (talk • contribs) 00:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

quote "The poverty of the family and the region were such that he worked as a sharecropper" this is totally wrong, I am one of his son and I can tell this is not true, among other things there.. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan Carlos Torrealba (talk • contribs) 00:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the item that you quoted. Please let us know about any other factual errors in this article. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed almost everything. It's a BLP and has essentially no sources except for one external link. It's been that way for a long time, probably since it was created in 2006 (I didn't check every change). So I've stubbed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Added the single reference in Spanish that I could find. There are more in books that could be useful. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Rodrigo Guirao Diaz

Pamatthew99 keeps adding that Rodrigo has a twin brother. He does not. He has bothers that are twins. This same person also goes by the name, David Lewis Guirao Tatitlug, claiming to be that very twin. Pamatthew99s name is Matt B and lives in PA.

He should be stopped from putting false information into the database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.51.227 (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Moni Aizik Redux

An editor has removed material from the lead and sourced material from the main part of the article on the grounds of WP:UNDUE and non-RS (this concerned an Advertising Standards Agency Adjudication. I restored it stating "sources are fine, we need to show the background, & Aizik didn't respond to the decision, he responded to the complaint". This was removed again, on the grounds that it was WP:UNDUE and the edit that implies he responded to the adjudication rather than the complaint was restored. I don't think it's too long and I think that the background to the complaint should be there, but I'm happy to hear contrary opinions. I'm a bit jaded since earlier edits by another editor tried to claim that the ASA adjudication was no longer on the ASA site and was more or less null and void.

He also removed all material from the lead mentioning the ASA complaint. I don't object to him removing controversial from the lead (he seems to be controversial but that has all been removed at some time) but the ASA material belongs there, esp. as the article is now so short. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

from what i just wrote on the talk page, where you didn't even engage me in a conversation. but that's ok, i'm a big boy and can handle discussing it here: hey doug - that was quick. i think a discussion here is fair, but sure, blpn is good too. if you are bothered by the one word, then you are right to change that one word only. the rest of my edit is fine. but to wholesale claim something that is not, that's not good. also, did you read wp:undue? it really speaks volumes about what you are trying to do. and please read wp:lede about including controversies there. yes, they can be, but don't have to be. and lastly, i really find no RS outside of the very narrow martial arts world to even justify the existence of the article. it appears that this guy has done some good, hs some notability, and one organization told him to not say 'x' when advertising. (they are not a cout of law).

as for what you wrote above: there are too many times you use the word 'he' and i am not sure if you are referring to me or the other editor you mention. in any case, in a short article, as you say, one needs to be careful. wp:undue really applies. really. in sum, i was just trying to make the article more encyclopedic and less 'doug doesn't like this guy' (which is how it reads). and, i was just trying to improve it. don't like it? suggest a deletion? Soosim (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no difficulty with the material Doug has restored and do not agree that it is "undue". Past experience would suggest that Soosim edits Israel-related articles from a well-defined POV, and it would be helpful to have additional uninvolved input. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We need pretty good reasons to call someone "controversial" in a BLP. At a minimum, we'd need multiple reliable sources using that terminology. Doug Weller's version had none, and such such, it is clearly inadmissible under WP:BLP. Perhaps there's more to this story than is currently in the article, but at the moment, it looks like a run of the mill business dispute between two competing martial arts schools, during which one competitor appealed to the ad council to have their competitors' ad disallowed. That is all the article should say, based on current sources. This happens every day, and is barely notable, certainly not enough to label one of the litigants "controversial". All Rows4 (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you miss the bit where I said I was happy with the word controversial being removed? There is more that isn't in the article which may have justified the word at one time but not now if we don't include the ASA adjudication. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well , yes, I actually did miss that, and apologize for that. My response was more to Nomoskedasticity who said the materiel you added (which included the "controversial" wording) was ok. W/O that word, I think your content is acceptable, to the extent we describe the ASA issue factually (without the overtones of "under legal pressure" or similar language). I still think the whole thing is only marginally notable , but then again, the subject is arguably non-notable , too. All Rows4 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

can we agree that the content stays but in much shorter form (similar to how i edited it????). in a short article, wp:undue really is significant. Soosim (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no undue here. We finally had a fine version, finally getting the COI edits under control and poof! here we are again. The man got spanked by the ASA for making claims he can't substantiate. That's FACT. It is very well sourced. Just live with it. The fact that there is not as much well sourced, relevant material as you'd like to distract people from seeing the ASA actions is not our fault. That part is presented in a reasonable manner. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

niteshift - who is "our" in your comment "not our fault"? sounds like you are more than just yourself. are you representing or tied to the other martial arts place that sued him? in any case, it is UNDUE since "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." - all's i'm saying is that it needs to be "weight appropriate". i, for one, have no problem with the ASA ruling, but: it can't be the main topic and it is not in RS as you say. so, make it relational. Soosim (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Our" is the consensus. You and a COI editor are the only ones who seem to have an issue here. Every other experienced editor that has opined here or at the previous discussions are fine with the ASA ruling and how much of it is in the article. Your ignorant, completely baseless question about who I'm affiliated with was very, very enlightening. The fact that you immediately jumped into attack mode and started with some conspiracy theory tells me (and everyone else here) that you have an agenda. Please don't bother to lecture me about AGF because you killed that when you started with your 'who are you representing' bullstuff. Who am I representing? ONLY me. It sure looks like you can't (truthfully) say the same thing though. Funny how you can say "we" over and over, but when I say "our", you jump into ridiculous conspiracy theories. Again, very illuminating. And for you to claim it's not in a reliable source.....well that's just absurd. The ASA is a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

thank you. now i know that you speak for "every other editor". whew. i was worried, but now i understand. there is no consensus as to the quantity of material, and it is simply undue - which you don't discuss. "very illuminating". Soosim (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure jack. When you say "we", should I presume you are speaking for everyone else? And try getting it correct. I didn't say I spoke for "every other editor", I said "every other experienced editor that has opined here....." If you're going to quote me, at least show the context correctly so it is accurate and not this crap you just made up. It has been discussed. The consensus is there. You just don't like it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 subsection names

An editor has claimed that the "partial quoting of a living person is a violation of not only MOS but also a BLP violation" in an article subheadings. The current claim can be found here. The issue reached pervious consensus here. Casprings (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You cannot have a concensus to overrule BLP violations, and WP:MOS clearly states that quotes be reproduced completely and accurately. Arzel (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

From WP:MOSQUOTE Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text. Arzel (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Each controversy that uses the quoted name was called that by multiple WP:RS. The context is given in the section. See link above where that was demonstrated during the pervious concensus. Casprings (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That some reporters are using the quote for dramatic effect does not override the BLP protections WE have for living people. That you are wanting to use the headings for dramatic effect does not suprise me in the least. Arzel (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I will be happy with the to abide by the feelings and consensus if not involved editors as to rather it is a violation. I do not think it is. We have articles like, You didn't build that that use partial quotes. Akin's comments were know by two words, "legitimate rape". So I think it is fair to use that in the subtitle, for example. Casprings (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That article is regarding that phrase, and you will note that it quickly goes into the entire quote within the article. You, however, want to just push the dramatic effect in order to attack living people. Arzel (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Jiří Dienstbier Jr.

I happen to support this guy's policies and admire his history; but the article as written is a bit of a hagiography. Considering that he was recently a candidate for president, I'm surprised nobody brought it up before. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed some of the POV claims before, and I contacted the creator/s, whom I suspected to be members of his election team. The information in the article is correct and verifiable, it's just written as an uncritical essay. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Karen Berg

This entire article is promotional material, taken directly from the website of her cult ("Kabbalah Centre").

Compare: Karen Berg

http://www.kabbalah.com/blogs/karen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.242.138 (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted it to a less spammy version. Notability still dubious, IMO.--ukexpat (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And it has now been redirected to Kabbalah Centre by User:Gamaliel which is an even better solution.--ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Judith Orloff

The opening paragraph of Dr. Judith Orloff's article was changed to read "author of four books, the first of which was named in testimony before a US Senate Committee as an example of "irresponsible unscientific work".[2]" This in reference to a written response by Dr. Timothy N. Gorski on United States Senate Special Committee on Aging. In this response, which is the opinion of one doctor, Dr. Gorski attacked several doctors who work in the field of Anti Aging including Dr. Dr. Dean Ornish. The only reason Dr. Orloff is mentioned is because Dr. Ornish reviewed her book, Second Sight, which has nothing to do with Anti Aging, and Dr. Gorski makes a unfounded statement that Dr. Orloff's work is unscientific. Dr. Orloff is an "intuitive" psychiatrist (not a "clairvoyant" psychiatrist as indicated in her article) who uses her intuition to augment (not diagnose) her treatment of patients and has never worked in the field of Anti Aging. It is very defamatory and unjust to include this second hand reference in her opening biography. It is also untrue to say that intuition is unscientific. There is actually research on intuition such as Science Daily, Go With Your Gut -- Intuition Is More Than Just A Hunch, Says New Research, Institute of HeartMath, New Study Further Supports Intuition, and Wikipedia's page on Intuition to name a few. If you read Dr. Orloff's book, Second Sight she does mention that early in her life she worked with a group who studied Remote Viewing and they did work at times with police departments. Dr. Orloff only participated in this study for a short period of time and it was never a part of her psychiatric work. Again it is unfair to brand Dr. Orloff for this study that she did prior to becoming a psychiatrist. Also her book, Second Sight (ISBN-13: 978-0307587589) was updated and re-issued in 2010 by Three Rivers Press. I am requesting that all reference to the response by Dr. Gorski be removed from Dr. Orloff's article and that we be allowed to clarify her article to reflect the true aspects of her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhondaBryant (talk • contribs) 21:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue of "due weight" is important here - he made a short comment about the work in a lengthy written response to a Senate committee, not testimony per se. Placing the aside into a prominent position in the lede of a BLP is clearly undue. Collect (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the removal from the lead, and I've edited the article a bit further to emphasise that it was the first edition of the book that was rebuked and that an updated edition has since been published. More input from those with knowledge of the significance of remarks made by US Senate Special Committees would be helpful – it's now stuffed down in the bibliography, but should it be mentioned at all? However, after having spent some time cleaning up the article, it's clear to me that RhondaBryant and previous incarnations – including Judith Orloff (see User talk), who first created the page in 2008 – has a conflict of interest here and is trying to remove what she sees as the less favourable aspects of Orloff's earlier career. As an unbiased reference work, of course, we must include them as they are well-documented: the article is about Judith Orloff the person, not just Judith Orloff the psychiatrist. —SMALL JIM 16:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Meredith Monroe

The first inaccuracy is her date of birth and name, whilst on the show Dawson Creek she was known as Meredith Hoyt Monroe born in 1976 which numerous website have logged her under whilst on the show. Recently her name and age has been changed on Wiki and imdb sites to Meredith Leigh Monroe born 1968 however there is no evidence or reason given as to why this was changed, especially her middle name. There have been reports that she did lie about her age whilst on Dawson Creek and reduced it to 1978 or 1977 to fit in with the rest of the cast members as Michelle William is born 1980, Katie Holmes and Joshua Jackson are both born in 1978 and james Van Der Berk is born in 1977, so the discrepancy was only report to be 2/3 years rather than 8. Again there is no evidence to support the dramatic age increase.

Also on Meredith biography it reads that Meredith Monroe choose to leave Criminal Minds to pursue a film career, this is definitely incorrect as her contract was terminated just like AJ Cook and Paget Brewster when the CBS show runner Ed Bernero wanted to do a cast reshape which was report on E News. With the changes leading up to the cast reshape unfortunately Meredith Monroe character Haley was the first female character to be targeted this may have been because writers where either thinking about reducing Hotch character or writing him out. Nothing was ever confirmed just Ed Bernero saying in an article that characters secrets would start to be revealed and that Hotch would be shown struggling to cope without Haley. Article was printed on E News online. The character secrets where never revealed as petitions where created to stop AJ, Paget and Thomas from being dismissed from the show and lead to Ed Bernero leaving the show instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay99a (talk • contribs) 12:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed all the references to her age and motivation since they were uncited. Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yael Cohen

Obviously self written or close to it— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.172.217.65 (talk • contribs)

Recent edits have toned it down a little.--ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul Kraus

The only source right now is the author's own book. This makes it look extremely spammy. Article is proposed for deletion due to NPOV, WP:N and WP:BIO. Delete or provide verifiable, reliable sources.

What about the interview at ABC Australia? The link was present in the article before your edits. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And is the person actually notable? The BLP looks like an ad for his books otherwise. Including the very short interview. Collect (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute that, the page has been nominated for deletion. I just don't see any serious BLP violation in the article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tidied it up some. His earlier years could stand to be fleshed out some, but on the whole, a good article. Earliest book published was 1985. --Auric talk 13:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

According to this source [22], Kraus was born on 20 October 1944. The date given in the article in 27 June 1944. Which is correct?--Auric talk 13:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RS. The added sources do not meet that criterion, alas. At all. Collect (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

To which sources do you refer?--Auric talk 14:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Clara Kraus book is self-published (Spectrum Publications is a vanity press AFAICT), and the [23] also fails WP:RS and qualifies as SPS entirely. Collect (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that [24] is self-published (by Kraus)? I don't see any evidence of that. It also links to documents that qualify it as a secondary source, I think.--Auric talk 16:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It is written by Catrin Bolt who asks for people to send her information, and is self-published by Bolt. There is no indication that it meets editorial oversight for a reliable source, and the site has a disclaimer to that effect. The only likely persons to have given that information on Kraus is are members of his family. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The page links to this, supposedly from the St. Pölten city archive. Do you believe it to be tainted? --Auric talk 16:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A primary source birth cert != any basis for claiming "notability" of the person at all. The person is still quite non-notable after diligent searching. Collect (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not saying he is notable, just asking if the birth certificate is real or not. The dob it gives is different than the one in the article. Which one is correct? (Yes, I realize I'm discussing what to dress the corpse.) --Auric talk 17:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Jung Myung Seok

Shii continues to post factually false information on the article and cites sources that are not verifiable. I have posted extensively on the talk page about why the sources are dubious and not verifiable. I dont want to be involved in edit warring, however, this individual insists on posting incorrect and slanderous information about a living person thus clearly violating the BLP policy. Please help.MrTownCar (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I invite editors to check out the entertaining history and talk page of this article. Shii (tock) 15:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And I have reverted your whitewashing changes. It is not a BLP violation if reliable third party sources support the article contents, which they appear to do.--ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither version of the article is perfect but the version that's not pure Providence sourced is closer to being balanced. I wish both sides would have been able to work towards a compromise, rather than continually revert to want they prefer. The end result is the article is now fully protected and it's going to be interesting to see if changes can be agreed upon on the talk page so they can be made in the article. I've been trying to work a section at a time, based on the version that was up when I started. I think the pro-Providence version is the current (and of course the WP:WRONGVERSION). It's got some BLP issues with self-published sources being used for claims about third parties that need to get pulled out. Ravensfire (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Leo Komarov

Input is required at that blp's talkpage, concerning its infobox content. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Anna Baltzer

Baltzer is an American Jew who has controversial views on Israeli/Palestinian, and I've just removed a section about her allegedly fraudulent claims as to her own background, which was sourced solely to a report by the Gatestone Institute, a fiercely pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian organization. I take no position as to the accuracy of the report, just the absence of reliable sources for a claim about a BLP. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to look at the article by Orangemike. I agree with his concerns, and I think the entire Gatestone Institute paragraph should be removed, as it lacks a source other than the Gatestone Institute website. PhilKnight (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed that and more. It's the usual smear campaign, typical for this topic: a few hyper-Zionist organizations, some op-eds from minor American newspapers, Arutz Sheva, etc. There's no problem noting that she has been on the receiving end of some criticism (I've left a sentence indicating this), but we would need much better sources for the kind of detail that was there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Part of it is already back, just 20 minutes later, via an IP edit. We're likely to need semi-protection here. I can't remove it again, as the article is on 1RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Her infobox listing of "Ethnicity unknown" was too ludicrous to remain. Collect (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Stoneleigh, Surrey

Please see this diff and a subsequent one where a person is defamed. Redaction is needed, please in both places Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it. Thanks for reporting it, if the vandalism continues I'll request for the page to be protected. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Redaction would be pleasant, please. see WP:CYBER. One ay assume the person referred to is living, and it is defamatory, perhaps even cyberbullying. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's under control; one of the IPs has been blocked and the other one is about to. Honestly I prefer that to semi-protection any day. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The first one is defamation. The second one looks like the fruit of a meme.--Auric talk 20:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Chaps, I never mentioned semi-protection. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the other IP and suppressed the defamatory edits. If there's more vandalism, I'll semi-protect. PhilKnight (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Drew Barrymore

There are several sources, including Barrymore herself herself calling Steven Spielberg her godfather. Two users (which looks like socks; see the case here), insists on that it is not possible, as Spielberg is Jewish.

I have tried to engage with the users at the talk page to no avail. What are your thoughts? Nymf _{talk to me} 20:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether reliably sourced or not, it seems WP:UNDUE nonencyclopedic trivia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In the context of an article on Barrymore is does not seem "undue" or "trivia", as it is Spielberg who cast her in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, making her a child star. Nymf _{talk to me} 21:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not read the article or any comments but when reading the quote "I talk to my godfather Steven Spielberg; I seek advice from him." it gives the impression that Speilberg keeps and eye on her and helps when he can, so not "legally" a godfather but somebody she can turn to for help and advice, FWIW. MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion on the grounds that Jews can't be godparents is OR, and moreover is wrong. (I can even attest to this as a matter of personal experience.) I also don't think it can be easily dismissed as undue trivia in light of comments like the one in the 2010 article in The Telegraph that "With Steven Spielberg, the film's director, as her godfather, Sophia Loren for a godmother and several Oscar-winning actors in the Barrymore family (including her great-aunt, Ethel Barrymore, who famously turned down a marriage proposal from Winston Churchill), she was primed for fame." [25] The article goes on to mention instances where she got important advice from him, and from that and other sources it's apparent that her continuing relationship with Spielberg is worthy of mention. I do agree that it's uncertain whether he's a godfather in a traditional ritual sense or in some more general or metaphorical sense--although the mention of Sophia Loren in the same context makes interpretation even more complex. Perhaps this could be handled by rewording to say that he has been described as her godfather, or something along those lines. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Patrick S. Moore

I am the subject of this article. I would like to add several notable honors that I have received, which include 1) Election to the US National Academy of Sciences [26], 2) the Biennial Marjorie Stephenson Prize from the Society for General Microbiology,3) Appointment as a Distinguished University Professor at the University of Pittsburgh and 4) Receipt of the Heinrich Pette Institute Prize in Microbiology and Immunology.

These are all readily verified facts but I am not keen on adding them to my article since this is a COI. Would someone else be willing to tackle this? Also, all of these same awards should be added to my wife and lab partner Yuan Chang since we were dual recipients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locusceruleus (talk • contribs) 06:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Just passing through. I went ahead and added the election to the natl. aced. of sciences per your link, but the link to the Biennial prize takes me to a generic info site, nothing about you receiving the prize, so take a look at that link, OK?. Also, I'm not sure how note-worthy becoming a distinguished professor is, (I am not well versed on WP:PROF), so I'll leave that to someone else. And the Heinrich Pette prize, unless I'm missing something, I don't see a source for that one, so I'll leave that alone for now as well. Thanks for posting here. Ditch ∝ 00:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

correct list of films done of telugu actor Sri. Chiranjeevi

Please give correct list of films acted by the Sri. Chiranjeevi. at present the no. of films done as per your database is less than hundred. kindly find the correct and list out the films acted by him.

Thank you,

Badari Narayana P V — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.207.90.80 (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles are not required to list all works by a subject. It is permissible to list only the most notable. This is not a BLP issue. Also, did you miss the fact that there is a subarticle, Chiranjeevi filmography? Yworo (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jodie Foster

Foster made an speech at the 70th Golden Globe Awards. In her speech (you can view it at YouTube), she said "I already did my coming out about a thousand years ago in the stone age", also she said more things I didn't listen to because I watched the translated version. After this, multiple IPs started to add she came out as lesbian, a word she never used. The page is protected, and we are discussing this at Talk:Jodie Foster, but the current article has these two problems: [27] User:Ernestsewell removed material without a reason, and User:Tx1987 added a category that frankly fails WP:BLPCAT. I really doubt this information should be retained in the article because, as now, there is no further evidence beyond that strange speech and the Mail Online (which seems unreliable). Can somebody give your thoughts here or that talk page, or if necessary take actions by removing that material off her biography per BLP. I know that BLPN is for "an extended period" content, but we need more eyes here. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Edit warring now in effect over the categories, which clearly fail WP:BLPCAT. Anyone who enjoys arguing is invited to the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The exact text of her speech fully supports describing and categorizing her as the nonspecific "LGBT" — the only thing it fails to do is to get more specific than that. Describing and subcategorizing her as specifically "lesbian" would be a BLP violation; describing and subcategorizing her as the general "LGBT" is not. Bearcat (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please quote the part of her speech in which she calls herself "LGBT" or states that she is bisexual or a lesbian. Categories relating to sexuality are assigned based on what the subject says about themselves, not on your inferences. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As our article on coming out makes clear, "coming out" is all about LGBT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No, she didn't said anything specific about her sexual orientation, so she can't be categorized as "LGBT".--В и к и T 18:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Worst 'coming out' speech ever for not actually saying what she is coming out as. Maybe a furry, who knows, she didnt say. So we cant either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

While I would argue that realistically she wasn't coming out as a potato peeler or supporting the culling of the Western Spotted Marmot, there is not enough there to classify her as LGBT. A note should be made about what she said in the speech, using NPOV wording. Maybe in a few months she'll give an actual interview or something like that that will completely eliminate any doubt as to her sexual orientation, and then the category can be added. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"Loud and proud", "coming out", "my female partner" - Our policy does not say "They must use the words 'I am gay'". Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"Loud and proud" automatically means gay now? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think she does specifically have to say - interpreting the meaning of a speech is WP:OR. Giant Snowman 17:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman is partly correct here: Interpreting the meaning of a speech is original research. Therefore, we must rely on reliable secondary sources for analysis. The analysis is overwhelmingly clear that she did say she is gay so there is no amount of OR that can override our duty to report what is found in reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Our policy does not require the use of the exact phrase "I am gay", such that even if her meaning is explicit and unmistakable and fully supported by secondary sources we still can't cite it if you can't find that exact string of six letters in that exact order. People "come out" in all kinds of ways, using all kinds of language, and our policy requires only that the meaning of the statement is clear and properly sourced as such, not that it precisely conforms to one and only one "correct" way of phrasing the statement. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have seen several sources noting that her statements were not clear. There is no one right way for someone to state their sexual orientation or religious belief, but when there is disagreement about waht they are actually saying, that simply isn't good enough. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In blogs and opinion pieces, sure, but those don't count as valid sources for our purposes anyway. You can still find sources of that type which still assert that "Barack Obama was born in Kenya" and that "not one single moderate Muslim has ever condemned 9/11", too — but that doesn't mean we're obliged to take them seriously, if the properly reliable sources say otherwise. We do not require, and never have, that every possible source on the planet agrees with complete and total unanimity on any given fact — if we did, Wikipedia would be entirely empty, because there's not a single statement in this entire encyclopedia that some potential source, somewhere in the world, hasn't contradicted or said something different than most of the others. (Sometimes that dissenting statement just a research error; sometimes it's a deliberate falsification; sometimes it's a legitimately differing opinion; and yes, occasionally it's even right in a way that just hasn't properly surpassed the burden of evidence yet — but if a statement claims the opposite of what the preponderance of evidence in the preponderance of reliable sources says, then we just discount it and don't concern ourselves with the whys.)

Rather, once the preponderance of evidence in reliable sources supports Statement X, then we accept Statement X whether it's still theoretically possible for somebody to suss out some basis of uncertainty or not, and demand a higher standard of evidence from the people who still choose to claim Not-X — the burden of proof is on the claim that runs counter to the established consensus of reliable sources, not vice versa. I mean, for one thing, Foster already issued a followup statement to clarify the reports that she had announced her retirement from the movie biz — so she would clearly have done the same thing if the statement that she had come out as LGBT were also wrong. (Again, the burden of evidence rests on the claim that she would have acted inconsistently, choosing to correct one error but let another one stand, and not on the claim that she would have acted the same way in both cases — because the claim that she would have acted inconsistently is the one that actually requires original research speculation about what might or mightn't be motivating her to treat the two statements differently.) Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

She said she shares children with another woman, is that not specific enough? RNealK (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't require any original research analysis on our part; the secondary sources (which is what we look for around here) have already done that work for us. The suggestion that she meant, or might have meant, something else would be an WP:NOR violation, not the suggestion that she meant what every single reliable source on the planet has already reported. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

She went to a great deal of effort not to say those words, "I am gay", so we shouldn't put them into her mouth. The whole point of her speech was that her personal life wasn't anyone else's business. Perverting that as a public declaration of homosexuality is wrong. --GRuban (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of her speech was that her personal life wasn't anyone else's business, yes — in the sense that she's not going to give us big tabloid spreads on who she's actually dating and how they manage their relationship and what they did in bed last night and how they do or don't divvy up the housework and how they do or don't choose to raise the kids. None of that is incompatible with a simple acknowledgement that one is LGBT; as even the most militantly out queer activist will tell you, just acknowledging one's basic identity is not the same thing as sacrificing one's personal privacy. I'm openly gay myself, but that doesn't mean I'm giving anyone here an all-access pass into my bedroom to watch me and my partner or partners in action — and the fact that I keep that stuff private doesn't somehow mean I'm suddenly not out about the simple, basic fact that I am gay. So no, nobody's "perverting" anything and nobody's committing "wrong"; you're simply pitting two things against each other that aren't actually in any sort of contradiction. As I noted below, you're free to debate and discuss the sources all you wish — but you are not free to impugn or malign or question the motivations of other people who happen to hold a different view of them than you do. Bearcat (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Er ... thanks for the permission, but I don't think I was impugning, maligning, or questioning anyone's motivations. --GRuban (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Bearcat, I think the article already reports what secondary sources say - the issue here is the categories. For those, we rely on what she says, per WP:BLPCAT. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to WP:BLP and WP:BLPCAT, even if WP:RS have drawn some conclusions, we err on the side of caution - even if it doesn't make sense so. Arguments that go against WP:BLP should be redirect to the appropriate policy talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A disagreement about whether a given statement is a BLP violation in the first place is not the same thing as an "argument that goes against BLP". You're free to believe something different than I do about this matter if you wish — but you are not free to simply assert that I'm violating policy. I am, for the record, the person who wrote Wikipedia's policy around WP:BLP as it pertains to sexual orientation — and nobody has ever seriously argued that my work in that matter wasn't good enough, except from the position that we should never categorize anyone by sexual orientation at all. And right off the top of my head, I've removed LGBT-related categorization from many, many articles on which it actually was a clearcut BLP violation due to lack of proper sourcing — see Talk:John Baird (Canadian politician) for just one example — so I'm clearly not a person who lacks understanding of what does or doesn't constitute a BLP violation. You're not obliged to agree with my assessment of the sources in question, certainly, and I'm not interested in turning this into a pissing contest — but you are obliged to assume good faith. I'm every bit as intimately familiar with WP:BLP, and every bit as dedicated to upholding it, as you are, so whatever else you may think of my position, you're not entitled to simply assert that I'm violating BLP as a tactic to shut down any attempt to even discuss the matter. Discuss and debate the sources, by all means — but the ad hominem attacks against my basic understanding of what BLP does or doesn't even permit in the first place need to stop. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Bearcat thank you for your informed perspective. I think the way in which the topic is now covered in the BLP is appropriate. It quotes from her speech. Does not unnecessarily probe into her private life or make inferences but allows her to make an important comment about her life (in the same way as I would by saying "my wife and I"). Balance is maintained and the important context of her life (which she readily accepts) is acknowledged. XcommR (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Original research, claims of BLP violation, and reliable secondary sources

There are three problems swirling around this fiasco, and the most blatant is the WP:OR being committed by people who say she didn't come out as gay in her speech. As we can see above from reliable secondary sources, the analysis has been done for us: she came out as a lesbian. Saying that she didn't, or that she danced around it, is depending too much on the WP:PRIMARY source, which as you all know, must be used only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, and those secondary sources are overwhelmingly unanimous in their analysis of this event. Second, I am concerned that some editors are accusing others of "BLP violations" for inserting the categories into the article. The accusation is being leveled in edit summaries as well as template warnings to editors by one user in particular, Darkness Shines (talk · contribs). I had an unproductive conversation with this user on his talk page and was unable to reach any kind of agreement. He asserts that the reliable secondary sources we have furnished are "gossip columns" and cannot be accepted. This brings us to the final concern that I have. Many news outlets have reported on the Jodie Foster speech. Some are not so reliable, some are tabloids and gossip columns, but some are perfectly reputable sites such as FOX News, UPI, and the Chicago Tribune. I do not know why ordinary news outlets such as these should be called "gossip columns" and discounted. I also am not aware of any reliable secondary sources which have asserted that Jodie Foster did not come out as lesbian. If there were a controversy about her remarks, we would be able to cite sources on both sides and report on the fact that her words were ambiguous, but it seems to me that they were not ambiguous, when all of the reputable news sources came to the same conclusion about her sexuality. Elizium23 (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The category thing is quite clear in BLPCAT. Unless she 'self-identifies' as a specific sexuality she cant be added to that category. What it doesnt say is 'If secondary sources say she has self-identified'. By coming out she has identified as being within LGBT so that one passes, however since she has not self-identified as specifically lesbian, gay, bi or tran - those individual categories cannot be used. What BLPCAT also says is "and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability", which in her case they are not, so there is a good argument for not using them at all. No one can seriously claim her sexuality is relevant to her acting career. Secondary sources that may agree and say something do not trump BLP policy on this. That doesnt mean it cannot be discussed in the article, it means we cannot say in Wikipedia's voice what she is. Which is basically what categorising BLPs does. And like I said earlier, worst coming out speech for coming out ever made... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot

Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A claim is stated as follows:

and Idaho journalist Jody May-Chang

Problem is I can find zero sources not directly traced to Ms. Chang calling her a "journalist" at all. Her Wikipedia "article" was, IIRC, deleted. The source given is "Letters to Jody May-Chang from Melaleuca "re: infringing and defamatory material on PrideDEPOT.com website (dated May 9, 2008 and February 14 2012" representing an image of a letter which does not call her a "journalist" and as an original document likely does not meet WP:RS for the claim that she is a journalist or that she got a specific letter making "threats." The website is Salon "http://media.salon.com/media/pdf/February_14_2012_letter.pdf" The editor proposing this material states that Salon is the sole "source" of the letter, which I kinda doubt. I removed the claim as there is no cite at all for calling Chang a "journalist" and no source which justifies calling this letter a "threat" directly from VanderSloot. AFAICT, the letter is not signed by VanderSloot, nor does the legal counsel state that the letter is on behalf of VanderSloot. The claim that VanderSloot made a "threat" is thus not supported by the cite given in the first place. Collect (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There has never been an article by the name of Jody May-Chang. Giant Snowman 15:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

My error -- she was in a COI/N discussion however. Collect (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect is assiduously ignoring a source suggested for him on the article talk page: [28], "Jody May-Chang is an independent journalist". This post here is a complete waste of time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, time wasting exercises like these have been occurring chronically with Collect on the Vandersloot article. There are roughly 5 sources currently cited in the article that refer to Chang as a "journalist" and the primary document linked is from a WP:RS -- i.e., Salon Magazine. Collect's edits, and subsequent baseless assertion on this board, are inexcusable. Contrary to Collect's grossly misleading statement above, the Salon article specifically referred to Vandersloot's defamation threats against Chang (identified in the article as a "journalist" and it describes and links to the article from Vanderlsoot's legal counsel sent to Chang. The article says the following: "Most of those who have been successfully bullied out of their free speech rights are reluctant to talk about what happened for fear of further retribution. But now, VanderSloot may have picked the wrong person to bully. Jody May-Chang is an independent journalist...In response, she was sent a letter from LaClare, Melaleuca’s counsel, accusing her of copyright infringement (for use of the photo) and defamation (for, among her things, her “characterizations of Mr. VanderSloot as ‘anti-gay’”).[29] Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You are at 5RR on that article. WP:BLP is policy - and I asked for a reliable source for calling Chang a "journalist" and no such source has been given. She is founder of "pride-depot.com" a commercial site with her blog on it (about one post a month) which makes her a !journalist. And the pdf of a letter from a person other than VanderSloot != a source for accusing VanderSloot of "threats" in any case. It might be notable that the first place to hold the copyvios took them down which rather implies that they could not defend them. It is also true that in 2010, Chang added her own column as a source in the Sean Hannity BLP. She is still not a "journalist." Not until you get a reliable source making the claim and not using her own self-description. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect, are you going to get around to reading that Salon article I linked to above? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean the one where Chang is used as a source about Chang? I suggest you Google "recursion" and see why such claims are not regarded as "reliably sourced" on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And where Change asserted it was "normal practice" to use copyrighted images of people without permission or proper attribution? That level of "journalist"? Such behaviour at Commons would result in a ban of any editor - you can not say "everyone violates copyright" as an excuse for violating copyright - especially since real journalists know better than to yank images from websites which have what is jocularly called a "copyright notice" on them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of journalists use copyrighted images without proper attribution, I suggest you Google the 'Tabloid Watch' blog, among others, for plenty of examples from the UK. Yours is not an argument; it is bias and agenda. Giant Snowman 16:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect is playing the game of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It's already been pointed out that multiple independent secondary sources cited in the article refer to Chang as a journalist.[30][31][32][33]. This is an exercise in futility; a hallmark of WP:DE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

When in doubt, attack the other person? Nope RIR - that is exactly the wrong way to deal with substantive issues raised above. There are zero sources other than those using Chang as her own source making that claim. Zero. Nil. Nada. Rien. And since anyone can call themselves a "journalist" this is a claim which requires an independent source entirely. What I find are sources that she sells gay-themed goods at a commercial website. And that she thinks copyrights do not mean anything at all. But heck -- go ahead and attack me all you want - but the damn problem about sourcing remains. Collect (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not an attack, it is an expression of complete astonishment that you are still making the claim, which flies in the face of the facts, that no sources refer to Chang as a journalist. When an editor steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the facts on the table, then a reminder about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is warranted. It's highly disingenuous to cloak your own tendentious POV pushing with lame accusations about personal attacks and 3RR violations. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your claim is errant and does not represent what I wrote -- there are ZERO reliable sources not directly tied to Chang which make the claim she is a "journalist." Period. Every example you gave directly traces back to Chang. She is a seller of goods and an infrequent blogger. She is not a "journalist" by any accepted definition of the term. She is apparently not even paid by anyone for her writings. She is not "employed" by any newspaper, magazine, journal or broadcast company to write. It is not her "occupation" else somewhere on the web I would find an iota of evidence about her. What we do have is articles citing her which call her a "journalist." That and a dollar will buy a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Given how little is written about her, or articles she has written appearing in national newspapers why is any weight at all being given to her opinions? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No weight at all is being given to her opinions. The article on VS notes VS's actions regarding her, as discussed in multiple sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Other than her soi-disant categorisation as "journalist", the PDF shows a Melaleuca lawyer making claims - not VanderSloot. The "threats" seem in accord with the copyright violation recognized by the previous site removing the copyvios, and can not be ascribed to VanderSloot unless you think he changed his name to that of legal counsel for Melaleuca. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC) .

You still haven't clicked on this link, have you? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I did. Your snark is irrelevant, annoying, ad hominem, and generally a disgusting waste of a post. And you are getting so far afield here that I consider this topic quite totally dead -- Chang is not a journalist by profession, and the "threat" was not made by VanderSloot per the PDF furnished. Is that settled now for you? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So if multiple reliable sources describe her as a journalist we are nonetheless meant to edit in accordance with your different opinion on the matter?? And we're meant to go with your own WP:OR on a primary source?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Read this: The sources are not independent! They all use Chang as the source for Chang being a "journalist." See "recursion" on Google. You can't use a self-serving statement from any individual as "proof" of a fact about that individual. Find me evidence that she has actually worked as a journalist. You can't. Nothing in print shows her working as a "journalist" so she is no more a "journalist" than you or I. BTW, it is not "OR" to read the source. Collect (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait -- so Glenn Greenwald and Jody May Chang are actually the same person? This is getting strange... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said no such thing, this is pure snark on your part. What is clear is that Greenwald's description of Chang is from Chang herself. And the letter to Chang from a Meleluca lawyer is not from VanderSloot. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken this thread is about the text in this edit. Assuming that is correct I would make the following comments: Although Salon is a self described "award winning web site" and would appear to be, in general, a reliable source..... the article being cited is clearly an editorial opinion piece and does not, therefore, substantiate Chang as a "local journalist" nor qualify her as a valid source for contentious claims of multiple lawsuits in a BLP. Likewise the Salon editorial by Greenwald is not a reliable source for lawsuit claims in a BLP and neither is a video of Rachel Maddow's editorial news show. The entire sentence is supported by a citation house of cards and in my opinion should be removed immediately per WP:BLP until reliable secondary sources can be found.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What VS's lawyers did to Chang appears also in this one. We're really not lacking in verifiability here, folks. All of this has been gone over with a fine-tooth comb numerous times; the fact that Collect is still unhappy is not evidence of an actual problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Local News8 article is careful to only report the claims made by Greenwald and Maddow. It does not endorse or substantiate the claims or indicate that it has done any independent research to validate the them. However it does refer to Chang as an "independent journalist and blogger" whatever that is. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That's true in part, but not entirely. It's clear they talked to Chang: "The Boise-based May-Chang got a letter from VanderSloot's lawyers for some 2007-2008 posts, but she's not backing down." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They flippin' quote her! I'm sorry, but this is one of the more pathetic attempts at biasing an article I've seen in a while. I have a very strong dislike for Glenn Greenwald, but I see every reason to interpret his article as a news piece, not an editorial. There are links to supporting evidence every few sentences in almost every paragraph. And the whole point of his mention of May-Chang, in context, is that VanderSloot's lawyers went after an extremely minor personage in the journalism field. The only improvement I can see is that, given that we don't have an article on her, a better identification of May-Chang is called for. Other than that I don't see an obstacle to including the material. Mangoe (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nomoskedasticity here. If a media organisation says in the editorial voice that X got a letter from Y, the only reasonable assumption is the organisation is confident this really happened. If they weren't they would say something like 'reportedly' or 'according to' or give some other indication they are only going by what has been said and aren't confident enough to make the claim as factual. But anyway I'm confused by what's at dispute here. Does anyone besides Collect dispute that 'independent journalist' is sufficiently sourced to appear as a description of May-Chang? Does anyone still dispute that we have source sources to establish May-Chang received a letter from VanderSloot's lawyers about her posts? Does anyone accept the letter from lawyers was received but suggest we don't have sufficient reliable secondary sourcing to establish it was a legal threat? Does anyone accept all that but argue the sourcing is not sufficient to mention it in our article? Unless I'm missing something, we do not use May-Chang as a source in the article for anything but to establish a legal threat was received. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

For the edification of all, there was another discussion about Chang here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup -- it's true, there's another discussion. But the issue discussed there isn't a live one, because we don't cite anything written by Chang at this point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Which lede should be used?

A dispute exists in Frank L. VanderSloot as to (1) whether the company that VanderSloot founded, Melaleuca, is a multi-level marketer (MLM) and, more important in this request, (2) whether that assertion should be included in the lede, as a fact.

A WP policy states: "When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version."

It is important to note that this is a matter of some contention (to give just two examples; there are many more):

User: Andrewman327 has stated that "VanderSloot has explicitly denied that Melaleuca is an MLM several times." (02:21, 25 January 2013)
User: Rhode Island Red has stated that "The MLM aspect is a cardinal feature of the company, and it has been established that the company is an MLM." (20:31, 16 January 2013).

We must also note that multi-level marketing can be considered a "defamatory or libelous" statement when it is applied to a biography of a living person, as noted in this excerpt from the WP article on the topic:

MLM companies have been a frequent subject of criticism as well as the target of lawsuits. Criticism has focused on their similarity to illegal pyramid schemes, price fixing of products, high initial start-up costs, emphasis on recruitment of lower-tiered salespeople over actual sales, encouraging if not requiring salespeople to purchase and use the company's products, potential exploitation of personal relationships which are used as new sales and recruiting targets, complex and sometimes exaggerated compensation schemes, and cult-like techniques which some groups use to enhance their members' enthusiasm and devotion.

Other adverse criticism about MLM, possibly libelous or defamatory when applied to a living person, can be read here.

On 16:59, 23 January 2013, an editor previously uninvolved in this article, User:Barek, gave his opinion as follows:

I fully support leaving the MLM mention in the career section where the companies are discussed in more detail; but I have no problem with the mention being dropped from the lead paragraph. In fact, I would say the lead should be trimmed to remove all the descriptions of the companies, only leaving their names. The details are secondary, not about the article subject (ie: the person), and are better suited for the career section that expands on the understanding of what was introduced in the lead.

After a series of comments by editors (see "Consensus" here), User:GeorgeLouis posted Barek's suggestion as a substitute lede at 16:29 January 2013, with the Edit Summary "Slimmed-down version of the lede as suggested by User:Barek."

Rhode Island Red and User:Nomoskedasticity have reverted to the version that includes the MLM description, here and here. The question in this RFC then is, basically, "Which version of the lede should be used? The pared-down rendering or the one that includes thumbnail descriptions of VanderSloot's business activities?" GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should simply have a permanent subpage of BLPN devoted to complaints about VanderSloot? Also, for those not already familiar with GeorgeLouis -- he has a curious habit of referring to himself in the third person; it's an unfortunate tendency, as it conveys the impression that someone else did something and now George is here to support it. The post is also inaccurate insofar as it suggests that only RIR and I (note first-person reference) favor a version of the lede that includes reference to MLM; in fact, as the recent edit history shows there is at least one additional editor who believes it is appropriate, having offered a suggestion that accomplishes both brevity and (imo) proper description. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Try to avoid making the editor the issue -- there is no doubt that MLM belongs in the body of the article - the only issue here is whether an extended characterisation of a company belongs in the lede. On that people may differ, but attacking someone who has a different opinion is not an impressive argument on this noticeboard. I hold that "a brief lede is a good lede" when it covers all the essential facts and makes no claims which could possibly be contentious. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a maddeningly twisted summary. You (and George Louis) have been campaigning relentlessly (since mid 2012) to remove MLM from the article altogether. I suppose it's a good thing that you are now at least conceding that the company is an MLM, but given that is is, there would be every reason to include MLM in the lead as per WP:LEAD, which states that the lead should be a stand alone summary of the details in the body text. The lead in its present form is not overly long (quite a bit less than the 4 paragraphs suggested by WP:LEAD) so there is no reason to argue that the lead needs to be shortened (and MLM has been mentioned in the lead for many months without drawing any opposition). Rather, it seems that you are merely using this tenuous argument about the lead to camouflage an intense desire to whitewash the fact that the company is an MLM. Stop it already. It's a waste of everyone's time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It is an absolutely accurate summary. At least you do not accuse me this time of "supporting socks" and "tagteaming" and "COI" - why not simply let others read the material rather than have you jump in with inaccurate claims (I had long since stated that MLM should be in the body - your claim that I oppose it is fatuous, and simply wrong) And the inane "whitewash" charge has long since outlived any sense of sobriety! Cheers -- and you could simply remove your personal attack if you really wished to not waste everyone's time here. Collect (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Use pared-back lede. Just for the record (in case it wasn't clear), I have supported using the "pared-back" lede above as a compromise between two camps, one of which believes that Melaleuca is a multi-level marketing company and the other of which (me, for example), doesn't think think it is, according to reliable sources. But the main point in this discussion is that tarring VanderSloot with an MLM brush is defamatory and that description of one of his companies should not remain in the lede, although the assertion could probably be discussed in the body of the story, where both sides could be given. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Administrator and User:Lord Roem has agreed with me, here, so I suppose the discussion on this board can be ended. He stated:

After a discussion on GeorgeLouis' talk, I'm much more comfortable with the idea that George's reverts are in compliance with the BLP policy. The phrase that is suggested be included can carry a negative (almost accusatory) connotation. I'd advise both parties to leave the lead as it was before, without that phrasing, and go back to the talk page or the noticeboard to continue discussion. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 10:58 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8)

The discussion is continuing at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#RFC. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Gloria Allred

Note - The article has been well-referenced, and everything in it is correctly sourced.

Pre-dispute, it had a career section of 18k characters, which contained a lot of things that should have been removed (In my Opinion) So I removed it, and was reverted back. An exchange ensued, on the edit summaries, the talk page, and my own talk page.

My opinion of the article, and the prima facie reason for the original removal is that the article contains an unreasonable amount of details, making it look like a CV. It also appears to be sympathetic to her side. [Sorry but I am not able to really quote the exact policies under question]

Can an experienced editor on the same please mediate this issue, and help decide whether the article ought to be cropped, or to remain as it stood pre-dispute?

Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience, Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that TheOriginalSoni is trying to remove too much from the article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinions on whether it looks like a CV or not do not count here. Removing, reverting, and then pasting the material to fill the talk page is childish crap. Editors should discuss inclusion of which statements to remove and then remove them if consensus is reached. I don't think it would be out of line to revert the 12k of material back into the article and then discuss it point by point. Any material that is well sourced should remain if it is notable. Meaning if mainstream media and other reliable sources consider it notable, so should we.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've restored much of the content and have reworked the article. It should be noted that TheOriginalSoni was directed here after asking for help on the talk page. If there are further disputes, I'm hoping we can work them out on the talk page. Otherwise we should be able to find assistance at WP:3O or WP:DRN. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 00:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

[John_Douglass:_A_question_about_military_service_and_action-1] "John Douglass: A question about military service and action".

[Concerns_over_military_claim-2] "Concerns over military claim". Fauquier Times-Democrat.

[Douglass_took_uranium_industry_donations-3] "Douglass took uranium industry donations". Chatham Star-Tribune.

[While_harping_on_Hurt,_Douglass_took_uranium-industry_money-4] "While harping on Hurt, Douglass took uranium-industry money". The Daily Progress.

[5] ttp://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=04&dd=10&nav_id=49272

[6] ttp://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2011/09/19/feature-03

[7] ttp://daily.tportal.hr/228890/ICTY-prosecution-denies-claims-of-murder-of-witnesses-in-Haradinaj-case.html

[8] www.icty.org/cases/haradinaj

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]