Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (Redirected from Wikipedia:BLPN)

Jump to: navigation, search

Report a possible biographies of living persons violation

What this noticeboard is for:

Shortcuts: WP:BLPN WP:BLPNB WP:BOLPN WP:BLP/N

This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living persons. These may include editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period.
It is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies.
All Wikipedia editors are encouraged to assist fellow editors regarding the reports below. Administrators taking actions they consider to be "special enforcement" may wish to note this in the enforcement log.

When reporting:

Make your comments as concise as possible. Other editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long messages.
Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
Note that edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Please link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.

Reporting form

Enter the name of the article in the space below:

Archives

Previous reports are archived after resolution or after a set time period has passed. All archives are linked from this page. If you are looking for a previous report, you may use the search function below to find it.

[edit] Rinat Akhmetov

Rinat Akhmetov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
I would appreciate third party opinion on edits done to the article by user Львівське. This user has been constantly adding statements on the alleged ties of the person with the criminal world, using references to unreliable sources, emotive negative statements and unproven allegations and rumors presented as fact. There was a conflict between me and Львівське, temporarily resolved by administrator ddima, and the article contained only facts, backed by reliable sources. Recently, Львівське reverted everything to his version and in response to my edits recoursed to a whole number of accusations and insults from being the sockpuppet to following me - he just has suggested a number of my articles for deletion. --Orekhova (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Article is currently fully protected. Suggestions for talk-page discussion and editing once unprotected: ensure that any non-English sources are being used in accordance with WP:NOENG. If there are problems of WP:RS, insist that the material be removed until there is consensus that the sources do meet WP:RS; use WP:RSN if necessary. As for "my articles" -- see WP:OWN, but perhaps also WP:HOUND. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency, Orekhova is flat out lying about my conduct on the page. I'm not using unreliable sources (she wont even point out what is, or why), the rumors are presented as they are in the sources. Also, nothing was resolved in the past, the editorial process just took a time out while Orekhova and another user censored a lot of the material for unjustified reasons. That the version prior to my new involvement was full of tags kinda shows it was hardly a consensus final version. Orekhova refuses to use the talk page to sort these matters out and is hoping to own her version of the article via bureaucracy. Her editing conflict of interest and article creation history was brought to light by other users, I've just followed up on it.--Львівське (говорити) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Orekhova shouldn't be accusing Lvivske of misconduct in this forum, particularly without diffs in support. At the same time, Lvivske shouldn't be accusing Orekhova of lying. This forum is mainly for discussing content, not user conduct. Although I haven't looked at anyone's edits or sources, saying "the rumors are presented as they are in the sources" immediately raises red flags, especially if it involves negative material about a BLP. As a general rule, rumors should not be reported.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23, thank you for your comments. --Orekhova (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Protests following the 2011 Russian elections

Here, some editors keep readding badly sourced and POV info about opposition activities - suggesting they are working for foreign governments - a highly provocative gesture in Russia given the amount of activists who are imprisoned/assassinated there. They link to a Youtube video with no provenance (on the Talk page user Greyhood mentions possible sources, but can't say for sure) - and the video is called Receiving instructions in the Embassy of the United States. This title suggests that these activists are working for or influenced by the US, when, as far as is known, they just went for a polite discussion with the man who had been nominated as Ambassador but wouldn't become so for another month. No information from the activists is given regarding their visit, other than what they said when accosted by a reporter in the street. That's hardly a fair chance to give their version. For these reasons, I think that the section gives a highly skewed and biased view of their actions, which harms their reputations and could lead to other problems for them. A secondary issue is that the section is Undue Weight - it is unlikely to have changed any of the protests against Putin's regime, but is a good way of tarring the reputations of the anti-Putin protesters.

The issue is getting close to an edit war, so some thoughts from other users would be appreciated. Malick78 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that this can be resolved by returning to first principles: verification by reliable sources. YouTube is almost never a reliable source, so anything sourced solely to a YouTube video should be out, BLP or not. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The video was anonymously put on Youtube, but then discussed in the (highly influenced by the government) Russian media. Hence, it has some coverage - but the makers (and their intentions) are impossible for WP to describe to readers. The problem is mainly, but not only, the title: Receiving instructions in the Embassy of the United States. The video's makers have no proof of that the activists were being told how to oppose Putin, it's just a wild, unsubstantiated attempt to tar the their reputations. The pro-Putin editors, however, are happy to help them do this.Malick78 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The question was extensively discussed here: Talk:Protests_following_the_2011_Russian_elections#American_embassy_visit_by_organizers.
The video and the scandal it spurred was widely covered in the mainstream media, not only a plentitude of Russian sources (including top TV channels at prime time), but BBC and other western media as well. As I have already wrote, the section in question contained just bare facts as described by reliable sources - opposition activists visited the U.S. Ambassador (100% sure), the video of certain name was released (100% sure) and it produced a scandal (100% sure). There was no claim "that these activists are working for or influenced by the US" (though we could find such claims in reliable sources as well) except for the title of the video, which is unavoidable part of the story (the title was also reported by many media sources).
So there is 100% provenance for all the information in question.
It is also false that this story is undue weight - it is perhaps the largest scandal with the Russian opposition in recent years, and certainly the largest in the last months. It forms an important part of the article Protests_following_the_2011_Russian_elections since the scandal instigated anti-Orange attitudes in society and was later discussed at the Anti-Orange protest, which was the largest of all those Russian protests. GreyHood ^Talk 23:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it wasn't presented as: a scandal erupted when activists were filmed entering the embassy, but the activists denied anything untoward. Instead, it was described as: activists were caught entering the embassy, in a film called "Receiving instructions in the Embassy of the United States". The activists just shouted at the film crew when they left. Here are the activists' names... This was overly inflammatory, and insinuated misdeeds on their part. Hence my problem with it. Greyhood has consistently edited the said article in a biased way, and then pretended not to see a problem for the last two months. So no surprise then that he claims such things as "the scandal instigated anti-Orange attitudes in society" - when in fact Russia has feared an orange revolution ever since the one in the Ukraine, and certainly did before the 17th Decemeber visit to the embassy. I'm happy Greyhood has removed the absurd title to the film, but the section still exists solely to insinuate guilt in a most cowardly way.Malick78 (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The section exists to tell an important part of the story that influenced the development of events described in the article. That visit to the embassy was condemned at the "anti-Orange" protest and continues to be discussed in the Russian media every next day. Attempts to censor it are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GreyHood ^Talk 17:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the activists were defamed again at the protests, doesn't mean we should carelessly repeat the defamation. That's what your edits did, insinuating their guilt.Malick78 (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You try to censor out a highly important part of the story. BLP policy exists not for censorship of facts inconvenient for somebody, but to provide coverage of living people "with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research". GreyHood ^Talk 23:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You linked to an anonymous Youtube video! How's that "verifiable"? You quoted the highly biased name of the video without giving any proper explanation/defense from the defamed activists, so where was the "neutrality"? You're talking rubbish as usual.Malick78 (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The name of the video per se is easily verifiable and was a part of the story reported by reliable sources. The sources which I have read contain no cohesive explanations from those visitors. The most widely cited explanation is the one from Yevgeniya Chirikova: "Если можно использовать Америку в борьбе против режима ПЖиВ и Путина,разграбл природные ресурсы нашей страны это надо делать!" - "If we can use America in struggle against the regime of PZhiV [party of crooks and thieves] and Putin, steal[ing] natural resources of our country than we should do that!" (in the word разграбл - steal[ing] - the flection was omitted by Chirikova in her Twitter, which produced a funny effect - she could have meant either разграбляющих, which then refers to the stealing by Putin and the party, or разграбляя, which then refers to the stealing by Chirikova and her struggling friends and the U.S. ;) ). Anyway such an explanation would rather harm Chirikova than defend her, so I didn't add it to the article even though it was in the same source as the rest of the story. GreyHood ^Talk 20:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Laura León

Unsourced material is continually added to the article Laura León by User:Nefty (here, here and here, and here), containing allegations of a somewhat provocative nature. I requested that Nefty not re-add this material without referencing a verifiable source, but s/he repeatedly does so. Cleduc (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you posting this now? The article hasn't been edited since last December. The diffs, etc., above are all 1-2 years old.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I wondered that myself. Stubbed it anyway. JFHJr (㊟) 00:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted it several times myself, and I want someone else to weigh in. Cleduc (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this person notable enough to have a Wiki article? --BwB (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say she easily passes WP:NACTOR. It was just a bad bio. JFHJr (㊟) 23:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Cleduc (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Miles

The whole entry is crass. It ignores her actual acting career - the highlights of her theatre and film career are ignored - and reduces her personal life to a caricature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelastor (talk • contribs) 00:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

By all means, please add information to make the article less crass, citing reliable sources. In the meantime, most of the prose appears to be pretty well cited; if you find unsupported material or unreliable sources, though, you can always remove it. Finally, you can post any suggestions for improvement at Talk:Sarah Miles. JFHJr (㊟) 00:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the article to be as described by the OP. Miles's personal life is colorful, and it's not suprising that the article reports it in that way. I'm not sure what aspects of her career the article ignores, but that ought to be pretty easy for the OP to add if they wish to.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the article was pretty bad - many people use profanity and it is not a major part of their BLP, to be sure. Collect (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have made some edits and will do more work on the article later. --BwB (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Jackson Pollack

I live on eastern Long Island, NY. Today (Sunday, Feb 5, 2012) I read the local newspaper, which included an interview and photo of Jackson Pollack on his 100th birthday in late Jan'12. Common knowledge has it that he died in a car accident in 1956. He jokes about this misperception in the story.

I created a Wiki user account, put the facts from the newspaper on the TALK section of the Jackson Pollack entry, and asked that a more experienced editor confirm and edit. A few hours later I looked, and my entry was DELETED. I think the appropriate response should have been to REFUTE rather than simply delete. The fact is that the man is alive. He has led quite a full life since 1956, which the story provides details of. He goes by the name PJ Pollack.

Dan's Papers - Volume LII, Number 44, dated February 3, 2012. The story was written by the paper's founder, Dan Rattiner. Should be easy to confirm.

Dcestaro (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have restored your edit to the article's talk page. Feel free to continue the discussion there, or here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The editor who removed your post thought you were bananas (to put it bluntly).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to read it, here's the Rattiner article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The real question here - is he still painting? The Interior (Talk) 01:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, his hands shake too much.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the print version; has photo. JFHJr (㊟) 01:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That was all rather bitey, wasn't it? Sad that no-one troubled to welcome Dcestaro (did it just now). Removing talk page comments that are not overtly disruptive isn't great either. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, one can safely say that this thread is a load of old Pollocks! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on Cusop, be fair. First, it wasn't wholly unreasonable to react to Dcestaro the way the editor did. It turns out in retrospect that Dcestaro was absolutely sincere, but it was a wacky business and superficially preposterous. Second, several of us helped out. Demiurge correctly restored Dcestaro's comment. I did a fair amount of research to figure things out and then responded to Dcestaro's original comment, for which he very graciously thanked me. And JFHJr added a helpful link and an apology. The fact that we also had a bit of fun here with the spoof itself was not intended to cast aspersions on Dcestaro.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Call

I wonder if this article is well-sourced. Should unsourced statements be removed? --George Ho (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal details - such as the family names and children should be cited - I would suggest doing a search to see if you can find one , if not then move such, and similar personal uncited claims to the talkpage so that other interested users can find citations and replace the content. He is not really very notable - a small career in some half hourly shows. I would disagree with your usage of the picture as fair use - although you have worked hard on the rationale - En Wikipedia fair use policy is deliberately restrictive - Commons pictures are the dish of the day here - and imo the energy you put into the rationale to include this non free picture in the biography of a low notable person would have been better directed elsewhere. Youreallycan 16:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

But Baywatch and Step by Step and films can help him be notable, right? Even if he doesn't meet GNG, he could meet other subject-specific guidelines per WP:Articles for deletion/Olivia Hack. There are some articles about him; I don't think I can give you sources that verifies his notability, can I? Thanks for complimenting my efforts on the non-free image. I added the image because he has not been officially, publicly active since 1998; therefore, I consider him retired and living. See WP:NFC#UUI. --George Ho (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, add some citations if you find any. - he gets around 200 views a day so there is a viewing audience. No danger of deletion that I can see. Best regards and thanks for your contributions. - Youreallycan 17:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed personal entry because I could not find one from News and Books. Even though I still consider him retired, I removed "retired from acting" entry because no words about him were found since cancellation of Step by Step. --George Ho (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Sajeel Shahid

HI, I have discovered this page it has information about myself that is not true and is defaming my character, I have never given any interview to any newspaper and this case was dealt 5 years ago and apology letters received from these newspapers, pls remove this page thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.68.193.145 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The article appears well-sourced (perhaps with some WP:NPOV concerns). The IP user could be a namesake. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nick. There doesn't seem to be a sourcing problem in that they appear reliable. If the IP truly is the subject, I suggest first contacting the publishers in question, especially the BBC and The Sunday Times. They'll be happy to post a retraction, redaction, or correction. If there is one already online (I didn't find any), a link here would be grand. It may also be worthwhile contacting WP:OTRS by e-mail to provide more firsthand information (apology letters, etc). JFHJr (㊟) 00:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I declined a G10 attack page speedy deletion request from user Knowledgesearch2 (talk · contribs). The user has now written to me saying that she is the subject's wife and objecting to the article as unfair and inaccurate. I have pointed her to OTRS. JohnCD (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't see anything establishing that Shahid is aka "Abu Ibrahim". The Newsnight transcript attributes the extended quotation to "Abu Ibrahim", and our infobox says he is aka this name, but the Newsnight transcript doesn't use Shahid's name and I see no source that connects Shahid to this alias. The other two references are fine, but unless there's something to establish the connection #2 might have to go. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The first citation – [1] – establishes it as an alias. All three articles refer to Al Muhajiroun. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I suppose that's good enough (it should be added as a reference in the infobox, then). On the other hand, I wonder how many "Abu Ibrahims" there are. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

- I am glad (and my fathers expensive lawyer is pleased with me) that I am not responsible for any additions or admin actions to keep that article published using en wikipedia. He is not really notable is he, we have three citations with his name in them, all returning to a single event - and nothing that he is really a notable person imo. Youreallycan 23:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This can be taken to AfD. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

The article about myself contains many false information and lies and fabrication. Here is why?

(1) The comment [2] posted under Sajeel Shahid wikipage that is being attributed to me by the author of wiki page has not been made by me at all, but rather by someone else. I left al-muhajiroun in 2002, and this is public knowledge. If you go to the information sourced No2, you will not find the name Sajeel Shahid anywhere. This comment has been made by some one else named abu ibrahim, and not Sajeel Shahid. There are alone 6 Al-Muhajiroun members in UK whose alias is abu ibrahim. Ibrahim is a very common name people give to the children after the Prophet ABraham, and this is very common alias for many muslims. Also this interview is made in england, with some Al-Muhajiorun members and I was in Pakistan in 2004 and had no relationship with al-muhajiroun as I left them in 2002.

(2) Also the first statement that says I am one of the leader of Al-Muhajiroun is also a lie, again this statement is without proof. I just use to sympathize with their political views. There is no article stating that I am a leader this is just use on wikipage also I have never been quoted as saying that I am one of the leaders of Al-Muhajiroun. Also there is no statement by this party to say that I was one of their leaders.... Also someone might have sympathy to a party, and to represent it as that I support the all the views of this organisation is also grave injustice comments like "that endorsed alQaedas terror attacks on September 2011" I never made such statements, so why attribute to my page is indirect false accusations.

(3) Also the information source 1 by (Nick Fielding) all relying upon one point that sajeel told an arabic newspaper, which newspaper? no name!! I have never given any interview to arabic newspaper as I dont speak arabic in 2004 upto 2007. To not name the arabic newspaper and to say in there that I know this person, which I never met in my life is fasle fabrication to the highest level.

(4) I have been in the UK since 2005, without any charge, not even one fine in my name. My only crime is that I use to run a madrasa (school) in lahore that hosted 190 students in there, how does I know who comes to studies there, but media never asked him no interview just story that has been made up.

I run two successfull buisness here, please dont malign my name with these false sourced information.

To summarise: To pose someone else comment and attribute to me is a huge injustice, just because the alias may be the same is no evidence at all especially when I was not even in UK. To call me one of the leaders of al-muhajiroun without evidence is a lie To base all articles on a arabic newspaper without quoting it is also leading to making lie against me

I look forward to a reply many thanks Sajeel Shahid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgesearch2 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

- In support of your comments I have nominated the article for a seven day deletion discussion - You are free to join in the discussion and to make one vote for either keep or delete. Read WP:AFD for details of how the process works. Youreallycan 17:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sajeel Shahid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I am the contributor who contributed the original draft of this article. I have several requests.

Could you please follow the steps to confirm your real world identity? We have a team of trusted volunteers whose task is to confidentially confirm real world identities -- this is the WP:OTRS that other contributors have requested you use. I think it is very important for every individual who requests an article's deletion, asserting it is about them, confirm their real world identity, because, unfortunately, some individuals would happily spoof us, claim to be the subject of an article, as part of a campaign to tailor the wikipedia's coverage of a range of topics.
Two requests for speedy deletion were made to this article, a G7 and a G10. Did you make both of them? G7 is for the use of a person who contributed an article, only to realize they made a mistake, like misreading the references. So, I would have been eligible to use G7, but you wouldn't, and neither would anyone else.
Were you responsible for all the following edits? [2], [3], [4], [5], [phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sajeel_Shahid&diff=475621640&oldid=475525730]?

OK. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not knowledgble about wikipedia and how it works, so I dont understand even following the link on how to certify my identiy. If you could explain I am glad to follow it
I have not requested any deletion, my family noticed this article and has brought to my attention only yesterday to help put my points across. The same is with the edits as I have only put my points across yesterday

Please mr author, note I went to pakistan in 2000, to start an islamic school, I had sympathy for al-muhajiroun but than left them in 2002, when there was no other reason for me to do so except an ideological one. For one interview you tarnish rest of the life of someone. How fair is this. You have even lied again, I have never inspired people to go to pakistan to take part with taliban. Show me one proof for that... Do you have an agenda or some motive? Are you the same person who has for the last six year trying to publish a book and wanted to meet me ? Please have some respect of the life of other people, especially when the other person is clearly stating that you are labelling accusation against him ..... my mistke is only to open an islamic school for 2 years !! an give one interview !! is that a crime !!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgesearch2 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Romell Broom

The first part of the biography is not open to editing, but there is an error, which has evidently been copied from a typing error on the Ohio DRC website. Romell Broom does not have four counts of kidnap against a male child: there is one kidnap charge and three attempted kidnap charges against female minors, all associated with the one crime against Tryna Middleton and the two girls with her. Therefore, the statement about kidnap of male children is libellous and should be removed or amended. Check with Ohio DRC directly if official confirmation is needed, but the case - and the person - are known to me personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthfulness (talk • contribs) 15:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I will take the accuracy of the Ohio DRC over the word of a convicted child rapist and murderer. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope it won't be taken as sympathy for Broom if I suggest that we consider WP:BLPPRIMARY in this context (and then delete the sentence). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Rosenthal

To Whom it May Concern:

I am the subject of the article in question. The stub about me has been tampered with by someone with a wry sense of humor; it suggests that I (a violinist) play vuvuzuela and trumpet and it has as well a sentence following that one which makes no sense.

Below is a real bio of me, accurate in all respects. Thank you for your attention:

Paul Rosenthal was born in 1942 and began playing the violin at the age of three. He studied with Dorothy DeLay and Ivan Galamian at the Juilliard School and with Jascha Heifetz at the University of Southern California.

Rosenthal has made his home in Alaska since 1969 and continues to enjoy performing innumerable concerts in every corner of the vast state. In 1972, Rosenthal founded the Sitka Summer Music Festival which continues to attract musicians and audiences from many countries and is recognized as one of the outstanding chamber music festivals in the United States. He also directs the festival's affiliated Autumn Classics and Winter Classics series in Anchorage.

He continues to tour world-wide and can also be heard in recordings on the RCA, Vox, Fidelio, Arabesque, Vanguard and Biddulph labels. His recordings include collaborations from the famous "Heifetz-Piatigorsky Concerts" and premiere recordings of major works by Arensky, Taneyev, Vieuxtemps, as well as his own Variations on "Alaska's Flag."

Paul Rosenthal holds honorary degrees as Doctor of Humane Letters from the University of Alaska and Doctor of Music from Alaska Pacific University.

He performs on a violin made by Joseph Guarnerius in Cremona in 1706. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.65.181 (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The vandalism in the article has been reverted. As far as the other information you have given above is concerned, the place to suggest improvements is on the article's talk page, but you will need to provide published reliable sources that can be used as references to satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Murray

Resolved

--BwB (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There is some offensive text at the top of your Andy Murray page just after the initial introductory text. Please remove this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.7.170 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully ClueBot NG, our faithful automatic-vandalism-reverter, seems to have rapidly dealt with this, and the person responsible blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Wrongtom

Sorry, can't deal with this, just funny, spurious nonsense about this DJ remixer that has been on-wiki since 2007. Please can some sensible heads decide if the guy meets GNG, he's recently remixed a whole Roots Manuva album[6].
Does he pass musicbio, or is it BLP1E and you're out? Too involved and still laughing, at least stub it to something reasonable, or has Wikipedia merged with Uncyclopaedia? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If that amuses you, I would suggest you have some growing up to do before you should be editing an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sucks thumb and looks on sullenly

Only trying to help, someone posted it to Facebook and it was only on reading the extract a second time (and laughing) that I clocked it was from his wiki article, but I did mean the article as a whole and the general tone which is very unencyclopaedic.

~~And what's not funny about massive wangs :=)~~ CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of the fluff, which doesn't leave a lot. I've sent it to AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know where to start and was rather admirative at this rather fine piece of surreal, peurile writing, which obviously doesn't belong on WP. Had a quick look last night but couldn't find a lot to establish a reasonable level of notability, I'll have a dig and visit the AfD. Can you post the link to the discussion, cheers. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 09:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's linked in my post above. There's also a link in the page history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Wrongtom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - * {{lafd|add the article title here}} - Youreallycan 10:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry 'crosseyed and painless'. Will check it out. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Wildmon

The beginning of the entry is "...is a piece of shit, hatemonger...."

This may be true; but is probably not appropriate. Maybe if they cited examples. Just found it unusual for Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.169.247 (talk • contribs)

Already removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Prem Rawat

An editor has inserted seven links to four self published websites on the talk page that attack Prem Rawat and contain contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced.[7] I have removed it once but it was reinserted. I would appreciate an impartial editor to enforce BLP.Momento (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page that this issue has been taken here. I can be fairly aggressive about enforcing BLP (in this instance WP:BLPSPS), even on talk pages, but in this instance I'm not sure I'd remove the section as it's a list of improper sources rather than a direct attack on the subject. In addition, removing other editor's comments because of claimed BLP violations can be controversial if it's not egregious.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat needs a permanent entry on this noticeboard, alas. Collect (talk) 13

26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually the topic has been pretty quiet for over a year, until just recently. Will Beback talk 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Shahina Siddiqui

Find sources: "Shahina Siddiqui" – news · books · scholar · free images

I recently stumbled upon ~~a blatant copyvio~~ in this BLP and removed it. Then I took another look at the rest of the article and thought it could use input from BLP regulars. The article currently focuses on two unsuccessful legal complaints by the subject. I'm not sure if any of it meets BLP standards. And though they've gained some regional coverage, I'm not convinced either event is noteworthy. Any opinions? JFHJr (㊟) 05:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Now I realize I was likely looking at a wiki mirror. What I removed was, in any event, a large swath of uncited material tagged at addition. Anyhow, what say ye about the rest? JFHJr (㊟) 05:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Sheila Taormina

The following need verifiable citation or must be deleted:

"Sheila handed her gold medal to her twin brother after becoming the olympics champion, and he dropped it to the floor and some parts of it are rotten." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.129.88 (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It was vandalism, I've removed it. January (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Dregen

Hi there, I am a Wikipedia novice, but this article ("Dregen") appears to have had a press release/promotional biography copied and pasted into its body. It reads like an advertisement and lacks citation. N.B. the section headed "Biography". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.148.141 (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I took out the whole bio section for all of the reasons you mentioned; I'm going to look at it later more carefully to see if the person is actually notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] John Fleming (U.S. politician)

Wondering if anyone is available to take a look through Dr Fleming's article and see that it's balanced and appropriate? I've had a couple of complaints come in to the WMF about it. Thanks! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems reasonably balanced. However the last section may possibly give undue weight to a recent relatively minor incident, so minor that I'd hardly classify it as an "incident". It was removed by an IP, but then restored. See [8]. The incident is in no way defamatory, but could be slightly embarassing. It's referenced to Politico and was also picked up by UPI, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post all citing Politico as the source. It probably should be considerably pared down. This is especially so since the article discusses nothing about him after the 2010 campaign and then abrubtly devotes a whole section to this news snippet from three days ago. Voceditenore (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the onion section - as, undue weight to trivia. Youreallycan 17:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's sensible. Voceditenore (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It was replaced by User:Goethean without any discussion - I removed it again as undue weight to trivia and left him a note linking to this discussion thread. Youreallycan 19:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The incident received extensive media coverage in Time magazine, The Boston Globe, New York Daily News, New York magazine, International Business Times, The Advocate, The Hill, CBS News. For Wikipedia to elide the incident would be distinctly odd. — goethean ॐ 20:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

can you say "slow news day"? the "story" has no legs. it is a complete blip in the life and career and importance and impact of the subject of the article. each of those pieces of coverage is simply the exact same content of the UPI story with the paragraphs cut and re-arranged. it has no place in the article. 75.73.44.170 (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If it were sourced only to the Onion itself, I could see the point about trivia and undue. But given the sources presented by Goethean, I think it's appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As most recently edited, the heading had been removed, which effectively put this item under the "2010 campaign" heading, which I would think anyone would agree is nonsensical. I moved it to the "House of Representatives" section and gave it a subheading simply because I didn't see any other way to place the info in the article that wouldn't look weird. (If anyone wanted to write something about what this guy has actually been doing since elected besides the two incidents in which he's been widely mocked, it would presumably help the article appear "balanced" and place less emphasis on those incidents, relieving the WP:UNDUE concerns.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't see anywhere to put it - and as a header I was only getting trivia or facebook comments - the header the onion incident is just more satire - its not an incident at all, and as we are requested not to add trivia sections, the trivia it should be even in the article, so I was in two minds - and he mistook a satirical article as if a not satirical one and it was pointed out to him and he removed in - what trivial newsy nonsense. If you insist on including it, I think Facebook comments is a better header. Youreallycan 22:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Brinker

Some very contentious statements in this article. 132.170.89.68 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)yankhadenuf

Please be more specific. --BwB (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy in action at Callista Gingrich!

See Talk:Callista_Gingrich#.22Third_wife.22 - please all folks with in interest in BLPs come help discuss whether she should be "third wife" or "married" to Newt in the lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Schuette

Was filled with biased information, and comments like gets a kick out of hurting sick people. Was edited today by myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjohnsteak (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your removal of some material was appropriate. However, what you added (about his win in Michigan) needs a cite. As an aside, Ballotpedia is not a reliable site (it's a wiki).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Hassan

Monica Pignotti is a user who has been focused on the Steven Hassan page. We have found out that Monica is actually in a real life dispute with Hassan [9]. She is specifically interested in inserting criticism into his article over his fees where she also posted his phone number as well as his methods. These include inserting her personal commentary: rephrasing the practice as "manipulative" in such a way that it does not appear in the original source. I'd like someone more experienced with BLP than I am to take a look at this.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing about the paragraph of criticism I inserted that violates any of Wikipedia's rules. I inserted correctly cited material from a published edited volume by widely recognized cult experts who disagree with Mr. Hassan. Coffeepusher appears to be intent on having all criticism of Mr. Hassan deleted from the article, which would result in an unbalanced article that contains only favorable material about Mr. Hassan. It is my understanding that it is desirable for Wikipedia articles to be balanced which means including criticism. The original source does express concerns about Mr. Hassan's approach resulting in manipulation. Various forms of the word "manipulate" are used repeatedly in the source material I cited. If the form of the word "manipulative" is a problem, I would be glad to change it to "manipulation" or "manipulativeness" both of which were used. I did not include "personal commentary". I paraphrased the source material because the moderator asked me not to quote directly. What we're talking about now is a very short paragraph describing the article.

Here is one example of a direct quote from the material in question (the Clark et al reference in the article):

"Hassan...says that our critique exaggerates the manipulativeness of his approach." (p. 175) So here you can see clearly that even Steve Hassan interpreting their writings as accusing him of being manipulative. I did not invent this word. It is used repeatedly throughout the article.

Some of the material that comes up on a Google search of my name and Hassan's, but the way are false, defamatory postings about both me and Steve Hassan. We were never in any kind of romantic relationship, as some of the postings state. These postings were part of a highly defamatory internet smear campaign against me that was perpetrated against me. Hassan and I merely have differences of opinion on the topic of cults.

The reference to the fees posting was something that occurred much earlier and has nothing to do with the present dispute. I did not originate his phone number -- it was publicly posted on his website in relation to his fees so I did not violate any kind of privacy, as Coffeepusher appears to be implying.MonicaPignotti (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify what Coffeepusher is objecting to, here is the latest version of the paragraph in question:

"In Recovery from Cults, David Clark, Carol Giambalvo, Noel Giambalvo, Kevin Garvy, and Michael Langone have written about Steve Hassan's approach to exit counseling.[26] They say that "...Hassan runs the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework's foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the client."[26] Their central comment is that Hassan's approach is said to "effect" change without the cult-involved person's prior approval and is hence, risks manipulating the client, whereas in contrast, Clark et al.'s informational approach "invites" change."

The phone number was a direct quote from his website and involved an edit that was made two and a half years ago in order to provide an update, since earlier some other author had posted his fees in the Wikipedia article which were no longer posted on his website. MonicaPignotti (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

actually this is not a continuation of the content dispute, that is going on on the talk page and I have let you and Will figure that one out.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone who is in a dispute with a person in real life should not be editing that persons biography - at all. This is straight and basic conflict of interest. You are more than welcome to edit wikipedia MonicaPignotti, but please don't edit articles where you have a personal stake - it compromises the integrity of the encyclopedia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no "personal stake". I simply disagree with Mr. Hassan on a professional level, but I did not insert any of my own disagreements into the article. I merely inserted and quoted from a published reference.MonicaPignotti (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A google suggest that you have worked to get his license revoked which would of course more than a professional disagreement. In any case just like COI doesn't allow you to edit biographies about yourself it also doesn't allow you to edit article about people with whom you are in a public disagreement. It doesn't really matter whether the particular edits were not your own arguments. I am sure you wouldn't like Steve Hassan to edit your biography either. If the biography needs sourced criticism then someone who is less personally involved in the topic will provide it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That statement is completely false. I never worked to get his "license revoked". That post you will notice is anonymous and made as part of a highly defamatory smear campaign against me. This was made by the same anonymous poster who said I had sex with Hassan, which is also completely false. I hope you understand that not everything posted on the internet is true. I am curious, though, whether the same rule applies to the "personal stake" of Steve Hassan's supporters who are obviously working very hard to keep all criticism out of the article. No problem, though, there are plenty of other places on the internet where I can and will post this well referenced criticism and there is nothing Mr. Hassan and his supporters can do to censor that.MonicaPignotti (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I realize that not necessarily all of that which is found in a google search is correct - the sher volume of the hits suggests that this is not just a professional dispute but some kind of larger dispute - quite possibly including one or more smear campaigns. The only way that ikipedia can hope to guard against becoming a vehicle for smear campaigns is by restrict the acces to adding negative information about living peope to persons who are not too close to the topic. For the same reson we don't allow editors to quote their own publications or edit their on biographies.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

so your purpose was to insert criticism of Hassan into the article and elsewhere on the internet?Coffeepusher (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No, with regard to the article, my purpose was to give the mostly positive article, some balance. That is supposed to be what Wikipedia is all about. With regard to the internet, my purpose is to help people be good mental health consumers by providing them with accurate information about mental health professionals and their practices. I have been completely up front posting under my real name. Would you be willing do disclose what your relationship is with Steve Hassan?MonicaPignotti (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You can go back to Mr. Hassan and report to him that he can thank you for giving me a great idea for my next blog article which will be a full, in depth discussion of the Clark et al chapter I referenced. I'm sure he'll be very grateful to you for giving me the idea.MonicaPignotti (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

for your first question no problem, funny story really. I found an edit on the Rick Ross (consultant) page that used religious freedom watch as a source. As religious freedom watch is a Scientology front group it does not qualify as a WP:RS so I deleted the entry and went to the talk page to discuss it. On the talk page the other editor mentioned questionable criticism on the Steve Hassan page which led me to your edits. Now if you look at my contributions you will notice that these are the only two people related to counselling that I have edited in my last 500 edits. I have no "relationship" with Steve Hassan or with cult exit counselling...or really with cults for that matter. I edit wikipedia. As for your second question outside of the phone number you have provided I have no idea how to contact Hassan and best of luck on your blog.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The criticism I cited was far from "questionable" and it was properly referenced. The authors are widely recognized cult experts. Michael Langone even has his own Wikipedia bio page and has far higher credentials than Hassan (a PhD as opposed to Hassan's Masters in Counseling and unlike Hassan, Langone has actually conducted research and has had it published in peer reviewed journals). In any case, there are likely to be future publications criticizing Hassan as I have a few of my own peer reviewed ones in the works. Hopefully some "neutral" person editing Wikipedia will cite these when published and they won't be suppressed.MonicaPignotti (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I will be happy to insert information from any peerrevieed publication relevant to Steve Hassan that I am made aware of. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I will say - that biography is overtly promotional, with bloated and exaggerated importance, and likely created or expanded by conflicted editor/s. Youreallycan 13:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I do know based on discussions on his former list serv, that Hassan has encouraged his supporters to contribute to his page and based on its tone, I suspect they have. That is why I was attempting to add some balance. In any case, I want to be sure I understand COI with regard to living person pages. Would that mean that ex-Scientologists who have spoken out against Scientology could not edit a page on David Micavige, Scientology's current leader? I ask since I am an ex-Scientologist who has spoken out against it and would like to know if that means I (or other Scientology defectors)should not edit David Miscavige's page.MonicaPignotti (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC).

Your question implies a specious argument. You could be a Scientologist and edit an article about Scientology (or the opposite). You could be gay and edit an article about a homophobe. All this assuming you are neutral in your edits, cite to reliable sources, etc. What's much more problematic is when you have a private dispute with a particular person and edit that person's article. In that situation, you should stay away from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Paya

(The information in the last para of Ali Paya is inaccurate and appears to have been written by someone who has a grudge against Mr Paya.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.53.2 (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Undue section removed by User:Youreallycan. Dru of Id (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Viggo Stoltenberg-Hansen

Find sources: "Viggo Stoltenberg-Hansen" – news · books · scholar · free images

The section "Supervision, Mentoring, and Lecturing" appears to be highly subjective, and to lack appropriate sources. Revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.37.43 (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The article currently has no sources about this person. Notability? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Shabby as the article may be, the first two hits at the scholar link lead me to assume this subject would most likely pass WP:PROFESSOR criterion 1 (note 1). In aggregate, the rest of the results there also indicate he's relatively notable. JFHJr (㊟) 00:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea to find at least one source that is actually about this person: otherwise we have nothing to verify his existence let alone the most basic biographical details. To establish WP:PROFESSOR 1 you need to demonstrate "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". That is, sources that discuss his work as such. Note 1 refers to numerous citations of his work. I don't currently see any of that in the article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Football Association of Indonesia

I am not very familiar with either the Indonesian language or with soccer, but I found this article to be full of unreferenced claims of criminality and malfeasance by living persons in the organizations which organize and control the sport there. I have tagged some of the claims regarding Nurdin Halid and "Eli Cohen," as needing references, but I cannot read the local language press to find reliable sourcing, and I hesitate to remove statements that might be sourceable by someone fluent in the language. "World Football Insider," a website, is referenced at one spot, but I'm not sure it constitutes a reliable source to satisfy WP:BLP. A closely related article is Nurdin Halid, which has numerous statements that he is infamous, involved in criminal cases, corrupt, and jailed multiple times. These claims are referenced first to a broken link (present ref 2 of the Halid article) to a publication called Kompas, March 23, 1999. Then there are statements of convictions or prosecutions for other crimes ref'd by non-English publications, which does not violate BLP but which bear checking by someone fluent in the Indonesian language. There is one English language article in Kompas, a newspaper website, from March 10 2011 which verifies some of the claims, but does not substantiate all the negative statements in the two articles. Some help would be appreciated from someone fluent in Indonesian to check the refs and make sure all negative BLP statements in the two articles conform to policy and have adequate refs to reliable sources. Edison (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Militant atheism

I'm concerned that numerous editors have been reinstating content at Militant atheism that defamatory to numerous living people. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that groups can be covered by BLP unless there are specific named individuals either referred to in the article or so unusually closely associated with a group that a statement about the group could reasonably be understood by the majority of readers as a statement about a specific individual. Is that the case here? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case here. There are four or five prominent people associated with "New Atheism", all but one of whom are living. They stand to be defamed by the terse pronouncement in this disambiguation page. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would caution individuals reading this noticeboard to see the pending report against User:Jweiss11 as well as read the following paragraph. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The report against against me is nothing more another facet, in addition to issue I've raised here, of a disgusting, inappropriate, biased, conservative push by Anupam and others. It has no place on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘There is no mention of Militant atheism at the New Atheism article, a situation which I think is correct, since the term is derogatory only, not encyclopedic. With no cited explanation, New Atheism cannot be listed as a dab link at Militant atheism. Binksternet (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Without a named individual it is hardly a BLP issue. The "P" is BLP refers to person. Groups don't qualify. If groups did equate to persons then this board would be terabytes in size. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as small, identifiable groups are concerned, it remains a BLP concern. Compare "the Bush Family" or "the Kennedys", or "The Right Brothers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Has the maximum size of a "small group" ever been set on Wikipedia? Collect (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Martin (comedian)

This article is the subject of an OTRS complaint. I'd appreciate it if experienced editors here could add it to their watchlists and keep an eye on it. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)