Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Report a possible biographies of living persons violation

What this noticeboard is for: 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.

Peter Julio Grout

Peter Grout (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I believe Peter Grout has retired.

I am not aware that he was ever a Reader at Oxford and he never was a Fellow of Universty College, Oxford - he merely had an external appointment to teach some maths to chemists at the college. I believe he was a university lecturer without affiliation.

The "Grout Group" would extend to a couple of doctoral students over a period of twenty-three years...so the statement in the biogrhy could be technically correct but somewhat misleading.

All material should be readily verifiable from University sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.69.253 (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed material not supported by a citation. Is this person notable? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't reckon so. I couldn't find much better sourcing, so I've left a template and comment at the talk page. JFHJr (㊟) 04:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've WP:PRODded the article. JFHJr (㊟) 18:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Charles A. Hurley

Charles A. Hurley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article appears to be a concatenation of mentions in refs of two different people. I am first and foremost concerned that this article may amount to an implicit Wikipedia:Attack page, in the context of the current US Presidential candidate nomination process. The notability of these two persons is also a concern, and a no less important BLP concern.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: this article has been WP:PRODded. JFHJr (㊟) 04:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And deprodded. The "Chuck Hurley" mentioned in the context of Rick Santorum is an Iowa evangelical and clearly another Chuck Hurley to the former CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I think the former MADD CEO is notable, I'm working on expanding the article. Babies, bathwater. Fences&Windows 19:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Alveda King

Alveda King (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

IN the abortion section, instead of one making a statement followed by another statement or example offering differing information in a second sentence, the paragraph use the word "but" to suggestcontentious inaccuracy. Sentences need to be re-written to assure accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.130.11 (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand. There are two abortion-related sections, and I assume you mean "Abortions" (the first), since the other doesn't contain the word "but." I read it a few times and didn't strike me as problematic. I even gave her talk a listen, memorialized on youtube (WP:RS?), which seemed pretty accurate. If you like, you could make the changes you'd like to see, leaving an edit summary explaining how they're closer to what the cited source actually says, if that's the case. Follow up here if there's a better way to improve the article. JFHJr (㊟) 05:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Subtle, plausible vandalism may be the most pernicious kind. Consider the biography of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, current head of the Democratic National Committee. Her mother's name is Ann Wasserman, and her father's is Larry Wassserman. Several times in recent days, the claim has been added that her mother is actually Diana Wasserman-Rubin, who is on trial on political corruption charges. Also, that her stepfather is Richard Rubin, who is in prison on a conviction for tax evasion. The result of the vandalism has been negative press coverage of Wikipedia in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in an article called Wasserman-WHAT? Wikipedia claims Wasserman-Rubin and Wasserman Schultz are mother-daughter. I've added the article to my watch list and encourage other editors to do so as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to warn everyone: I clicked on that link because I was curious. A few seconds later, an audio file started playing, which led immediately thereafter to my computer crashing, and hard. I don't believe I've had a crash this hard in the 14 months that I've had this thing. Disclaimer - I really don't know if your experience will be the same or if the audio file was the reason for the crash. Just wanted to say something just in case.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Vernon Davis

Vernon Davis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

there are many things in this article that are not fact, but just opinion. for instance it says davis "vaulted into the group of elite tight ends". this isn't a fact, as what is elite differs from person to person. my opinion is that in the playoff game last weekend, davis paid money to malcolm jenkins to let him abuse jenkins all game long. i wouldnt be allowed to post this on here because it isnt fact. davis being elite cant be allowed either, as it is not a provable fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.181.189 (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears the language you describe has been removed. You're right about not being able to insert opinion willy nilly. The other side of that coin is that if you spot undue praise or criticism that isn't supported by a reliable source, you can remove it yourself. JFHJr (㊟) 05:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

E.R. Braithwaite - correction of birth date

Resolved: Sourced. JFHJr (㊟) 04:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

E. R. Braithwaite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

E. R. Braithwaite was born on June 27, 1912. The current Wikipedia article has him born June 27, 1920. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.99.197 (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have linked your comment to the article to aid discussion. Dru of Id (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Both years appear in ostensibly reliable sources. I've modified the lead in the article, and cited one source describing both dates reported. JFHJr (㊟) 04:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nenad Puhovski

We have a situation at the biography of Nenad Puhovski, a notable Croatian film director, one that involves the person themselves, and it's been going on for a while now, so I wanted to bring it up here.

Nenad Puhovski seems to have registered User:Npuhovs1 and wrote their biography article themselves in 2005, and also edited it later. Then,

• In July 2010 User:Eversman added a note to the biography how the director is "Jewish". [1] The reference used is an article in a Croatian weekly that I'll bring up later.
• On December 9, 2010, Eversman puts Jewish into the lead section. [2]
• December 18, 2010, NP corrects the early life section to say "partly Jewish", without edit summary. [3] The reference was kept.
• December 19, Eversman reverts the "partly", no edit summary either. [4]
• January 13, 2011, NP removes the whole sentence and reference. [5] Eversman undoes the edit. [6]
• I noticed NP and asked them about their identity at User talk:Npuhovs1, but they didn't respond.
• January 18, 2011 NP does it again, [7] Eversman undoes it again asking for a source [8]
• February 3, NP removes it all again, [9] The same day, the article gets tagged and speedily deleted by unrelated users explicitly claiming WP:COI.
• In June 2011, the article is re-created by a new user.
• June 4, an anonymous user re-adds the same Jewish claim and reference. [10]
• June 9, two anonymous users add and revert more Jewish stuff [11] [12]
• January 5, 2012, User:Inoslav Bešker removes the said claim again. [13] Eversman again continues the same edit war
• We finally start discussing it at Talk:Nenad Puhovski, where you can see the whole argument. Long story short, Puhovski got abused in real life because of some Jewish ancestry, was interviewed about it and said that he doesn't think it is actually more important than his other ancestries. The interview was published with a broken title, one that implies he said he was a Jew, which he didn't. Now, this half-truth/misrepresentation has been propagated elsewhere, including an LA Times commentary noticed by an anonymous account that makes edits like Eversman, adding that claim and source to the article [14]
• Inoslav Bešker extensively complained to my talk page [15] [16] He happens to be a notable Croatian journalist, and he told me, among other things, that he was recently told by Nenad Puhovski in real life that he had this problem on Wikipedia, which in turn prompted him to make his edits.
• In the latest set of edits at Nenad Puhovski, anonymous IP edits were also used to make User:Eversman's point

I fully recognize the value of accurately reporting various factoids in biographies, and it is verifiable that the person in question has Jewish ancestry and that fact is made somewhat notable by the fact it has been mentioned in reliable sources. I also recognize that NP and IB have not acted in a proper manner by failing to explain their edits early, which made them look for a long time like pure advocacy, conflict-of-interest censorship and/or vandalism.

But, the way the story has unfolded clearly makes it look like Wikipedia is making a point to point out and exaggerate this factoid to levels that are clearly offending the living person who is the subject of this biography. Now this looks like exactly the kind of abuse that the WP:BLP policy was meant to prevent.

User:Eversman seems to have made a point to emphasize this person's Jewish ancestry. This is a a practice he employed in other Wikipedia biographies too, and I had noticed it much earlier, but didn't complain because it seemed to be harmless. However, I think they have completely failed to understand the distinction between BLPs and other biographies, and how it relates to sourcing. They have continued to stubbornly insist that the article includes a bit of information that misrepresents the living person's position. This kind of advocacy is most unhelpful and we could also fairly reasonably extend the restrictions of WP:ARBMAC to it. But I'm steering clear of that because they might still reasonably claim to have acted in good faith. I would appreciate it if another administrator reviewed this situation.

As for the article, I think that at a minimum we need to move to a more neutral phrasing, like the one I tried to do with this edit, and definitely try to establish some sort of consensus that doesn't exacerbate the whole WP:BLP violation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, given that the source now cited states that Puhovski is of Jewish, Polish, Hungarian, Albanian, Italian and Croatian descent, and given that none of this seems to be in any way relevant to his career, I can see no particular reason to mention his ancestry at all, and emphasising the Jewish part of it almost certainly violates WP:BLP policy. If Croat Nationalists (or whoever) want to make a point, they can do it somewhere else: Wikipedia isn't a forum for propaganda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Puhovski's quoted statement ("Ponovno mi prijete da će me ubiti jer sam Židov") seems to imply that he is a Jew, because he could have implied otherwise by stating it in a slightly different way ("Ponovno mi prijete da će me ubiti jer da sam Židov"). This is, however, a finesse easily lost in less formal speech, and, of course, in newspaper headlines.

Oh, I beg to differ - that is not his statement that was quoted. That's simply that newspaper article title, which is usually made up by the newspaper editor and tailored for conciseness and effect. The fact that it appears in single quotes is not proof he said it verbatim. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Since his supposed Jewish descent has zero relevance for his biography as it is presented in the article, and since the subject is clearly uncomfortable with this bit of information appearing there, I'd agree with AndyTheGrump and simply cut it out. Introduction of his descent from other ethnicities does appear to balance the issue somewhat, but is not really useful, for more or less the same reason. GregorB (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "…emphasising the Jewish part of it almost certainly violates WP:BLP policy." What part of policy would be violated? Please quote the relevant policy language. Bus stop (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I resent and find it very offensive that some users are exploiting this question to encourage a story of Croatian nationalism, when in fact one does not exist regarding this issue. I am not a nationalist, I am a Croatian Patriot of Jewish descent. So don't talk about nationalism where there is none. My only sin is that in all my edits, about Croatian Jews and Croatian people of Jewish descent, I have and I am trying to stress the magnitude and significance of the Jewish merits in the Croatian past and present. Fact is, Mr. Puhovski declared himself as a Jew and later a person of Jewish descent, on several occasions. If Mr. Puhovski is ashamed or afraid of his ancestry, then why would he make them public? So what is the problem here? The problem is that Croatian journalist who lives in Italy, Mr. Besker, denies these statements and calls them racist statements. WTF? Mr. Besker is trying to portray today's Croatia as anti-Semitic country, where people are forced to hide their ancestry while they live in fear for their lives. This is utter nonsense and a lie, work of a malicious person. As a half Jew(from my mother side, which by Jewish law makes me 100% Jewish) I have never experienced a fear for my life because of my ancestry. In every country there is Antisemitism, but on this issue today's Croatia is no worse than UK or United States. That is a fact. I would also like to know how emphasizing someone ancestry violates BLP policy? If that was the truth, then you could start reediting 99% biographies of living persons on the Wikipedia. P.s. And if Mr. Besker would like to know my real name, he can contact me since he stressed that he doesn't act hidden by the nickname. Well Mr. Besker I also have nothing to hide.--Eversman (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You have no problem calling yourself "a half-Jew", but you should also have no problem accepting that a person who has been abused for it does have a problem with it. In a biography of a living person, a documented abuse victim, what is the point in using such language and edit-warring? Their right not to be misrepresented trumps your right to advocate your point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Joy—you say "Their right not to be misrepresented trumps your right to advocate your point." I don't think indicating a Jewish identity equates with misrepresentation. That the subject of the biography "has been abused for it" is really not all that surprising given the prevalence of antisemitism in the world in general. I think the Jewish identity of the subject of the biography is well-sourced. Furthermore Jewish identity does not correspond in all ways to nationality. I think you make a reasonably good edit here. I would simply separate that into two sentences, allowing the allusion to a Jewish identity to be asserted in its own sentence, followed by a sentence identifying national affinities. Let me just add that we would be expected to exercise caution if Jewish identity implied that the person had a "poor reputation", a term we find at WP:BLPCAT. Concerning Categorization we find: "Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light)." But Jewish identity is not negative in any way—it is a wholesome attribute of identity. This information is available elsewhere. I'm not clear on the reason we should be eliminating it from our biography. Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Barlondo

I am fighting a losing battle over reliable sourcing of the Sarah Barlondo article. My requests for sources other than imdb and articles about the shows she's in keep getting removed. Help? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed much of the information from the article that is unsourced. The article needs inline citations instead of relying on a list of references (all foreign and some of dubious reliability). I've posted a note about what I did on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Those sources are very reliable , why do they keep being removed ? Same when I write she is ALSO a model,singer,tv host . It keeps being removed . I speak Spanish and I can tell you the sources are NO dubious reliability . Why do you write an article on the Talk page if you can modify the reference list? I dont understand. IMDB is perfectly reliable as well and there is her biography there , her website as well says a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniman22 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, IMDB is not reliable for her biography. Search archives at WP:RSN for more information. What other sources exactly state that she's a model and TV host? I saw singer in one listed reference, actually. JFHJr (㊟) 06:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Lamar Smith

Lamar S. Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Stop Online Piracy Act (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Perhaps you've heard of him, the primary sponsor of a little-known piece of obscure legislation called the Stop Online Piracy Act. The following text about Mr. Smith presently appears in that article, and I'd like assurances that the cited sources meet BLP quality requirements, and that the text is appropriate for the article and properly supported:

In January 2012, bloggers using Wayback Machine claimed that Smith's own campaign website had apparently used a copyright protected image without attributing it to the photographer who took it. Time noted, "It doesn’t seem like a huge violation, but that’s the point; if SOPA passes, who knows how minor infractions like this will be handled."Time.com, The Atlantic Wire.com In a prepared statement that acknowledged no wrongdoing, Smith's campaign staff said that the contractor who created the website had been replaced in October by "a company that assures all images are properly used." Smith said, "If we should have had permission, then the independent contractor should have done that. We cannot check on everything the independent contractor does."chron.com

On a related note, can we convey in Wikipedia's voice that Mr. Smith is ironically guilty of copyright violation? I know he hasn't admitted as much, but it's rather obvious, isn't it? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud... It's bad enough that Wikipedia threw out any claim to objectivity by linking to the article on SOPA during the protest (no chance it would be a fair presentation if it's used during a political advocacy stunt) but now people are trying to insert that POV into more articles. Mere bloggers aren't reliable sources. Personal opinions of editors about what is ironic and not are not allowed in articles. There may be a mainstream source out there, but it seems to be WP:UNDUE to talk about it, unelss we want to just give up all rpetense and change the name of the site to AntiSOPApedia. DreamGuy (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The artist created one of the images specifically in protest against SOPA and PIPA. Oh, Hello Xenophrenic, are you the one who keeps putting the word 'Expert' into the article, over and over and over and over and over and over again no matter how many times your told it's a peacock term ? is that you ? Penyulap _talk 21:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Smith appears to be attempting to excuse it by saying that it's second-hand infringement -- a type of infringement that the courts often seem more than willing to prosecute in instances of P2P networks. And I wouldn't consider Forbes[17] to be a 'mere blogger'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The foundation and the wikipedia project has a stated activist position against this living person so NPOV is never going to happen is it. The project has a stated position against him. So, you want to say in wikipedia's voice that he is a copyright violator - hilarious. The projects activist opposition to him asserts the project has a bias against him and as such BLP suggests wikipedia should not be hosting an article about him. Youreallycan 17:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, "the foundation and the wikipedia project" leadership does not edit Lamar S. Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- we do. So their views don't taint the neutrality of that article unless we allow them to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The foundation and en wikipedia has lost all chance of attempting to claim NPOV in regards to this living person. Youreallycan 18:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the material. It's unreliably sourced and poorly worded. Even the Forbes cite is to an opinion piece that baldly states Smith is "guilty".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

How much coverage has this issue had in the mainstream media? It seems to me to fall firmly into 'undue' territory if it hasn't been seen as significant elsewhere. And we certainly can't accuse Smith of copyright infringement in our own voice, regardless of how 'obvious' we may think it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, since there doesn't appear to be any objection, we're going to expand the Lamar Smith Copyvio section in the SOPA article to 4 paragraphs and give it its own header. We'll cite the originating blog, state affirmatively that a copyright violation by Lamar exists, and we should include statements from the photographer that was victimized. HERE is a rough draft. We're also going to pretty it up with full-color pictures (with permission, of course!) of the stolen image and a "protest" version from the artist, just as soon as we can get this small technicality cleared up. It should be properly sourced now, with proper context and weight concerns addressed, and should be quite informative to readers of the SOPA article. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get "there doesn't appear to be any objection" from? You have yet to produce evidence that this issue has been given significant coverage elsewhere - and without that it is totally undue. Furthermore, under no circumstances must Wikipedia assert that there was a copyright violation until this has been affirmed in a court of law. Now get off your soapbox and do something useful instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's correct but missing the point. "X said Y". Wikipedia isn't saying "this was a violation" in its own voice. Reliable sources are saying it was a violation and we're reporting the fact. Same as "The US Government says Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization" or any other view where we have attributed a source rather than use Wikipedia's voice - WP:NPOV. If other significant reliable sources say "this was not a copyright violation" NPOV would require we balance using view too. Have they? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic is talking about the SOPA article, not the Smith article, which doesn't make it any less problematic. And who is "we"?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This type of editing and users that want to use wikipedia for their own activism is going to grow and grow. Wikipedia is the new online equivalent of the anonomouse occu-pie movement. NPOV is dead, the foundations POV, and any protest group that turns up is is the new position to edit articles towards. Youreallycan 19:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Although I understand your point about SOPA and the Wikipedia blackout, at the same time, activist editors are a recurring theme on Wikipedia, so, in that sense, this is nothing new. Also, I think it would be more reasonable just to focus on the issues with the Smith and any related articles rather than addressing the broader implications as to the encyclopedia generally (that would be better addressed in a different forum).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

More activists will come now. Wikipedia is now known to be a place that supports activism. Yes, your right though, its a broader issue. -In fact its not even an issue anymore its a historic fact. Youreallycan 20:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Along comes YRC with another soapbox... Can we please stay on topic. As a point of information, I supported the blackout, and am quite capable of discussing this without engaging in hyperbole. We already have policies regarding weight, relevance etc, and this issue should be treated like any other. Anyone incapable of doing that shouldn't be involving themselves in the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The only serious "objection" I've seen is that an editor deleted related content from Smith's BLP on the grounds that it was "unreliably sourced, poorly worded"; surely the wording and sources now in the SOPA article addressed that. Would there be any objections if I cut-&-pasted the content from the SOPA article to the Smith BLP? (I assume if it meets BLP standards on one page, it should be fine on all Wikipedia pages.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I would object to the change to the Smith article. I think we need more input on the material in the SOPA article, and it's not correct that material that is acceptable in one article is necessarily acceptable in a different article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really - we often remove content from a BLP to another location where is is less weighty and less accessed and as such less of a violation. Why do you want to post exactly the same thing in multiple locations? Which section is it in the SOPA article? Please can you provide a link to the content you want to cut and copy into the BLP. thanks - Youreallycan 19:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what objections are 'serious'. If you do as you have stated, I will remove it as a violation of WP:BLP (which incidentally is exempt from WP:3RR), and report you to ANI for edit warring. We are discussing the issue here, and I expect a response to my questions regarding weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have removed the relevant section from the SOPA article too, as a violation of WP:BLP. We cannot assert that Smith violated copyright without a reliable source that says the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

−

(ec)I'll add my opposition to adding this content to Smith's page. Even in the SOPA page, I not entirely comfortable with it. Irony is sweet, but not necessarily encyclopedic. If the national press decides to make some hay with it, then we should re-evaluate. The Interior (Talk) 20:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Before Andy busts a seam, let's step this back a little. Let's start with this section on Smith:

Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Mist_lifting_off_Cedars

Same content and information, with sourcing and weight concerns addressed, no? It just needs a couple informative images added, but that is being worked on. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see the content that is User:Xenophrenic's desired addition to this BLP. - I absolutely oppose that desired addition. It has almost nothing to do with him personally. Youreallycan 20:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even with the "response" article by the Houston Chronicle, I think the whole thing is much ado about nothing. To the extent it belongs in the SOPA article, it doesn't need its own section, and it could be handled in at most two sentences. It certainly shouldn't be expanded.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hello I'm a major contributor to the article, this convo is right not for me wp:too long. The images that got Mr Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) into so much hot water have now, at my request to the artist, been re-released under a license which allows their use on Wikipedia, so whilst you lot discuss this, I'll go off to other languages and spread these iconic images. Please ensure that the images remain on the article page would you ? thanks. Penyulap _talk 20:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I barely understand what you're saying (although it sounds crusader-like), but, with respect to this encyclopedia, what images in what article?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a link to the relevant section (with pictures now!), but it has been deleted ... no, wait ... it's back. Ooops, it's gone again. Wait... after that last revert, you should find it here:

Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Controversy_surrounding_.27Mist_lifting_off_Cedars.27

If you are fast, that is. It's been through a dozen reverts thus far, but 3RR should be suspended on such important matters. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

And the material remains OUT until there is a consensus for inclusion. At this point, the consensus is leaning toward exclusion. Also, WP:3RR is not "suspended" for "important matters". I suggest you read it before you violate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. To quote WP:3RR "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)" is exempt from 3RR. Note 'removal' - not 'addition'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's all over the news and English wikipedia can't string three words together.

DJ Schulte is the artists name, so Cntrl-F that in each.

[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

Or just google it. there are better ones out there. It reminds me of this quote ...

A wise editor invoked the image of a "Camel" (df=a horse assembled via committee). I think what happens at Wikipedia is more like the way you can get two or three editors to discuss a question and finish with 17 (wrong) answers.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{irrelevancies}<-Faux signature Penyulap _talk 21:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Gee, slowtwitch.com, I'm impressed - not to mention blogs, derivative sites, and the fact that you liked one so much you repeated it in the list.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I just took the first handful off google, you know, in case there was anyone completely incapable of using google themselves. Anyhow, when I have time, I'll try and help anyone who wants help to try to find one that's notable and complies with blp. Penyulap _talk 22:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

None of this trivia belongs in his BLP whatever citations you find - Its only minimally tangentially anything to to do with him at all. So, this is the BLP noticeboard - as long as you don't accuse him of copyright violations, or add any claims that he was involved in such acts and don't give it much weight you should try to add a sentence to the Stop Online Piracy Act article. In July 2011 Smiths campaign website run by Best campaign website corp was claimed to have hosted an unattributed picture without permission. Youreallycan 22:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to visit this page and comment by Youreallycan. As I'm not sure what I can say beyond what I said to him already this is a recap of my input from our discussion:

This news title specifically stated that Forbes identified the person as a hypocrite. That's no less quotable as something Forbes said than when the Daily Mail memorably declared Norris and Dobson to be "murderers" (1997) in the murder of Stephen Lawrence case. A headline is a reliable source for a plain statement that X said Y. In this case it's a reliable high-quality source that Forbes called the person a "hypocrite", and the rest of their entire article is completely dedicated to explaining why. The quotation marks are for the usual reason, because it's an actual quote of the specific term used.

This wasn't some random matter. It was discussed on at least 3 major, reputable news media - Time, Atlantic Wire, and Forbes - and a number of other reliable sources. In each case, it was directly commented on and considered as a reflection on or negative point to the man, not some unknown subordinates. It gained significant attention in that whole editorials focused on this one issue (ie not merely "in passing"). It was raised as a discussion point for, and in the context of, his sponsorship of PIPA, that his own office had used infringing material on his own website. Had it been deemed "minor" by the mainstream, sites like these would not have published whole articles on it using terms like "hypocritical" and in one case "stealing". "Hypocrite" is the milder of the two.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to comment, although of course you can - my request to you was just that as you are insistent in adding something about this to his BLP, that you please present your desired addition, and the citations that you want to support it with, here for discussion and evaluation. Youreallycan 00:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It seemed best to recap and present the actual concern first as I hadn't previously been linked to this thread and obviously discussion has taken place. You should have most of the sources already (I've given you the sites, Forbes is in the diff, Time and Atlantic Wire are linked above) and more aren't hard if really needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a link to our discussion would be fine - In our discussion you assert that an addition should be made to his BLP, can you present what you want to add here for discussion and evaluation? Youreallycan 00:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Linking to this thread made me aware that there are users who also see it similarly, which I hadn't known. Before weakening what consensus may feel to be correctly treated I'd like to avoid assuming. I would be fine considering if there's a better way to do it, to reassure you if I'm able, and I'll give it thought, but I'm also remaining more open given the above discussion, to the possibility that no NPOV/BLP issue actually exists with the wording as it stood. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So you support and want to replace your previous addition to his BLP? This was your, now removed addition and the citations you used to support it ...... Youreallycan 01:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In January 2012, it was determined that Smith's own website had used copyright infringing materials,

• - http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Admin+Declares+War+on+SOPA+SOPA+Author+Caught+Stealing+Work/article23783.htm
• - http://mashable.com/2012/01/12/sopa-sponsor/

described as "hypocritical" by Forbes.

• - http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/01/13/pipa-weakens-as-sopa-gets-hypocritical/

We're here to have more eyeballs, some have spoken, others not yet. Let's see what others say. If it helps, I posted my reasoning behind having used the Forbes article in the section below, mainly because the slightly separate but related issue was being discussed there whether a headline is capable of being significant or quotable in the first place. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Only a court can decide whether someone has infringed someone else's copyright.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(inserted text) For a court case to even take place, a plaintiff has to decide if copyright infringement has taken place and decide if they are able to, and willing to, proceed. Penyulap _talk 18:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

For someone to be liable for copyright infringement, someone has to sue. What's your point?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I also want to add, although I am one of the worst in such matters - the sentence doesn't make sense, and the comma is wrong, and the second part is unexplained from the first. "it was determined that Smith's own website had used copyright infringing materials, described as "hypocritical" by Forbes - what was described as hypocritical by forbes? Youreallycan 01:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Lamar Smith (2) - Quoting article titles

• - http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/01/13/pipa-weakens-as-sopa-gets-hypocritical/

Is this article title a reliable source to state that - Forbes called Smith a "hypocrite" - I have to state that imo it is not but User:FT2 insists it is? Youreallycan 22:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If it were the title alone, I think it would be inappropriate. But it's repeated within the prose:

It may sound silly, but it points out the realities of SOPA that almost any domain on the internet, even Smith’s own, could be taken down for good should it be found in violation of copyright. Hypocrisy in Congress is nothing new, but this is a particularly relevant example that deserves attention.

What about that bit? JFHJr (㊟) 23:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There is the journalistic license - it doesn't actually say Smith is a hypocrite just leads you around to thinking that it does and then it gets repeated as if it does. Youreallycan 23:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not use that source period. It's the same article that says, ""The second item of note is that SOPA author Sen. Lamar Smith (R-Tx) has himself been found guilty of violating copyright." Irresponsible journalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Very good point. I agree inclusion of "hypocrite" or the like per this source alone would present a BLP problem. Thanks for catching that rather wild claim. JFHJr (㊟) 23:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone that is calling Smith personally a hypocrite because a company employed by his campaign team to create a website inadvertently had an unattributed picture on it, is just not a neutral - basically , such assertions are partisan attacks. Smith had no involvement or personal responsibility in that at all. Youreallycan 23:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• (This is on the same issue as the above, but covers a specific point about it. Indenting as a subsection for clarity without changing the text) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As to use of a title, a newspaper is as reliablely sourced as its article. Remember, we're saying "the source says X" and undeniably the source has said X. In this case here is the matter:

• The article is titled "SOPA gets hypocritical"
• The article lead is a large image of Lamar
• The second paragraph is about Lamar
• The fourth paragraph states "The second item of note is that SOPA author Sen. Lamar Smith (R-Tx) has himself been found guilty of violating copyright" and cites the image author as stating permission was never given.
• Entire article is about Lamar's image
• Image is prominently pictured in the article
• Statement by image author denying permission given to Lamar is prominently shown
• Article's second-last paragraph references "Hypocrisy in Congress". There is nothing in the article this might reference except Lamar and the image.
• Article concludes that Lamar, as the "ringleader" for the bill, is being "exposed"
• "Hypocritical" is a strong word that is not used lightly
• The article is devoted to the one issue.
• There is nothing in the article that the headline or content "hypocrisy" might reference except the above
• The article is clearly intended to convey to the reader that the headline and content "hypocrisy" do refer to the above

Overall it is clear and plain reading that Forbes is making a statement that in its view Lamar is hypocritical - strongly so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't care how many bullet points you list. The Forbes article is irresponsible journalism and should not be used as a source for anything. I'm not going to pretend I have no editorial judgment just because Forbes is ostensibly a reliable source. We are not robots.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A source that states that "Sen. Lamar Smith (R-Tx) has himself been found guilty of violating copyright" is self-evidently not reliable for what it says about him. He hasn't been 'found guilty' of anything. There has been no trial... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can claim it's not a reliable source. The statement is sourced (and identified as an issue reflecting on Lamar) in high quality sources. Forbes and Time don't become unreliable low quality sources just because the topic is an individual - they remain examples of very high quality sources, and in my view high enough quality for a BLP citation.

That multiple reliable sources, all normally seen as very high quality, all covering it that way, shows strongly that this cannot be deemed an isolated case of "irresponsible journalism" at Forbes.

The question in this subsection is "did Forbes state that in its view, Lamar is hypocritical? I say the above shows they did. Do you have reasoning showing they didn't? If not, this subsection's closed and the question reverts, should we say they did, or that others said similar? That's being discussed above.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The idea that the government would prosecute Smith charging him with criminal infringement is laughable. As for civil infringement, one isn't guilty, one is liable, and it can be decided on summary judgment or after a trial. Regardless, Forbes doesn't get to decide anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Who's said they would. Red herring as the issue is whether Forbes did or didn't call him hypocritical.

Youreallycan opened this section with a specific question separate (though related) from the main BLP issue (under discussion above): "Is this article title a reliable source to state that - Forbes called Smith a "hypocrite"?"

I have explained why I think the answer is yes, the article is a reliable source for the statement "Forbes described Lamar Smith as 'hypocritical'." and that question is answered.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Forbes themselves don't even appear to have passed a comment - the author of the article is not Forbes - None of these sources can be described as high quality - they are all op eds and mostly partisan attacking in nature - This opinionated editing to attack living people using en wikipedia disgusts me, discussing it unendingly disgusts me, even more so when it is with experienced editors and administrators. Youreallycan 01:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

FT2, you're again asking me/us to ignore the rest of the article. As previously stated I don't know how many times, the journalist loses all credibility when he makes wild accusations of copyright "guilt". I don't believe that bringing up that point qualifies as a "red herring".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey I recognize that image in the forbes link. Quite a notable image. I had the artist change the license for us to be able to use it. I propose for it to be inserted immediately into the article along with what Lamar himself said about the image, from his official press release, or a statement his office put out if he said nothing himself. Is there any problem with that, any objections anyone ? Penyulap _talk 02:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it would present a problem in the BLP, if that's where you intend to put it, namely for WP:UNDUE weight. It's a huge image, and a small part of the BLP. The prose it would entail would probably not be encyclopedic or fall within WP:BLP guidelines. JFHJr (㊟) 03:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Youreallycan and Bbb23 above. The source doesn't seem very reliable because of the rather wild accusations. The inaccurate attack nature also undercuts its usefulness in a WP:BLP. I don't think this particular article avails itself to the reliability Forbes generally carries because other parts of that article are inaccurate, perhaps even misleading ("found guilty"), and clearly an opinion piece ("Glad to see Protect IP being neutered, and SOPA’s ringleader being exposed, hopefully this continues until the issue becomes so toxic, no sane congressperson seeking reelection would dare go near it."). To be honest, the Insert Coin pieces in general seem bloggy. Since reliability seems to be a threshold issue in this case, discussing WP:RS might best done at WP:RSN. JFHJr (㊟) 03:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

FT2's analysis of the Forbes article is rock solid, I can't find fault with his reasoning any way I look at it. AndyTheGrump, your logic is in error, The statement that he is guilty of infringement is correct without a court case. The statement that he has been convicted would be incorrect I might ask DJ about his feelings on this, whether he has considered pursuing the matter, or if he wants the guilty party to go free. Either way, you can't call Lemar a criminal or convicted but you can certainly say he's 'guilty', and you can certainly say he's making excuses, shifting responsibility, 'passing the buck'. 'Guilty' people 'escape conviction'. The Forbes article is fair, there is no room for misinterpreting their statement. Penyulap _talk 04:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Your the one thats guilty, guilty of losing all focus in regards to NPOV and conflicted editing. Youreallycan 10:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Answers like this can rapidly convince someone, that one's initial work was appropriate and concerns are emotional labelled as policy issues, rather than policy or fact based. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think its quite clear that penyulap has got a bit overboard in regard to this issue - as revealed in this upload - and this section on his talkpage. Youreallycan 12:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't possibly see how that's to be interpreted as my taking sides in this issue, I'm humorous everywhere I go. I didn't notice editors needed help on this article until wikipedia went read-only, and I still don't care about SOPA. There is nothing more irrelevant to me than US politics, I simply have a habit of helping editors who are having difficulty. Like here, and here. Compared to you, or the editor who started this BLP discussion, who kept shoving in 'expert' I'm the placid voice of reason. I could, possibly, care less, if I put in a great deal of effort, but Meh. Penyulap _talk 19:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Placid voice of reason"? You are humorous.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction: The "Expert" header was "shoved in" by a different editor, to the "Opposition" subsection, and I copied that identical header to the "Supporters" section for balance. The links you provided above show my repeated reversion of your attempts to scrub "Experts" from just the "Supporters" section while maintaining it under "Opponents". As for your related concern about referring to Floyd Abrams as an expert, you can take that up with him. I've already addressed it on the Talk page. If you are the "placid voice of reason", when should we expect you to begin employing it? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Someone was thanking me on my talkpage for helping the Tamil wikipedia, which I only made one small contribution to, and the only reason I am here is because I am wondering why, after contacting the artist who made the image that Lamar or his office has issued statements about concerning copyright, the image still isn't used on English wikipedia, that's all I'm here for, so I can tell DJ that his gracious response to my request for a new license hasn't been for nothing. I mean, where does this image go ? Does it go in an article about the artist ? he gets a mention in Forbes doesn't he ? He's the talk of the town and is it the white house or congress ? I don't know which. Seems strange to me that a picture can't be included anywhere on english wikipedia. If it was used somewhere, anywhere, I could let the artist know that his contribution to this project was meaningful. I'm ashamed that I can't do that. Penyulap _talk 19:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Completely off topic, but those aren't cedars in the picture. The Interior (Talk) 19:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@Penyulap - You over estimated the "iconic status" of the picture. Its simply not iconic at all. It is a landscape - the picture itself adds nothing of value to the reader. Youreallycan 19:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? I should ask him about that. Seems an interesting note depending where it gets used. What kind of trees are they ? Maybe it can be used in that article. I shall ask him about that for sure, the location and so forth. Brilliant thinking there Interior. I can go about my merry business after shoving it into botany. It certainly makes me laugh and I'm sure i can convey that Ironic humor to DJ when next I speak with him, that his image started off in a scandal(yes yes whatever you call it) but ended up exclusively in Botany and Geography because we can't cover politics in a competent manner. Lolz. Penyulap _talk 20:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Too much here - but I waded through most of it. The claim that a person is "guilty" implies "of a crime" when the actual infringement was made by a contractor of the person, who failed to give a photographer credit, i.e. inadvertent infringement, and so fails. This is not a "crime", and would not appear to be the type of IP violation covered by SOPA at all. "Piracy", that is willful infringment is what is sought to be covered. If it were a violation which would have been covered by SOPA, then the article author might have had a point, but it isn't and doesn't. Second point is - does Forbes in its editorial voice aver that Smith is a "hypocrite" and the clear answer is it does not. It is an attributable opinion only of the article author, and thus must be attributed as such, provided that the author has sufficient credentials to publish such an opinion. What I find vastly amusing is that Forbes has almost surely "infringed copyright" (almost every mag has messed up credits!) so I find it all "tempest in a polemic teapot time" at best. Best course? Not to use the stuff - all it does is mess up what ought to be a proper encyclopedia article. Cheers. See also [29] for part of the history of copyright cases where NatGeo republished old photos on CD without separate premissions from the photographers. Collect (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, that makes good sense. How about saying his website "infringed copyright", avoid terms such as pirated, guilt, crime, heisted, criminal, willful and intentional. Sound ok to everyone ? Penyulap _talk 18:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Kai Bird

Dear Wiki editors,

Can someone please restore the copy on my bio. The Benny Morris quote is still there and I still find it highly objectionable.

Kai Bird Kaibird4263 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC).

Dear Wiki editors,

Well, someone reinserted the Benny Morris material again. Obviously, someone is determined to keep this language on my bio. Is there anything you can do to stop this?

Kai Bird Kaibird4263 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

Kai Bird (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Way back in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive109 and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive108, concerns were expressed about the inclusion of a misleading and negative quote about Kai Bird. At the time, the material was removed. There has now been an attempt to re-add it (which I have reverted) so I would appreciate it if people could keep an eye on the article. Someone who is apparently Kai Bird has also expressed concerns about it (before I removed it again). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The contentious material was restored without discussion so I have removed it again on BLP grounds and watchlisted the article. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael Sata

Resolved: Vandalism removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael Sata (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

False Information about the demise of the subject: Some one entered false information that the president of the Republic of Zambia His excellency Michael Sata was assassinated yesterday morning. The information is not true according to the official state houses's web site. The information has been deleted from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashaphiri (talk • contribs) 01:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If the vandalism persists, you can seek semi-protection of the article at WP:RPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Judi Shekoni

Two problems with this article. One is that there are conflicting sources on her age & I doubt we can solve that. The other is that an editor is trying to keep in material which makes the article virtually all about her romantic interests and not about her career as a British actress, model and television presenter turning the article into the equivalent of a gossip column. See my edit here [30] where I removed the birthdate and some of the romance material. Note that the editor emphasises her age for some reason by prefacing a quote from an interview with 'who was 22 at the time', which seems a strange thing to add. This editor just readded the 1977 birthdate while on his talk page saying that Ancestry.co.uk says 1978. Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd removed the birthdate entirely and some of the gossip stuff, posted to the article's talk page and the editor's talk page. He's replaced 1977 despite saying Ancestry.co.uk says 1978 and also the gossip stuff. Other editors have reverted him in the past but he is ignoring them. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have removed the DOB altogether as well if you hadn't beaten me to it. As a related note, per prior discussion, ancestry.co.uk should not be used as a reliable source, especially for contentious info in a BLP. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure the editor will be along to replace it again, although if he does it today that will be 3RR. He replaced it after I posted to his talk page that there was a discussion here. He also replaced the gossip-type material twice today (once after I told him about the discussion here). Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring to restore contentious info to a BLP is blockable regardless of whether they pace their edits to avoid a technical 3RR infraction. I've added the article to my watchlist as well; hopefully Shylocksboy will begin to use the article talk page to help come up with an amicable and BLP-compliant solution to the problem as opposed to repeatedly reverting multiple editors. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

An IP was blocked a little while ago for restoring it. Thanks for adding it to your watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishier:Richardsinclair.jpg This has created an imposter Musician/Band catagory on Facebook.

I am Richard Sinclair, musician (from Canterbury, England) now living in Martina Franca, Italy. I am still alive and active as a musician. On FACEBOOK, Sombody has taken a photograph of me playing a live concert and inserted the French Wiki as 'info' This is a Musician/ Band PAGE. https://www.facebook.com/pages/RichardSinclair/105524906147639?ref=nf

Consequently I cannot use the FACEBOOK Musician/Band catagory. Which is where, people in the world will go to search for me. I have been reporting this page to facebook since I joined up, last autumn. I have now submitted another explainatory email to Facebook support and also the authorities here in Italy,. my country of residence. The Privacy authority and also the Police Force who deal with fraud, Guardia di Finanza. I have created a normal facebook profile. https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1000028425134358ref=tn_tnmn and in the last few days my posts that I put there have been appearing automatically on the imposter page so I consider this to be Identity Theft. Please will you REMOVE IT. I am not able to comprehend French and cannot do this myself.

I hope that you will understand that my communication to people is my Actual Living, so I ask you for help on this. Email: (Redacted)

Thank you, Richard Sinclair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.252.250.29 (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an issue for Facebook, not one that Wikipedia can really do anything about. I think this is an automated Facebook process and even if it was pulling the information from Richard Sinclair on English Wikipedia, it would be up to Facebook to change the fact it was pulling it from Wikipedia not Wikipedia to change the fact it has an article on you. As it is pulling the information from the French Wikipedia, English Wikipedia has no say on their articles/policies and you would have to discuss any changes to the article on the French Wikipedia itself. I don't see any evidence that they have a policy of dealing with the subject of an article although perhaps a better french reader than myself could identify one? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Very confusing. The section header pointer doesn't point to the picture, which is actually here. The Sinclair article on the French Wikipedia is here, and it appears that someone who is probably Sinclair removed the information from the article, susbtituting only his e-mail address (rather droll, actually). I have a moderate comprehension of French, but I don't fully understand what he's talking about here (in English).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As I already stated, I am a bit puzzled by this whole thing. Nonetheless, the supposedly problematic picture is on Commons, so I nominated it for deletion with some explanation as to why. Hopefully, they'll sort it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, It's not our problem - Facebook are mirroring our content automatically but Mr Sinclair thinks a Wikipedia editor is cyber squatting on the "Richard Sinclair" Facebook page which isn't the case. He needs to talk to Facebook and possibly speak to a social media consultant about his social media strategy. If the image is genuinely free, then deleting it will harm the encyclopedia without addressing Mr Sinclair's concern. Someone should also revert his change to French Wikipedia - I would, but I'm not sure which policies they have that can be given as grounds for the change. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Have restored the French Wiki article - Hope marking it as Vandalism won't cause too many problems but it was the most applicable French Policy I could find. I've also commented on the Commons deletion discussion. I will drop a message on his account on both French and English Wikipedia's and hope he logs back in before making further changes. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Having spoken with Mr Sinclair on his talkpage. While the majority of his concerns still rotate around a misunderstanding of Facebook's processes. I've attempted to assist him with his other inquiries - The French wikipedia article gives very little information about his life and makes a major mistake. I've tried to put in a translation request over there for them to translate our article which will fix that situation but if any French readers could look at fr:Richard Sinclair and see if I've set the Translation template up correctly I'd appreciate it. The other issue was the photograph which he dislikes, I've suggested that it would be helpful to the encyclopaedia if he could supply a better one and have pointed him to commons in regard of that. I also pointed out that as the subject of the photograph he may have to inform OTRS that the photographer has released the rights of the image to him (unless he photographs himself with a timer or shutter release cable.) Mollskman has already pointed out the COI in Richard editing his own article, so I've not reinforced it yet but will keep an eye on it in the meantime. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

William Zartman

I. William Zartman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

He is a member of the Steering Committee of PIN/ Clingendael, a research network, Processes of International Negotiations at the Clingendael Institute of International Relations, The Hague, Netherlands.

He has more recently published: Engaging Extremists: Trade- offs, Timing and Diplomacy (with G. O. Faure). United States Institute of Peace, 2011. Negotiating with Terrorists; Strategy, tactics and Politics. (with G. O. Faure) Routledge, 2010. Conflict Resolution. (with J. Bercovitch and V. Kremenyuk) Sage, 2009. Escalation and Negotiation in International Conflicts. (with G. O. Faure) Cambridge University Press, 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.188.145 (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds nice. If you can find a reliable source, other than Zartman, discussing this information, it probably has a place in the article. It could use some attention; tagged for notability since 2008. JFHJr (㊟) 23:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim Breyer

Jim Breyer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Subject contacted me noting that his biography has been tagged as being 'like a resume' for several months. He wanted to know what can be done about it. I removed the tag and made some minor edits, and posted on the talk page asking the original tagger for help, but bring it here as well to get more eyes on the issue.

The reason this is an issue is that for business people, a "like a resume" tag might be presumed by some to reflect negatively on them, possibly giving the impression that they are non-notable and did something inappropriate at Wikipedia. If the article does read like a resume, then something should be done about it, but with some haste, rather than leaving a negative tag up for months.

In this case, it may very well be that the article needs significant trimming. I'm looking into that but would love some help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If the editor that tagged it didn't leave a description of the problems on the talk page then the tag may be removed immediately. Reference Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems#Removing tags as well as WP:DRIVEBY.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Salman Shah

Salman Shah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This page has seen a lot of vandalism over the past 3 months, oddly regarding the individual's child's name. While this seems like a practical joke, it is libellous and potentially embarrassing for a man in Dr. Shah's position. It is requested that this page at leat be placed on temporary protection to avoid such instances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.166.230 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks. This is an unreferenced BLP so it could use some editors to improve it at least nominally. Gamaliel (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sachin Pandit (person)

• Sachin Pandit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Sachin Pandit (singer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Sachin Pandit (entertainer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

(Redacted)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin69 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sachin. Please don't copy and paste here the article you've repeatedly written about yourself. Please post here if you have a question or complaint about a living person's biography.

Please note, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is strongly discouraged here, because people have a massive conflict of interest writing about themselves. Please refrain from making more articles about yourself. Case in point: your autobiography was deleted at least 5 times now. I'll also note you've begun using more than one account for some reason. Again, please refrain. Thank you. JFHJr (㊟) 19:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Kush

Vladimir Kush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Kush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Currently under AfD, Vladimir Kush has had content repeatedly inserted in violation of WP:BLPSPS. In the article, it's been mostly uncited, but derives from the subject's own website. Of issue are his education, claims involving third parties (government/KGB), which are generally self-serving. Also, a very substantial part of the article is based on the SPS. Any attention that might be lent here would be appreciated. JFHJr (㊟) 22:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Christina Slade (academic)

Christina Slade (academic) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Reads like a copy-and-pasted CV. Therefore, it's not an encyclopaedic article: there's no NPoV and it goes into far too much detail (e.g. listing apparently every conference talk she's ever given!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordoni (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I trimmed it a bit, but it really needs a rewrite by somebody who is good at that, which I am not. --Mollskman (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What was left was clearly a copyvio from her CV hosted by her former employer, no longer available, plus some unsubstantiated claims. If she's notable, she'll gain a mention somewhere, anywhere other than her own CV. JFHJr (㊟) 17:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Lubomyr Luciuk

Lubomyr Luciuk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[ Outing removed -- different id's have re-inserted this info, please do not post anyone's name as this violates Our policy on outing ] continues to insert inaccurate and possibly libelous remarks about me on the "Lubomyr Luciuk" Wikipedia entry. I have removed these twice. He is not a credible source of information about my scholarly or professional accomplishments or activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.59.176 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The biography needs a fair bit of wikification and general improvement - if anyone is clued on on the subjects topic area - in the political geography of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, refugee studies, and the ethnic and immigration history of Canada. Youreallycan 21:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Ziff

Matthew Ziff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A help request went up from User:Mziff, claiming that he is Matthew Ziff, the subject of said article. The user complains that the article is subject to repeated vandalism and addition of false information, despite his numerous attempts to fix it. I answered the request, noting that articles on living people are held to a higher standard and that such vandals can be dealt with, but also broached the subject of his apparent conflict of interest, presuming he is indeed the article's subject. At the same time, I looked at the article and compared it against the actor's biography on IMDB here, and the flow of the biography (and much of the wording) appears to match a bit too closely for comfort. I'm really not sure how else to proceed, so I'm looking for any advice or guidance on how to handle this. --McDoobAU93 00:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed all the unsourced and improperly sourced information, leaving very little except the filmography, which itself is problematic because none of the films has articles on Wikipedia, and none has sources except by reference to IMDb. I've also added to the user's Talk page a more stern warning about COI. I removed the tag you put because it's no longer true. Thanks for helping out.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Works just fine for me ... thanks for looking at this so quickly. --McDoobAU93 02:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've taken to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Ziff. Fences&Windows 03:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Salvador "Sal" Magluta and Augusto "Willy" Falcon

Falcon and Magluta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I'm a little concerned about this article. The subjects were convicted of money-laundering/jury tampering but acquitted of the charge of drug trafficking. This much is referenced to a reliable source. But the article goes much further than that and probably needs further inline cites and/or a second pair of eyes. See especially this section. For background see also the first section of Talk:Continuing Criminal Enterprise. - Voceditenore (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This article needs serious rewrite. 90% is unsourced and violates BLP and OR. Please help.--Mollskman (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note that there is an incipient edit war developing where article's creator and an IP have been reverting all changes to the article by other editors, including those related to complying with BLP policies: removing {{blp sources}}, restoring deleted unsourced material, restoring non-neutral phrasing etc. Given the misconceptions expressed by the article's creator here, here, and here, this article really could use some extra eyes for a while in case my advice to him/her has no effect. It also needs higher quality sources. Some of the assertions are sourced to sites like talkleft.com, mapinc.org, and America's Most Wanted. Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Jorge Posada

Jorge Posada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

On the biography of Posada it states that he has 4 x World Series Titles (WS Rings). The reason stated on your site is because Posada was not added to the 1996 postseason roster. Although he did not play during the postseason he was already in the Yankees active roster, which is why he played during their 1996 regular season and had debuted in 1995. When a WS is won by a baseball team, every single player on the active roster receives a WS ring, regardless if they played during post season or not. The reference Wikipedia itself offers is one by Bryan Hoch titled "Six games, five rings, four Yankees". The four Yankees being Derek Jeter, Andy Pettite, Mariano Rivera and Jorge Posada. In other words, Wikipedia's reference contradicts what's stated as far as his awards are concerned. Even the MLB site claims Posada as having 5 WS rings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGMVic (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Soledad O'Brien

Resolved: returning vandal blocked by User:Tnxman307 and the BLP has been semi protected for one month by User:Beetstra

Soledad O'Brien (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Someone on twitter claiming to be married to Soledad O'Brien keeps editing her article to add himself and remove the cited husband and kids. Americanwhofan (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted a bunch of recent changes back to the last "good" version and tagged the copyrighted screencap image for deletion on Commons. – ukexpat (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It just seems to be a vandal-ish user - revert, warn, and block as required. Youreallycan 20:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And reverted again...heading to AIV if it happens again. – ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This disruptor User:Anyainny seems to be a return sock of the recently indefinitely blocked Anya SOB - Semi protection and blocking of this new disruptor will help protect the BLP. Youreallycan 20:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Tim Potts

Tim Potts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The entry that bears my name is so full of falsehoods that it hardly bears trying to correct. If I weren't a public figure, I'd sue for libel, but I am aware of New York Times v. Sullivan, as is the author of this garbage, most likely.

I very much appreciate Wikipedia and donated to it last year. I now work two full-time jobs plus serve on a school board. I do not have time to waste on this nonsense. Can you please take this article down and refuse to post anything about me in the future?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWPotts (talk • contribs) 20:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The negative material has now been removed. Regarding taking the article down, I can see no particular reason for us to have an article on this person anyway, and will propose it for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I've reverted and reported the vandal in question at WP:UAA. I'll help watch the page while it's being WP:PRODded. JFHJr (㊟) 21:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked both of the attack accounts indefinitely for that. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Simon Upton

Simon Upton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It is stated in this article that the Right Honourable Simon Upton is the recipient of a QSO (Queen's Service Order). As a member of Mr Upton's family, I am in the position to confirm that Mr Upton has not at any point accepted nor has he been offered a QSO. On behalf of Mr Upton, I would like for this reference to a QSO to be removed, but am unable to do so myself as it is written in the introductory passage. Could someone please remove this for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ls2xlanguages (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this, as it seems to be unsourced. In fact you should have been able to edit the article, by clicking the 'edit this page' tag at the top of the page. In general, we prefer that articles are not edited by individuals connected with the subject (see WP:COI), but a non-controversial edit like this would have been entirely acceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Daldry

The statement "He is also notable for having all of his feature films that he has directed go on to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, the films of which are Billy Elliot (2000), The Hours (2002),The Reader (2008) and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2011)." is false. Billy Elliot was not nominated for Best Picture at the 2000 Academy Awards.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.80.59 (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Billy Elliot came out in 2000 and was nominated for the 73rd Academy Awards in 2001, so it is correct. Dru of Id (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It was nominated for Best Director. Dru of Id (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have amended it to 'Best Director or Best Picture', so thank you. Dru of Id (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Vision Thing keeps on adding these controversial materials to the Paul Krugman page even when many people on the talk page have objected to them.[31] At the same time, he edits the Friedrich Hayek page to do this.[32] It looks to me like Vision Thing's motivation is to edit right-wing BLPs to puff them up, and edit left-wing BLPs to blacken their names. He gives flimsy reasons for his edits. When I looked at his history, and it looks like he comes to Wikipedia to push a political point of view. I feel that this is wrong and that there should be some rule against doing this. FurrySings (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Vision thing's edits seem to be a bit partisan, but that is pretty normal here - many editors just add good content to the side they like and attack content to the people they don't like - sadly policy is weak to assist. Keep notes of any potentially biased additions and make a RFC user case against him if you feel its a serious issue. I notice he has added this multiple times in January and if consensus is against him adding that content he needs to stop adding it and return to the talkpage. Youreallycan 18:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

FurrySings is the one who is refusing to discuss changes on talk page. His last comment there was 25 days ago and in the meantime he made a number of reverts. He isn't even trying to justify his reverts on the grounds on improving article. If that is not objectionable behavior, I don't know what is. He is treating this like a battle. -- Vision Thing -- 19:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A useful perspective is available for you at WP:BRD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

When one side is refusing to discuss its reverts and is basing them on personal dislike of editor who made original contribution to the article it is impossible to achieve progress. -- Vision Thing -- 15:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've twice removed the disputed material, and it has been twice re-added by User:TheFreeloader. I'd have thought that it should stay out until there is consensus for inclusion, but I'm done reverting it myself -- if others agree then they'll have to pursue it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we'll just leave them to it - the content is a bit undue but there is now a good discussion on the talkpage with a couple of experienced editors. Youreallycan 22:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating. When it suits you, you adopt the approach I was recommending: if it's disputed, keep it out until there's a resolution. Additionally the alleged discussion on the talk page is not active. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to request your constant sniping at me at every opportunity please stops, its unending and if you are unable to get over your personal dislike of me and continual commentary I am going to have to request a interaction restriction. Youreallycan 15:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop trying to personalize this. It's a perfectly reasonable point: if it's disputed it should stay out until it's resolved via discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have made my request, if you continue I will ask at WP:AN for an interaction ban - please stop your continual picking at me at multiple locations. Youreallycan 15:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Lin

Joseph Lin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Joseph Lin was _not_ born in New York.

He was born in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.212.109.50 (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

New York is in the U.S. :-) However, the source doesn't say he was born in New York, so I removed it. I've also redone the article a bit. It needs more work, but I don't have time for it at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yves Behar

Yves Béhar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I have added many citations to the article after receiving word that it was deemed unreliable. How do I have it re-checked so the notice at the top of the page can be removed? Are the citations I used in line with what Wikipedia needs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenb700 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged some sources that might be improved through third party coverage. Primary sources, as well as the subject himself, are good for some things (in this article, Béhar's heritage, for example), but optimally, facts that contribute to a subject's notability – from activities to awards – will be covered by reliable, uninvolved third parties. It makes a better case for the significance of the activity or award. For example, if we discover that a magazine's award is not actually discussed by anyone anywhere other than the magazine itself, the article might improve by omitting the information. I've also removed the tag from the top. JFHJr (㊟) 23:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding "Further reading" into George Maharis

• "Charges dropped"
• http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=eaofAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ltYEAAAAIBAJ&dq=george-maharis%20sex%20perversion&pg=1131%2C4192619

What do you think? Do they pass WP:V and WP:RS? I wouldn't add the content about arrest back into article, unless people approve. I might add sources into "Further reading". --George Ho (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

They have no relevance to the article, full stop. Read WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". This would be titillating tabloid trivia, regardless of sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Mike Gordon

Mike Gordon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

In the section "Arrested and Charges Cleared," the following is written:

<offending material redacted> The entire last bit about 2011 is not true, or at least not able to be backed up by anything. This section needs to be heavily revised and corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.36.235.4 (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be honest, my jaw dropped when I read that. In terms of using Wikipedia to libel somebody, it doesn't get much worse than that. Youreallycan (talk · contribs) has removed the material, and I have removed the revisions from the page history and the history of this page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - An IP had added some uncited controversial content - and might come back so if a couple of users could watchlist it that would be great. I removed that and then removed the rest as it seems to have been a misunderstanding - the complainants wanted the charges dismissed - they were dismissed, so theres nothing to report on. Youreallycan 14:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the rev-del HJ - Youreallycan 14:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Virgil Miller Newton

Virgil Miller Newton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Foucauld1 (talk · contribs)

SPA devoted to whitewashing the article. Perhaps there can be a discussion if there are any BLP violations, but at a glance what's there appears well sourced. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm concerned that a number of the sources may not be reliable. This would benefit from some oversight and cleanup, but the wholesale deletion of content caught my attention.... 99.149.85.114 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate more eyes on this, given the current engagement of the above account, who claims to be the article's subject. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I am Father Virgil Miller Newton, I am 72 years old and this is extremely difficult for me so I recruited the help of an assistant. The information on your site is erroneous, I have tried three times now to correct it. The article as it stand is defamatory and libelous in its manner. Siting my practices as such and then referencing an organization that's sole purpose is to liable anyone every involved with Straight Inc as a credible reference is ridiculous at best.

If you will check out my changes you will see that I do not sugar coat the fact that I was affiliated with the company that the people who perpetrated the original biography note. I just corrected there misinformation.

Please help me help myself by taking down there misinformation.

Best regards,

Father Newton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foucauld1 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Stubbified -- it was/is completely unsourced. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually (and my apologies) -- there were references, in fact the article was at least prima facie well referenced -- so I've restored the version that existed prior to today's changes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please assist on this. It is not well reference, and unfortunately I do not have the knowledge this group has to edit it to your liking. A little assistance here would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foucauld1 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to make any attempt to explain specifically what is incorrect in your view? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that Foucauld1 started a thread at the Fringe Theories noticeboard[33] because he believes the sources violate WP:FRINGE. I suggest that discussion about this stay in one place, and that this board (or RS?) might be a better fit than fringe theories. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said I am illiterate when it comes to this and am doing the best I can with a little assistance.

Here is what I put on the other board.

Citation 1 is in direct violation of propaganda rules a b Fager, Wes (2000). "Reverend Doctor Virgil Miller Newton at Straight, Inc. and at KIDS of North Jersey / KIDS of Bergen County". Retrieved 2009-08-03. It is a site that is not reputable site that was created solely to defame me.

Citation 2 ^ "Newton settles with Corter". Retrieved 2009-08-03. again goes to this same site.

Citation 3 is a falsification of information. I corrected that information in my edit and did not deny that there were suits filed while I was involved and listed them.

Citation 4 - 7 can not be sourced

Citation 8 and 9 as well as 13, 19, 21, 25, 26 are 404 can not be found pages

Citation 17 - again goes to the straights as referenced in citation 1

Citation 22 - does not validate the claim

Citation 23 - is another site created just to defame me.

And lastly 4 and 28 are from POKOV a self proclaimed watchdog of the Orthodox Church that publishes half truths.

Hopefully this will help in getting this matter cleared up.

Thank you, Foucauld1 (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Referring to citations by number doesn't always work well. I've recently removed the citation you list as citation 1, as it appears more a blog site than a reliable source. So the other numbers are now all slightly off as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Again Citation 2 and 17 also go to the same blog site

What else can I do to clear this up?

Foucauld1 (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No-one here wants untrue information to stay on a Wikipedia article about an individual. To assist you, it would be useful if you could summarize (what in your view is) the incorrect information currently on that article. What does it say that is incorrect? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the size of the article, that seems a bit difficult for Foucauld1 to comply with. ("Which of these 250 negative statements about you are not true?") He's listed the references that he believes are unuseable. Since the article is a BLP, and since 95% of it is negative, then any statements solely backed by unuseable sources, need to be removed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to removal of anything that isn't properly sourced. I'm just trying to get a sense of the big picture here: what does the article say about him that he believes is untrue? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously this is a standard message. I have tried several times to correct the information, even went line by line earlier today with an assistant to change it, not removing all references and it was reverted before I could blink. As I have stated the references are not valid, they majority of the article is created just to defame me.

Foucauld1 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The amount of information that is incorrect is way too large to post here. If you go back to the history of my biography you will see where I made changes, but after spending 2 hrs the first time and it being dumped I just copied and pasted from then on. I have given you the unreliable sources, If you want I will gladly post the changes I made here and you can review them. But not today, this is not resolved but I have other more pressing things to attend to right now.

Foucauld1 (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The article seems pretty coatracky to me. The lawsuit section, for example, is full of info about suits against KIDS, with info about Newton kind of tacked on. Of course Newton was a director at KIDS, but this much info about suits against an organization don't necessarily belong in a biography of someone who was affiliated with the organization. It would be better suited to an article about KIDS. I'm not necessarily saying it should be deleted, but I wouldn't mind seeing it reduced in size - I think it represents undue weight as it is. Is anyone else seeing a coatrack here, or is that kind of a stretch? Dawn Bard (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks that way to me - some of the tangent stuff needs removing from the Bio - and perhaps in an article about the org or the lawsuits - if its notable. Clearly there is involved editing. Youreallycan 22:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Having made the initial report here, and after several more cursory glances of the article, I submit that the content be vastly cut back. Much of what's there relies on dead link sources or sources that are not reliable, or are from websites of disgruntled former patients. Without trying to suss out what's true and what's not, I've come to think that a lot of what's there, especially given its negative balance, isn't sufficiently well sourced to stay. At the least I'm glad to have come across it while it was being revised-- the article's subject and his associates aren't objective-- but I think they raise legitimate concerns. 99.149.85.114 (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

While a Google search of the subject's name turns up numerous NYC news reports on Youtube covering the KIDS organization, I'm not sure that Newton himself is prominently cited, and wonder whether he even meets notability guidelines.... is the article primarily a vehicle for settling scores? 99.149.85.114 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - its not an easy job though when articles have been bloated like that from a conflicted involved person. Perhaps someone will take it on. Is he individually notable .... thats something to consider Youreallycan 23:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed an obvious commercial site and an obviously non-RS cite - but a lot of the "newspaper articles" are not findable with diligent search in the newspaper archives, to say the least. I assume good faith, but the chances that some of this was "gemacht" can not be totally ignored. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom Sizemore

Resolved

Final line in Tom Sizemore article claims he has been sentenced to life in prison [redacted]. I can't seem to find anything on the internet to corroborate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.78.19 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It was vandalism, now reverted.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Virgil Newton (2)

Virgil Miller Newton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article is libellious. This article is deliberately presenting information that is drastically out of context, if not completely untrue, and is simply designed to make Dr Newton look very, very bad. He has himself attempted to correct the libel in the article and to adjust the context and content to make it accurately reflective of his life and work. However, it appears that whoever has posted this is also monitoring the article and replacing any attempts to correct it with the original libellious information. Such behaviour is nothing more than slander of Dr Newton, and as such is harassing in nature. I would submit that the article be removed. If it cannot be removed, it would appear that the person or persons who keeps putting libellious information should be barred from replacing our attempts to correct the work with his or her content. Their content is malicious in nature, and is defamatory to Dr Newton in every possible way.

I am a close personal friend of Dr Newton's and I was a patient in his KIDS rehab programs and can testify as an eyewitness to my own experience, and give accurate context for many of the issues placed in this article, which are misrepresented in terms of how they are reported. As I was by no means a model patient - I went through the KIDS program four complete times - I believe no one would be better qualified to back him up. His treatment program was a lifesaver - it saved my life, and I still use the lessons learned from the treatment process now, more than 13 years after the dissolution of KIDS. I would even suggest that the true story of the KIDS program, and Dr Newton himself, as well as RuthAnn, and many other people involved in this work, is nothing short of extraodinary in its goodness. It is truly saddening and tragic to see this good man maligned in this way. I personally would really like this to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim1967 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

See two sections above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see also WP:COI, as it applies to close personal friends of article subjects. See also WP:LEGAL for reasons to avoid opening your post with claims that something is "libellious" [sic]. JFHJr (㊟) 09:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern

Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This individual does not appreciate being called "Paul Lambrino" — we know that for a fact from here, as he complained about it to OTRS in 2007. An IP has also removed the name three times in the last day: [34], [35], [36]. However, at least three respectable Romanian newspapers have used the name in their reporting on the subject, as I have now cited. I think the name is widely enough known that the article should mention it. However, if someone reading this believes the name should stay out, then I will not press the matter further, and will refrain from re-adding "Paul Lambrino". Please advise. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"also referred to as Paul Lambrino" - who also refers to him as that? Have you got any English sources? - Perhaps as he objects to usage of that name - as a compromise, remove it from the lede and add it in the bio section below... Youreallycan 22:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Hohenzollern" was not his name at birth, it would appear, and this is one of the famed "European royal claimant" issues. It does need tidying up, however. Collect (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I think it's fine in the lead as it is. It seem accurate, verifiable, and there shouldn't have to be discussion of why who says what about how the subject is called, since there doesn't seem (so far) to be a real naming discussion in reliable sources. Unless there is in fact noteworthy and NPOV discussion on names, the lead is just fine since it's the subject's name (a redirect origin, even), and it doesn't require discussion in the bio. I also think the wishes of the subject are best served by referring to him otherwise, as the article currently does, by the name he prefers. JFHJr (㊟) 07:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

cory burnell

Cory Burnell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Controversial information exists regarding Cory Burnell's involvement with the Texas League of the South. The articles cited provide no confirmation from known officials at the Texas League of the South that Burnell ever held an official position in the organization, nor are any records cited. The coordination between Christian Exodus and the Texas League was mistaken for Burnell holding an official position and that misinformation was then reported in future news reports. It's not the case and the reference to Burnell having an association with the Texas League in any capacity other than through Christian Exodus should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turner17 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The material is well-sourced. It doesn't have to be confirmed by League of the South officials. If you have a conflicting secondary source, that might change things. As an aside, the material shouldn't be in the lead when it's not covered in the body.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)