Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.
Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:


Indiggo[edit]

Indiggo (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) On this edit [1] User:Epeefleche Is insting on the fact that the subjects are "american" with the source being a youtube video (which claims citizenship not nationality), this is not a reliable source for something as sensitive as nationality. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Background is here: article talkpage discussion, editor talkpage discussion, reverts and edit summaries. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree with CombatWombar42 - Youtube has been shown time and time again to not be a reliable source. For a BLP, anything claimed has to be backed up by reliable sources, youtube doesn't cut it.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Have your read the diffs? That point to official Youtube channel, official Twitter channel, etc.?Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra concerns[edit]

Serious concerns have been raised on the Deepak Chopra talk page here. The editor raising the concerns has appropriately not edited the article and seems aware of the Wikipedia guidelines and policies which govern neutrality. They are respectfully asking for help. I'd like to ask for uninvolved eyes on the discussion and article. Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

They identify virtually every recent non-supportive editor of the article as problematic. This looks very much like a WP:CIVPUSH attempt, and it's unlikely to be divorced from the recent issues with Rupert Sheldrake (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views). Guy (Help!) 17:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Narendra Modi again[edit]

Few days ago, thread was archived,[2] I would like someone to have their opinion on this issue. Thanks D4iNa4 (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the reason none of the other editors is coming to discuss this here, is that the issue was discussed to death a few months back, consensus was established, and the disputed content inserted. For reasons best known to themselves, D4iNa4 has been ignoring all requests to read the archived discussion, and is also being remarkably obtuse when reading the source under question. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Explained many times, so carry on the talk page. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Pavel Gubarev[edit]

Is it acceptable to label someone a neo-Nazi based on a rumor? Pavel Gubarev is (or at least was) a member of the Communist Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine. The article now claims that he was a member of the neo-Nazi Russian National Unity paramilitary group. The same claim is now repeated verbatim in the lede section of article on the Donetsk People's Republic. The "reliable" source for the claim is respected but somewhat partisan historian Timothy Snyder. In an article in the New Republic he attacks the Russian separatist movement in Ukraine by associating it with right-wing neo-Nazism. The claim he makes about Gubarev is however purely based on a rumor, and he reports it as such. Quote: In Donetsk Gubarov was known as a neo-Nazi and as a member of the fascist organization Russian National Unity. Being a Communist a leader of a "People's Republic", any association with Nazism would have a huge negative impact on Gubarev's character.

It should be noted, that Gubarev has been arrested for the last month and unable to communicate with lawyers or family. (In fact, rumors claim he is in a coma.) the claim only surfaced after his arrest, so he has been unable to address it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. – This article is at the heart of WP:ARBEE disputes. I advise editors to use extreme caution. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"was known" is not a "rumour". Note that there is also a second source provided for the claim: [3]. The speculation as to whether being associated with Neo-Nazism would disqualify Gubarev in term's of his political ambitions is original research, and wrong one at that: see National Bolshevism. Maybe Petri's being naive. Basically, groups such as Russian National Unity adopt the ideology (adopted to Russian, rather than German, nationalism) and the tactics - which is why reliable sources describe them as "neo-Nazi" while also glorifying the Soviet Union. Honestly, when you get that "far" on the political spectrum, the "far-right" and "far-left" meet. It's not uncommon. See also the support for Putin's takeover of Crimea from various European far right groups such as Jobbik or the Belgian Parti Communautaire National-Européen (note that "Communautaire" - nothing strange in that). It's actually quite common and there's no reason to be surprised.
More sources [4] [5]Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Or you can just type in the appropriate search phrase into Google images [6] and see for yourself, photos of him in uniform, sporting the swastika-like
Rnuflag.jpg
insignia and all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The fact is also mentioned in the Russian Wiki article on Gubarev. The lines between far-right and far-left are especially blurred in Russia, this Russian National Unity for example supported the August coup, too. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The Russian language Wikipedia does not seem to make any association between Russian National Unity and Alexander Barkashov with neo-Nazism or World Union of National Socialists. Russian National Unity has multiple splinter groups using the same name. It seems like a generic label for multiple organisations, almost like Sovetskoye Shampanskoye nowadays. From the Russian sources we cannot tell which of the multiple groups Gubarev (allegedly) belonged and if this group had any connection with neo-Nazism. (And yes, National Bolshevism is a strange creature. :-) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Crying Wind[edit]

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

Based on your statement below please remove the entire posting on Crying Wind, this "Orange Mike" Person doesn't know her, I do. Many of the accusations made in the article are false and when Different members of the family have tried to take them down or correct them we have been blocked. Many of the cited people profited a great deal from Trashing Crying Wind who DID live on the reservation (we can prove this) and WAS very poor and her mother had an affair which was covered up (We can now also prove this). Neighborhood bullies who were always jealous of her tried to find ways to sabotage this woman who merely wanted to earn a living for her children through her creativity, by the way the story is simply about depression and raising kids- it is not a political academic work. She is not a legal expert and did not know Moody publishers was going to put out her book as an auto-bio rather than a novelized auto-bio, and she would not have known the difference anyway, but the matter has been settled in court nearly 35 years ago. Can we all stop trashing her now? In the theme of if you can't say something nice (or true) don't say anything at all, Please take it down- I put the initial posting up no knowing it would harm her so severely as others went on to edit it with their usual false claims. If you need proof of my statements please tell me where to send it. We did a DNA test via ancestry.com and I have census data and pay stubs from the reservation.

Thank you for your time-

"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.199.173 (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I left a pointer to this discussion, at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I am re-adding this item to BLPN, because I don't think it's yet been adequately addressed. I started a discussion at article talk, but it doesn't seem to be making much progress.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I think it's up to snuff now. We'll see if anyone objects. It was difficult getting hold of one of the refs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Roy Wood. Not Ulysses[edit]

Can somebody give me advice on this old chestnut? I just looked at Roy Wood and noticed somebody yet again thinks his real name is Ulysses. A book search brings up a number of hits in reliable sources, but nevertheless I remain totally unconvinced. Imagine the scene, it's 1951, you're a week into primary school in Birmingham, you've got a silly name - come on, what parent would inflict such horrible pain and suffering on a small child? How can we settle this one way or another? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If it cannot be sourced reliably then... it can't be in the article. Simple as that. Just like a DOB or any other type of personal information. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Not quite that simple - "Ulysses" is cited in The Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music and The Virgin Enyclopedia of 70s Music, both of which I would normally consider to be reliable sources. But Bruce Eder's biography summarily dismisses it as nonsense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
It strikes me that maybe what is needed here is a footnote, similar to the one we ended up with on the Demi Moore article: 'Some sources state that Wood's first name is Ulysses. [1][2] Bruce Eder, writing on .allmusic.com however states that this is incorrect and that he is "listed as Ulysses Adrian Wood due to a flip comment made in an interview"[3].' Or something like that - we don't need to state anything definitive, but rather present the evidence, and let the reader decide. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Jens Stoltenberg[edit]

Norway's former prime minister. There is a discussion on the talk page what to include about his policies and the cabinets policies towards Israel. A criticism paragraph - in various forms - has been edited in and out. The last to be reinserted looks like this (full section). The discussion mainly involves me, Huldra, Mishae and Yambaram. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: As of now the article disputed section look like this. I added two missing references and this article might get GA nomination as soon as the dispute will be solved.
I also need to point out that I am a completely neutral person on this topic since my task is archiving refs. I did however took a note that user @Bjerrebæk: removed a 2K worth of content from that section, so I intervened. As a side note I didn't knew the user, but by reading his talkpage I came to my senses that this is not the first time he removed content by claiming it a POV even though its not. I left him a message to which he never replied. Assuming right away that there will no reply from him (it was proven as of today), I asked @Deadbeef: and Randykitty for clarification of the matter and got directed to the article talkpage. Other stuff you can read from Jens Stoltenberg's talk.--Mishae (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
If you will read the talkpage, you will see that I have proposed an idea there to create criticism section. That way, any reader who would want to read his anti-Israel remarks, can read it there, while if a reader wants to read clean Jens Stoltenberg will probably skip it. According to NPOV we must provide a neutral point of view on all subjects, that's the reason why we have criticism sections on various leaders such as Vladimir Putin for example.--Mishae (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Iselilja for bringing this up here, though I believe we could resolve everything on the article's talk page. I fully agree with the Mishae's points, and appreciate the way he handles the issue. This article was featured on Wikipedia's main page last week, and I also think it should get a GA nomination after a few balancing edits.
Stoltenberg served as Norway's PM for many years and has been holding some of the highest positions out there giving him a lot of influence, therefore attracting notable different perceptions of him - critical, supportive, and neutral. His views on Israel are of due weight, as do the way these views are perceived in the media. As Mishae suggested, the alternative option would be creating a new perception/criticism section in order to address all similar issues (and apparently there are many more) in one place. Other than slightly shortening the section being discussed now, I see absolutely no reason to delete the information/sources that are presently there, and doing so would be a clear unbalanced POV edit. Yambaram (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Yambaram: I think we wouldn't be able to solve it on the article talkpage since it will lead to edit wars which are not allowed on Wikipedia. I would like to thank Iselilja for bringing it up here, but I also should mention that user Bjerrebæk also took part and became the main reason why I joined the discussion on the above mentioned article's talkpage. It would be a good reason to discuss both editor here, since there is more then Huldra who removes a due weight content (the reason why it was undue, was because there was only a couple of refs). Now, since Yambaram added 3 more (which I archived), I should agree on it being due weight.--Mishae (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, this ongoing discussion has been moved to this board, and is also discussed at the article's talk page here. Please do not use this thread to make new comments, thanks. Yambaram (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, a quick admin's opinion on the subject would be appreciated, as it's much needed. Yambaram (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Song Zuying[edit]

Editor Songfans (talk · contribs) is intent on removing any references to Song Zuying's alleged affair with Jiang Zemin from her article, and has deleted these references three times. I admit I know nothing about this particular subject, but the fact of the allegation is sourced. Should sourced information about allegations about a person be included in a BLP or not? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems quite poorly sourced at the moment. We say "it has long been rumoured in China that Song was romantically involved with former president Jiang Zemin and owed much of her career to support from him". The Asia Sentinel source cited says "Song Zuying, one of China’s most famous singers and a close friend – perhaps even the mistress – of Jiang". And I'm not sure who the Association for Asian Research are either. They seem to be an NGO that "promotes understanding through truth"...which sounds a bit suspect to my admittedly cynical ears. There's this New Yorker blog, but I guess any decent source will just present it as rumor. Seems like a tricky one, an "enduring rumor" about a living person... Sean.hoyland - talk 17:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
It's borderline. I'd shy away from it. Generally, we want to be pretty conservative on the personal lives on living folks. We usually don't go into much detail on personal stuff unless it's part of their notability. Even more so for contentious personal stuff. When we do, I think we'd want to mostly stick to stuff we know is true. If she's married to someone who advanced her career, that's reasonable to include. If she's having an affair with someone who advanced her career, and we know it -- she said so, or she's seen in public canoodling with the guy, or like that -- that's reasonable to include. But a rumor? Not so much.
And, you know, rumors and allegations. People will start these things.
On the other hand, the New Yorker is the gold standard for fact-checking in the English-speaking popular press IMO. They employ many fact-checkers and take it very seriously, and if a falsehood gets into a New Yorker article it's a crisis for them. And fact-checker at the New Yorker, unlike most publications, is a plum job which people with expectations of a serious journalistic career compete to get. If it was a story in the main magazine, we could be pretty confident that every assertion of fact in it has been carefully vetted for veracity. But times change --my info on the New Yorker is few years old at least -- and also it's just a blog. I'd be shocked if they were lax enough to not vet their blogs, but I don't know that they do, and if they do probably not as rigorously as the print articles. That throws us back on the writer to a fair degree.
Jiayang Fan is a serious writer; she's also had bylines in the Atlantic and the New York Times and Paris Review. It says here she's a New Yorker staffer and here that she does or did "story research" which makes her a fact-checker herself. I'd be gobsmacked if she was willing to throw all that away by making a general habit of reporting stuff she's not sure is true, although anything's possible I guess.
OK, so a pretty good source. (The Asia Sentinel and so forth I've ignored; unless we are confident that these are AAA-level sources with excellent reps for fact-checking and general veracity we shouldn't use them for contentious material in a BLP.)
Moving on to the material in question. A relationship with Jiang Zemin would, since it's a reasonable explanation (in part) for her career trajectory, would be worth describing if it's true. The existence of the rumor doesn't tell us anything about her career unless it can be shown that the rumor has materially affected her career. And in fact Jiayang Fan writes "...the enduring rumor that Song owes much of her career to Jiang Zemin...". So it does. It's not just idle gossip. Even if it's not true but impresarios are of the mind "Jeez, I heard she's Jiang Zemin's girl, I'd better book her and give her top billing" it'd be worth including. Even if we could demonstrate that it's not true it'd be worth including ("For many years, people believed -- falsely -- that she was favored by Jiang Zemin, and this led to such-and-such opportunities...")
So it's a pretty good source, and it's something worthwhile for the reader and researcher to know in trying to get a handle on her career.
I still wouldn't use it. BLP, contentious and potentially defamatory material, "pretty good" doesn't cut it for me. It is a blog. It's not unreasonable to hold a different view. It's borderline. If we do use it, stick to what's written: "rumor that Song owes much of her career to Jiang Zemin" implies nothing beyond that people believe that Jiang Zemin is her friend and has spoken well of her talents, although Jiayang Fan elsewhere says she's "nicknamed... First Mistress". Herostratus (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added further references for this to the article on top of the other sources - the Daily Mail had a piece on this, as did the China Times. These are both fact-checked publications, the Daily Mail obviously more so than the (Taiwan-based) China Times, but still, they aren't blogs/NGO publications or that kind of thing. The existence of the rumour is certainly relevant to her career for the reasons discussed above, in fact it explains her continuing prominence (i.e., the Daily Mail likely wouldn't have even published the story had there not been the Jiang Zemin angle which Chinese Netizens picked up on). FOARP (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
As sources go, the Daily Mail definitely comes into the "use with caution" category. It's a rather creepy tabloid. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It's the UK's number-one selling newspaper and currently used as a reliable source in countless articles, including BLP articles. Some people may not like it's political slant, but this is hardly relevant. The LA Times also referenced the affair here. FOARP (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Nothing to do with it's politics. It's trash. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Mail and many other discussions. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I see a long discussion chain with various people arguing various angles - nothing conclusive against treating the Daily Mail as a reliable, fact-checked source. Meanwhile here's an article in the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong's premier English-language newspaper - often accused of slanting pro-Beijing) which also references the affair. Even if you don't like the Daily Mail, aren't LA Times and SCMP acceptable on this? FOARP (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Editors on the CN wiki also found this source for the existence of the alleged affair in the academic literature. I get the hesistancy about including this, but the allegations around the affair really are relevant for understanding her entire career (i.e., as a singer in the Chinese military, and as a political figure in the Chinese Communist Party) as well as understanding why, for example, her name is/has been a blocked term on the Chinese internet. I think with the additional sources (Daily Mail, LA Times, New Yorker, South China Morning Post, China Times and the academic press) any concerns about these allegations should have been put to rest.
On another note, I think it might be a good idea to do an IP check on User:Songfans, since both on CN wiki and on EN wiki their (or should I say her?) edits have only been directed to the topic of Song's alleged affair with Jiang Zemin. FOARP (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a rumor. All the reliable sources say it's unconfirmed gossip. It can't be treated as anything but a rumor. It can't be treated as a story we think is probably true and then write about it as it "probably could have" happened. The gossip itself has had an outside effect, and we might have an argument to write about that, in the same way we would write about the effect of a health scare that had nothing behind it. But we can't repeat admitted speculation in any way that makes it seem like we think it is more than speculation. Putting an occasional "allegedly", while proceeding to add salacious detail and unknowable narrative, is still not BLP compliant. We can't have material like "Allegedly this person slept with a thousand people and allegedly liked it and allegedly is looking to steal lunch money." just because it includes the word "Allegedly". We could arguably have material like "Rumors of an alleged affair affected this person's career during this year, and the government censored material in this way." as long as it's supported by better sources. We can describe what (verifiably-from-sources) resulted from a rumor, but we shouldn't repeat made-up details of the gossip itself.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Shorter: There's a huge difference in BLP-compatibility between A rumor of an affair forced her to reschedule this concert. and Here's the exact wording of what we think they might have written in their love letters. She was divorced and it allegedly could have been because of...__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra)[edit]

53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Diff: [7]

Same Edit Reverted by Admin Diff: [8]

Attemp to solve on talk pages and User:Summichum Habitual consistency in negating any discussion and reverts without discussion:

Quote from pritish Nandi[edit source]

I've removed the sentence, as to me it seemed to be violating WP:BLPGOSSIP. On reading the article, the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect. This is not immediately obvious when quoted out of context in Wikipedia, and could make readers think that the claims were meant to be taken literally.

Similar edit was done by admin user:Mr. Stradivarius in article Mufaddal Saifuddin.Rukn950 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No Rukn950 you changed before discussing here and above, anyways WP:BLPGOSSIP applies to BLP articles and this is not a BLP article , this article's main topic itself is succession controversy which requires that the views of third parties whether pro or against should be quoted if avaialible in reputed media outlets, remember we are not stating it as fact but as quote.Summichum (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

whether the article is about living person or not but the quote is, hence it is violation. you reverted my edit without discussion. that has become your habitual consistency. I would request user:Qwertyus and user:Anupmehra to look into this matter and also about Azad suplimentary.Rukn950 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Rukn950 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User summichum again reverted the tag regarding violation: Diff: [9] This has been going on for articles dawoodi bohra and mufaddal saifuddin since 2 months at a stretch.User:Summichum is consistent in his POV edits and reverts. even after he was blocked twice.Rukn950 (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

    • this is a false allegation firstly , I invited him to talk page for discussion regarding this issue and I explained the reasons that this 53rd succession controversy article is not a BLP article , and he has in bad faith reported diffs of two different articles. I only quoted the statement of an influential person in India , Pristish Nandy who has recieved the highest civilian award of integrity in India :padma shri by govt of India and was a leading editor of famous news papers, and he is completely non aligned third party who presented his view as a result of well thought research on the subject of succession controversy. These users are having conflict of interest as reported on COI noticeboard. they also reported me by copy pasting comments of a third party user User:Anupmehra and he also agreed partially that rukn and md_iet are involved in conflict of interest.Summichum (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Mr summichum has never invited me but on the contrary he reported me to editwar notice board, but failed twice to block me as his POV was clear. user ‎Md iet and myself have been trying to reason with him but he is adamant. He claims that he is not familiar with dawoodi bohra yet his POV is clear from his edits.This is his sole purpose in joining the Wikipedia.Rukn950 (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC) let difference and his history speak for itself.Rukn950 (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC) The Audacity of this user summichum is such that he flooded my talkpages with notices:

(cur | prev) 09:21, 2 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,280 bytes) (+2,760)‎ . . (Notice: Conflict of Interest on Dawoodi Bohra. (TW)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 09:20, 2 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,520 bytes) (+332)‎ . . (Caution: Not assuming good faith onMufaddal Saifuddin. (TW)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 09:18, 2 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,184 bytes) (+833)‎ . . (General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Dawoodi Bohra. (TW)) (undo | thank)

and recently he harassed an editor:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

13 User:Md iet reported by User:Summichum (Result: No violation)

This user summichum is consitent in his reverts yet again there is no way he can be reasoned:

14:33, 15 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,266 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Court Case against Mufaddal Saifuddin)(undo | thank)(cur | prev)

14:32, 15 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,266 bytes) (+503)‎ . . (added new source HT on the court battle and azad magazine is a verifiable primary source which was used as quote) (undo | thank)(cur | prev)

14:12, 15 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (19,763 bytes) (+3,139)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Md iet (talk) to last revision by Rukn950. (TW)) (undo | thank)(cur | prev)

10:00, 15 April 2014‎ Md iet (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,624 bytes) (-3,139)‎ . . (→‎Demands of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohras in wake of succession controversy: Proper citation required, however demands of independent group do not carry any weightage here in this article, the group has its own article.)

Rukn950 (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC) User summichum reverted my tag I had given on this page:

(cur | prev) 19:00, 15 April 2014‎ Lowercase sigmabot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (20,148 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (Removing protection templates) (bot) (undo) (cur | prev) 18:40, 15 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,175 bytes) (+28)‎ . . (Adding (TW)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 18:39, 15 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,147 bytes) (-183)‎ . . (Please dont overtag. All of the references are authoritative and the only azad mag source was used to quote the opinion of progressive stakeholders on the controversy) (undo |thank) (cur | prev) 15:50, 15 April 2014‎ Rukn950 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,330 bytes) (+64)‎

Kate Mulgrew[edit]

First it started with IPs, now with registered accounts, insisting on adding unsourced and then poorly sourced material (Facebook and another that references her boyfriend) that Mulgrew and Tim Hagan have divorced. I can't keep reverting. Talking about it (on my talk page) hasn't helped. I'd request protection, but at least one of the editors is auto-confirmed. I could claim a BLP exemption, but once they started using sources, even if they're unreliable, I'm reluctant to do that. Maybe others could help. I did a little searching to see if I could find anything one way or the other and failed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Mmph. It is her official FB page, therefore almost certainly true, so I can understand why people are adding it. I can't find a single reliable source though. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not good at navigating Facebook (don't have an account and don't want one). The only times I look at it are at Wikipedia and only when I have to. I now can't find the entry about her divorce, don't know why. Before I accessed the page through the other editor's link. Now, I've accessed her account through her own website (which, btw, doesn't say anything about marriages or divorces that I can find). As I recall, when I accessed it with the other editor's link, it was a one-liner, and when I clicked on it, no more information is provided. Divorce is a legal concept. Even if we accept Facebook as a reliable source in some contexts, I don't think it should be accepted here. This requires a higher quality source.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, there's a conversation there where Mulgrew's account refers to a "current boyfriend" and the fact that she is divorced. As you say though, we'd need more than that. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Currently the article has her married. Isn't there a BLP issue with this as it's probably inaccurate and we have her talking about her boyfriend? --NeilN talk to me 03:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ted Cruz[edit]

What are the guidelines to denote ancestry of living people? I read that this is based in self-identification, rather than identification by third parties.

The case in point is Ted Cruz in which there is a sentence in the lede in which Cruz is described as a "Cuban-American": (A Cuban-American, Cruz is one of three Latinos in the Senate.) using a third party source (not a WP:RS, in my opinion); there are no sources in which Cruz self-identifies as such. Any assistance would be appreciated. Cwobeel (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The official biography of Cruz at senate.gov neither defines him as "Latino" or as "Cuban-American" [10] . So my question is: can we still describe Cruz as Latino and Cuban-American, given that his Father was Cuban? His Mother is American from Italian ancestry. Cwobeel (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

my read on this is that since it is an ethnic distinction rather than a nationality (if he held dual citizenship that would be a different matter) unless it is self-identified, then no.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, that is what I thought. I'll wait for additional comments before deleting that sentence from the lede. Cwobeel (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, Cruz has dual citizenship (US and Canadian), so should he be better described as Canadian-American? Cwobeel (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
There has been long, long discussions of all of these issues at the Ted Cruz talk page. Cwobeel is looking for editors that will support his position that Ted Cruz is not a "Cuban American". There has been long, long discussions about Obama being called an "African American" in the Wikipedia article concerning him and the consensus was that Obama should be called an African American--even though Obama's mother is white. That consensus decision is absolutely correct, but Cwobeel seems to believe that since Cruz's mother was white then no one on Wikipedia can call Ted Cruz "Cuban American" even though there are literally hundreds of reliable sources that call him "Cuban American". Cwobeel's response to the Obama discussion is that the Obama discussion does not apply. That is not a substantive reply that is merely stonewalling.--NK (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Cruz only utilizes US citizenship - so he is as "Canadian-American" as George Romney was "Mexican-American" or John McCain was "Panamanian-American" (people born in the Canal Zone appear eligible to claim Panamanian citizenship under Panama law AFAICT) Trying to hyphenate a person who does not consider himself hyphenated it the height of silliness in an encyclopedia, though I suppose political tract writers have laxer standards. IIRC, Cruz has tried to formally renounce all possible Canadian citizenship claims. And claims that he is not a "natural born US citizen" are silly season speculation present since the days of FDR who actually voted in Canadian local elections. Collect (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Ted Cruz appears to self-identify as "Cuban American" to indicate his ethnicity and not his citizenship. Removal of that would thus be improper as we allow people to self-designate their religion, ethnicity etc. /the only sources saying "call him Canadian" appear to be partisan in nature entirely. Collect (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@Collect: OK, but what do you say about describing Cruz as "Cuban-American" or "Latino", when he has never described himself as such. And there are but a few sources that describe him in such terms (his official page ate senate.gov does not include any such) Cwobeel (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually he did use "Cuban American" in campaign biographies, official biographies, in speeches etc. Do you have a real reason for disputing his self-identification in favour of a rather partisan claim? You say he does not mention "Cuban" in his Senate bio but it does have Ted’s father was born in Cuba, fought in the revolution, and was imprisoned and tortured. He fled to Texas in 1957, penniless and not speaking a word of English. which seems clear enough. As does Before being elected, Ted received national acclaim as the Solicitor General of Texas, the State's chief lawyer before the U.S. Supreme Court. Serving under Attorney General Greg Abbott, Ted was the nation’s youngest Solicitor General, the longest serving Solicitor General in Texas, and the first Hispanic Solicitor General of Texas. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Collect:I could not find any such sources in which he identifies as "Latino" or "Cuban-American". His official biography does not mention it either, see http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=about_senator. Maybe you can help and find these sources? Cwobeel (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

my stance stays the same, if he self identifies or a source that can be attributed to him identifies as Cuban American then that is fine.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I found no sources in which he self indetifies as Cuban-American; just one source (his official bio at senate.gov, mentions "Hispanic" : and the first Hispanic Solicitor General of Texas. http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=about_senator Cwobeel (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
If a person makes a specific point in his biography that his father was Cuban, it follows that we can say he has a Cuban ethnicity here. And I find the cavil that "Hispanics" are not "Latinos" to be risible. Last I looked, the two terms in the US are interchangeable with regard to Hispanics of American heritage. Now can we have the real reasoning? Collect (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Per Hispanic and Latino Americans: While the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, Hispanic is a narrower term and refers mostly to persons of Spanish-speaking ancestry, while Latino is more frequently used to refer more generally to anyone of Latin American origin or ancestry, including Brazilians. For the sake of WP:RS, we should use "Hispanic" as that is what says in Cruz's official bio at senate.gov.Cwobeel (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Collect says: "Ted Cruz appears to self-identify as "Cuban American"." Cwobel says Cruz "has never described himself as such." Collect replies, "Actually he did use 'Cuban American' in campaign biographies, official biographies, in speeches etc." Cwobel has asked for sources for Collect's assertion, saying he can find none; Coffeepusher says if Cruz self-identifies, or a source attributable to him identifies him, as Cuban American, then OK. Yet Collect's reply overlooks these challenges, and says that as Cruz identifies his father as Cuban he has "Cuban ethnicity."
What would help here, in light of Collect's original claim that Cruz "appears to self-identify as Cuban-American", would be for Collect to address Cwobel's request by supporting the claim with sources. Collect will be well aware of the difference between self-identifying as Cuban American and identifying one's father as of "Cuban ethnicity," so in light of Collect's frequently-stated commitment to WP:BLP and his habitual focus on RS sourcing, I'm confident the sources for the "self-identifies" claim exist, otherwise Collect would not have made the assertion. It's just a matter of Collect citing the relevant campaign biographies, official biographies and speeches etc. that he mentions. Easy. Then the issue will be resolved. I hope this helps. Writegeist (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the summary, Writegeist. @Collect: look forward to these sources so that we can get on with other edits. Cwobeel (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
As the effort to copy, paste, and format these results greatly exceeds the effort to find them, I will stop at six. Rest assured there are plenty more for anyone willing to repeat this simple experiment. --Allen3 talk 12:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I note "Hispanic is narrower than Latino" which rather implies that Hispanic is a subset of Latino -- thus a person who is Hispanic is Latino. WRT "Cuban American" try noting NYT, WaPo, HuffPo and virtually every single major RS using the term. He has said: The idea that the son of a Cuban immigrant with nothing, who finds himself suddenly elected to the Senate, to have the opportunity to come in every day, it is truly awesome, in the real sense of the word, so as far as I can see, those who deny that he repeatedly mentions Cuba are being wilfully deaf here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: No one is arguing that there are no sources that describe Cruz as "Cuban-American"; that is not what is being discussed. Per your assertion above and per @Writegeist: response, you are to provide sources in which Cruz self-identify as "Cuban American" and/or Latino. Once you provide these, the discussion will be over. Cwobeel (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Thank you Cwobeel; and thank you Allen3 and Collect. First, Allen3: I had done the search and was well aware of the secondary sources. I'm sorry to have put you to the unnecessary trouble of duplicating my search and listing the results I and no doubt also Cwobeel and Coffeepusher and Uncle Tom Cobley and all had already seen. I also regret that my post's wording "what would help here, in light of Collect's original claim that Cruz 'appears to self-identify as Cuban-American', would be for Collect to address Cwobeel's request by supporting the claim with souces" (emphasis added) did not make it sufficiently clear that the sources I thought Collect could help with were the sources that neither I nor Cwobeel, nor, I guess, Coffeepusher et al. could find for Collect's assertion that Cruz self-identifies as Cuban-American. I hope I've managed to make it clear this time (Cwobeel, incidentally, had already requested the same thing with what I thought was the utmost clarity, yet had been ignored; I was just reiterating the request). Now to Collect: Collect must be aware that saying Cruz "repeatedly mentions Cuba" does not support Collect's altogether plausible but as yet uncorroborated contention that Cruz self-identifies as Cuban American, I can only think that, like Allen3, Collect misunderstood my poorly worded post. It will be easy, now that I and Cwobeel have cleared up the misunderstanding, for Collect to direct us, as requested several times now, to at least some of the RS sources in which Cruz self-identifies as Cuban American, as Collect stated (self-identification being incontrovertible for wp, which is presumably why Collect referred to it). I would post the sources myself but I just don't seem to be able to find the pesky little blighters. I hope we won't have to rely altogether on sources where Cruz does not self-identify in the way Collect says he does. Cwobeel, my apologies for previously misspeeling your username. Writegeist (talk)
I can't follow all of the re-directs in that paragraph, but here is the bottom line. Cwobeel has been attempting to remove all mentions of the phrases "Cuban American" and "Latino" from the Ted Cruz article. Ted Cruz's father is Cuban that makes Ted Cruz Cuban. It is as simple as that. We have plenty of secondary reliable sources that call him "Cuban American" and "Latino". There is zero sources that support the proposition of Cwobeel that "Cuban American" and "Latino" have to be removed from the article. It is a ludicrous argument. Anyone who wants to remove the phrase "Cuban American" or "Latino" from the article please provide a reliable source that states that somehow that even though Cruz's father was Cuban that somehow Cruz himself is not Cuban. Please provide that reliable source. I will waiting for the reliable source.--NK (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary[edit]

  1. The consensus in WP is that for ancestry and/or ethnic distinctions in BLPs, we rely on self-identification, that is, we report what the subject of the BLP identifies himself/herself as
  2. Collect has asserted in this page that: ‘’Ted Cruz appears to self-identify as "Cuban American" to indicate his ethnicity and not his citizenship.’’
  3. As of now, neither Collect nor any of the editors involved or other BLP patrollers have been able to find sources in which Cruz elf-identifies as “Cuban-American”, or “Latino”
  4. The only self-identification for Ted Curz ancestry we have found is one in which he self-identifies as “Hispanic” in his official bio at senate.gov [11] (quote: “the first Hispanic Solicitor General of Texas”)

Given the above, unless sources are forthcoming in which Cruz self-identifies as “Cuban-American”, the only term we can use to describe Cruz’s ethnicity in his BLP is “Hispanic”.

Please let me know if I missed anything and if these points above are correct.

Cwobeel (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That is your summary. It is wrong. It is your opinion. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources that describe Cruz as "Cuban American" and "Latino" and in the absence of any reliable sources that support Cwobeel's personal opinion that Cruz is not a Cuban American or Latino then the article will state "Cuban American" and "Latino" based upon the hundreds of reliable sources that describe him that way.--NK (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You have missed/ignored a lot. You have missed the fact that Obama's mother is white. You have missed the fact that there are hundreds of reliable sources that call Cruz "Cuban American". You have missed the fact that Cruz's father was born in Cuba. You have missed the fact that on the campaign trail and in interviews Cruz constantly talks about his father's escape from Cuba. You have missed the fact that his father goes on the campaign trail with him and gives long speeches on his personal flight from Cuba. You have missed the fact that wanting to remove all references in the article to Cruz's Latino and Cuban heritage is an agenda is not good editing. You have missed the fact that you readily admit that Cruz's father comes from Cuba, but you don't give a reason why if Cruz's father is clearly "Cuba American" then how can it be that Cruz himself isn't "Cuban American". You have missed the fact that you have not provided even one reliable source that says Cruz is not a "Cuban American".--NK (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Heres a source that has Cruz self identifying as Cuban, so that should resolve the issue unless there is some goalpost moving going on. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ted+cruz+cuban&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=AEE900E9704C58924164AEE900E9704C58924164 Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I listened to the video, but could not find it. Care to point at what time in the video this is asserted? Thanks. Cwobeel (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The very beginning. 0:50 "First you have one cuban, then you have two cubans, then you have three cubans [...] We need another one. When Marco [] started he was a 3%. When I [] started I was at 2% You are really grasping at straws here, he talks about his father's leaving Cuba in a million different places. I am confused as to why you think this is controversial. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Gaijin42. Is a single source, in a passing comment in a video enough to consider this as a self-identification? Cwobeel (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
1) yes. 2) we don't actually have a policy regarding self identification except for cats (WP:BLPCAT) - for prose content, there is no such policy. MOS:IDENTITY specifically says "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, and Neutral point of view (and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article). When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used in reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, Wikipedia should use the term most used in sources; if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term the person or group uses. (For example, see the article Jew, which demonstrates that most Jews prefer that term to "Jewish person".)" - it is patently obvious that he is described as Cuban-American by a massive number of sources. Both branches of policy logic (self identified, and RS) lead to the same conclusion. He should be described as Cuban American. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Great, that resolves this then! Many thanks for the explanation and for clarifying about policy. I guess, this thread can then be closed now. Cwobeel (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added the phrase "Cuban American" back in the article, using the US - Cuba Democracy PAC video. Thanks for the link.--NK (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The words at 0:50 do indeed imply that he considers himself Cuban, although he falls short of explicitly self-identifying with such as "I am Cuban" or "As a Cuban, I . . ." or "we Cubans". The real clincher will be when Collect cites the relevant campaign biographies, official biographies and speeches etc. in which, Collect has told us, Cruz self-identifies as Cuban American. I'm sure Collect will be along shortly with a veritable sheaf of these RSs. Writegeist (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Per MOS:IDENTITY the reliable sources that we have describing him as such are sufficient (Although I certainly wouldn't object to including self identification sources just to cover all bases) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Gaijin42. As I said, I'm sure Collect will soon furnish the self-identification sources whose existence he has already called to our attention, so that we can safely say in Wikipedia's voice that (1) Cruz self-identifies as Cuban American (per Collect's RSs) and (2) he has been described as both Cuban and Cuban American (per other relevant RSs). Writegeist (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
He repeatedly refers to his Cuban dad in almost every major speech, and I dasn't provide you with the hundreds of times he has done so. Is there any actual reason for doubting the reasonable use of the term other than partisan sources calling him "Canadian" and saying he is not a legal candidate? Cheers Collect (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
(Assuming, from the indentation, that Collect is addressing me) It appears you may not remember what you wrote. You wrote: "Actually he did use "Cuban American" in campaign biographies, official biographies, in speeches etc." In reply, you were asked for RSs in support of that precise and emphatic assertion. You have not provided them. Are you going to? (A simple yes or no will suffice.) If he really has self-identified as "Cuban American" in the instances you claim, which seems plausible, inclusion of that fact would benefit the article. If in fact he has not, then your claim can be safely disregarded as a figment of the imagination or mere argument by assertion, neither of which carries much weight on Wikipedia. However, I am sure the sources you mention do, in fact, exist as you say they do, even though they have not yet come to light. If you can't—or don't want to—post them, just say so. But if you were to post them, that would be a real help. Yes or no? Writegeist (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The pamphlets are not searchable by Google alas -- but the speeches are, and make clear that he is quite proud of his Cuban ancestry, and that should be sufficient for the use of the term. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Why are you still pressing the issue? RS say he is cuban american. We say he is cuban american. There is no need for any additional sourcing to call him cuban american in wiki voice. If you think there is, please provide the link to the policy that requires it, or point out the defect in the hundreds of reliable sources available saying he is cuban american. (And in any case, we have a video to one speech already where he calls himself Cuban, plus his repeated references to his father coming from cuba) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(I think Writegeist is trying to hold Collect accountable for his argumentation that Cruz, quote: "Actually he did use "Cuban American" in campaign biographies, official biographies, in speeches etc." I think we are beyond that, anyway, as per your explanation about MOS, we are covered already. Cwobeel (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC))
And it is also clear that your intense desire to obfuscate the true issue -- which is the fact that partisan sources seek to say he is "not a citizen" is WP:FRINGE. Note that I made the edit "American of Cuban ancestry" which is so blatantly obviously correct that you can not say anything except ad homs about me. Cheers -- and try to read WP:CONSENSUSwhen you have an hour or two. Collect (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
LOL, I think you have been too long in WP, seeing people with fringe theories lurking at every corner. The attempt here (believe it or not, it is up to you, was one of accuracy. Cruz is currently Canadian and American, with dual citizenship (alth0=ough he has said that he will rescind the Canadian citizenship),], s for ad hominem, where did I do that? Again, I think you have been too long in this pedia. Cwobeel (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Collect, thank you for your interesting reply. A declaration of pride in Cuban ancestry does not seem the same as declaring oneself Cuban-American. If I may take myself as an example: I have English, Irish, Italian, French, Moroccan, and Russian ancestry. If I were given to ancestral pride (I'm not, as I don't see ancestry as some kind of achievement that warrants pride), I might declare myself "quite proud" of, say, my Moroccan ancestry. But that's not saying I am Moroccan or Arab at all. Neither is it grounds for me to be described as either. Pride in ancestry doesn't have any decisive bearing on the issue at hand. And speaking (or rather, complaining, as you did) of ad hominems, accusing another user of having "an intense desire to obfuscate the true issue", is a fine example. On a more positive note, "American of Cuban ancestry" is indeed meticulously correct. Writegeist (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ken Ham[edit]

This BLP is turning into a biased attack piece, spearheaded by an editor who insists that when editing a biography of a deeply religious person, it's okay to take the position that "Scientists do have facts, what religious people have is faith" and describe the subject's beliefs as "this particular religious nonsense" [12] Assistance is requested. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This same editor also asserts that the article subject "believes his fiction is reality" [13]. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
So I'm "spearheading" a coordinated attack on Ken Ham? I feel so important now :P
I welcome any editor to stop by the talk page and revise the article, I'm not the only editor making edits and discussing them in the TP by a long shot. And I stand by my comments: scientists have facts, religious people have faith and claiming the Earth is 6000 years old is nonsense to the full extent of the word. That's pretty much common sense I'd say. Regards. Gaba (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Editors who are absolutely sure the person is a "loon" should step back for a minute or two and recognize that we can only use the opinions directly expressed in reliable sources, and cited as opinions. The problem is that some editors are absolutely sure that Ham has a hole in his head and therefore Wikipedia must state he has a hole in his head. The real issue is that Ham believes in the "literal inerrancy of the Bible" and we are seeing the classic intersection of science and religion once again on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
"we can only use the opinions directly expressed in reliable sources", agree 100% "and cited as opinions" disagree to some extent. WP:ASSERT is clear on stating undisputed facts as such and WP:UNDUE prevents us from putting WP:FRINGE nonsense on the same level as hard facts as if they were two sides of the same coin. Whether an editor believes Ham is a loon or not is immaterial if said editor does not let it affect its editing. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
But that's exactly the problem, isn't it? The belief that science is fact and religion is fiction is a POV, not The Truth. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Moreover, only as science are Ham's beliefs fringe. As religion, they're shared by rather large number of Christians. WP:SPOV was rejected for a reason. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
And this an encyclopedia, not a religious pamphlet so science facts are facts and religious claims are, at best, unprovable & unfalsifiable claims. In this particular case Ham's religious claims are also WP:FRINGE utter nonsense. I'm sorry but this isn't Conservapedia and we do not give equal weight to what religion might say about scientific facts about the real world we live in. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ASSERT is not a policy, folks. And it clearly states that opinions must be stated as opinions. When people say they wish to state something as a fact because of WP:ASSERT it means they did not read it much at all. (when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution. ) Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It also clearly states that "When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ..." which this case fits precisely. There is absolutely no serious dispute (keyword: serious) about the age of the Earth.
The status of WP:ASSERT might not be a policy but it is directly related to a very important one: WP:NPOV. We could discuss its importance as a stand-alone section, but that's a whole different issue. If you think we should go around WP attributing all known and undisputed facts to the "scientific community" then this would look like a terribly different encyclopedia. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Such attribution would be superfluous in a purely scientific context, where only the scientific POV is relevant. When we're dealing with the nexus of science and religion, as in this article, attribution becomes necessary to avoid taking sides by implying that science = truth and religion = fantasy, as indeed you are claiming. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This page is to discuss BLP problems, not claims about other editors. Please provide a brief outline of what text in the article is a BLP problem, or what text should be added to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    The lead gives undue weight to Bill Nye's comments and does not attribute the mainstream scientific view of Ham's beliefs as the mainstream scientific view, but simply asserts that they are unqualifiedly inconsistent with the available evidence. The lead also uses "former high school science teacher" as a derogatory epithet. The reception section is comprised entirely of negative material. And that's just for starters. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    Re "attribute the mainstream scientific view": what edit is proposed? Surely you do not think an article needs to say "according to X the universe is older than 6000 years"? It would be silly to require attribution for such the sky is blue statements. Science makes planes fly and provides the infrastructure used by Wikipedia—it's a different kind of "belief" than when someone declares the world is 6000 years old. Problems on articles like this often come from each side trying to push the article too far. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    The proposed attribution is [14], for reasons explained above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    Of course, if you take only the most positive aspects of science and the most negative aspects of religion into account, something along the lines of "science makes planes fly and religion makes planes fly into buildings", the result will be very skewed. Is that in fact Wikipedia's house POV? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    That diff shows the insertion of "The mainstream scientific view of" which carries the suggestion that there is some doubt concerning whether there is any physical evidence to support biblical literalism, presumably on the basis that one person's opinion is as good as another's. There is no BLP problem shown in that diff, and there is no need to suggest that there is something called a "mainstream scientific view". Sometimes there is scientific disagreement about details, and it may occasionally be appropriate to refer to a mainstream view, but there is absolutely no difference of opinion regarding the text shown in that diff—it's just FRINGE vs. reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    I agree. DavidLeighEllis claims are just bizarre (being called a "former high school science teacher" is derogatory...since when? Should I be ashamed of having taught science in my life now?). I would understand moving Bill Nye quote from the lead to somewhere else in the article, but apart from that, facts are facts, and any dilution of the utter clash between Ham's views and reality would be pushing pro-creationist fringe POV. --cyclopiaspeak! 11:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. We don't need to "attribute" that fact to the "scientific community". It would sound ridiculous to say that the Earth is round, or that it revolves around the sun, "according to the scientific community". It sounds just as ridiculous here. These are widely accepted objective realities, and as a reality-based encyclopedia we convey them as such. Where a specific individual (for instance, Ham) holds beliefs which conflict with objective reality, then we can respectfully describe those beliefs without calling him names. But we cannot pretend or imply that there is any serious dispute about the objective reality of the Earth's age. MastCell Talk 16:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV we acknowledge any prominent controversies in the lead. Ham's notability lies entirely in his controversial advocacy of pushing utter fringe non-science into the classrooms, and particularly science classrooms, on an equivalent basis as science. Nye's comments are fully representative of the mainstream academic views of the controversies surrounding Ham and Ham's advocacy of promoting non-science nonsense as science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Having just skimmed the BLP policy, I don't really see a violation of that policy here. Describing him a former high-school science teacher doesn't seem derogatory at all, and is relevent. If I understand the BLP policy correctly, the main thrust to eliminate risk of defamation. What is potentially defamatory in the article? Howunusual (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


note: as of this point, the following is in the lead of the BLP:

His claim that the universe is 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is contradicted by evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records.[3][4][n 2] According to an article in the Courier-Journal, Ham's rejection of established science during the debate with Bill Nye was a "harm [to] the education of children and hamper[ing] the nation's ability to innovate."[6]

so the issues are: Is this a fair summary of the article? and Is this material neutrally worded per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

One earlier version read as:

His claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is considered incorrect by the scientific community as it is contradicted by all physical evidence found in the Earth's fossil, biological and geological records

And earlier yet was:

His claims about the young age of the earth have been condemned by virtually all members of the scientific community.[4][5][6][7]

So one may note the evolution of the last part of the lead. Collect (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer something simple and factual, like: "Ham argues, based on his belief in the literal truth of the Bible, that the Earth is 6,000 years old rather than its actual age of approximately 4.5 billion years." Is that a problem? MastCell Talk 21:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
If that is all that is in the lead, then yes it is problematical in that it fails to identify why Ham is notable - that he is promoting non science as science and has been at the center of much controversy for doing so. per WP:LEAD / WP:NPOV / WP:BLP.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Susan E. Roberts[edit]

Some dude seems to think she's a "reptilian?" And links to his 1997 throwback website that obsessively studies the way she blinks as though that's actually a source. Concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.141.99 (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed - thanks for pointing it out. Ravensfire (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Arnold Palmer (drink)[edit]

I noticed the AP article had a reference (to a restaraunts menu!) describing a beverage named after John Daly (golfer) as a Arnold Palmer with a shot of vodka. Besides being poorly sourced and general cruft, to me this is bordering on BLP abuse, or am I just going overboard here?Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Daly himself has marketed a vodka-lemonade concoction bearing his name. So while one could certainly question the tastefulness of naming a mixed drink after a recovering alcoholic, or the wisdom of said recovering alcoholic marketing such a beverage, I don't think there's a BLP issue per se here. Cruft, sure, but this is Wikipedia after all. MastCell Talk 17:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Paul Broun[edit]

Paul Broun This biography needs to be protected as it is a public figure and false, editorialized, misleading, or irrelevant information is CONSTANTLY added that is libellous and abusive and aimed to hurt the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.168.130.213 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Please log back into your last account, Gentlemanscholar741776, declare any old accounts and conflicts of interest and stop edit warring or I will once again have you blocked. Sepsis II (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The IP's changes were a mix of good and not so good. I've tweaked their latest revert. --NeilN talk to me 00:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nara Lokesh[edit]

Cited references do not support information in 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.232.4 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed the unsourced content. --NeilN talk to me 00:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Angela Pulvirenti[edit]

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

The person is not notable enough to warrant an article. It appears to have been written by the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyfgcv (talkcontribs) 00:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The subject seems to meet WP:GNG. I've depuffed the content a bit. --NeilN talk to me 00:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Peter Luff[edit]

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

An IP identifying themselves as the subject raised an issue here at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive178#Peter Luff in June last year concerning the following statement, but got no response:

He later justified UK arms sales to serial human rights violators like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain as follows: "I'm not condoning human rights abuses, of course not, but . . . sometimes you have to be pragmatic."[15]

The same IP removed the material, but it has now been restored. The source verifies the quote but I'm not convinced it's been presented in an appropriate context.

The subject has also posted a {{request edit}} at the talk page on a separate issue. January (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked into this, and decided to remove the material per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Will add the page to my watchlist for a while. Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Michel Chossudovsky[edit]

Several editors here have tried over recent months to add a criticism section on this academic and activist's page, sourced to random comments from political opponents, both on the left and right. At its recent maximum, all this content was being inserted. Subsequently, and following some talk page discussion here – originally started a while back by someone querying inclusion but never responded to – it has now been reduced to this paragraph, sourced to a book by a rival – and it would appear, non-notable – activist and academic that accuses Chossudovsky of "distortions" and of being a fan of an indicted war criminal. The editor backing inclusion has also referred to Chossudovsky as a "dictator lover" in discussions on talk. Quite apart from NPOV, UNDUE and CRITICISM concerns, both the page content and talk page contributions would appear to be a breach of WP's BLP policy. I don't see what reporting and indeed apparently endorsing spats and smears have to do with building an encyclopedic biography. N-HH talk/edits 12:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

if this is the man - [16] - here he is on the profoundly propagandistic and Putin loving Russia Today, which is not, I believe, regarded as a reliable source on English wp, but shows something of the temperature of the mans political climate - N-HH said Karadjis was 'not an academic', but indeed, appears to be, so he is just 'smearing' a man for not saying something N-HH finds congenial -- I cant find much in respected RS about chossudovsky- probably because he is regarded as a marginal figure - denigrating differences of opinion on events in reality, wars and such, as 'spats and smears' is no use imo - if this bloke is a public intellectual, however marginal, 'spats and smears' are part of the story, that is the territory, -that's how I see it. N-HH is trying to delete what looks to me like reliably sourced and pertinent criticism. Sayerslle (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Payal Rohatgi[edit]

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

I don't even know where to begin to fix this hot mess of poor citations. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Chris Stewart[edit]

Hi I am an Aunt of Chris Stewart. His mother Susan Reed, my sister, is not of Arabic origin. We are English Canadians. Our Dad was born of Irish decent and our Mother, British decent all born in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindyr 3CA (talkcontribs) 18:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The ESPN source cited in Chris Stewart (ice hockey) makes no assertion about his mother's ethnicity, so I have removed that. However, the source does report the father as Jamaican. "For most of their lives, the only income their mother, a blue-eyed blonde named Sue Reid, brought in was a small disability check. Their father, a Jamaican immigrant named Norman Stewart..."[17]C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Robert H. Schuller Unauthorized and Locked Data by Unknown User[edit]

I am the authorized representative for Robert H. Schuller. I attempted to make corrections to his biography adding to the accuracy but I think this page is set up to automatically return to a locked version, constituting endorsement by and of someone we do not know. Please assist us in unlocking this page so that we can also contribute to the content assuring that it is accurate and more complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHS Trust (talkcontribs) 23:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Many of the proposed edits appear to have violated various Wikipedia guidelines and policies, including requirements for material to be verifiable in appropriate reliable sources, to be written in a neutral point of view, to avoid promotion, and to avoid inappropriate external links. The existing version of the article may have some of these issues as well. Schuller is an important figure in the history of televangelism, and the Wikipedia article could probably be improved with the addition of more independent reliable sources and better, more objectively written text.
A positive course of action for you here would be to raise specific concerns about perceived factual inaccuracies or poorly written content on the article's talk page, where other, experienced and independent editors can review the issues and make appropriate edits. Please review the pages Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for more guidance. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Anca Heltne[edit]

We have two spas, probably the same individual, adding unreliably sourced material and deleting sourced material in an attempt to whitewash this article. I can probably justifiably claim a BLP exeption from edit warring, but I'd rather have more editors involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've wutchlosted this to see what happens next. Maybe other people have too. Or not... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Obviously I have. Tried to find the source the individual (now on their fifth revert) claims to exist with no success. --NeilN talk to me 18:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a routine athletics doping case. No need for alarm. I've expanded and cited as appropriate[18]. SFB 20:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Benet Salway[edit]

After being emailed by Salway with a complaint, I have removed some personal unsourced information on this article (diff). Could the edits with this unencyclopaedic information about his family be suppressed please?

I have a mild COI as I am friends with Salway, so I would appreciate another pair of eyes on this enforcement of BLP. I will advise Salway on how to email OTRS if there are future problems. -- (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed one link, reworded a copyvio from his online c.v. etc. Looks fine at this point, though I am unsure his list of articles is altogether necessary here. Collect (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

nl.wiki/Geoffrey_Deckers[edit]

"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

And this is NOT the case on

nl.wiki/Geoffrey_Deckers nl.wiki/EenDierEenVriend

and the only thing nl.wiki'pedians say is to "register so i can change the inaccuracies in these articles"

I (and i know EDEV & GDeckers) do NOT want to be wikipedians!

So much of what is written there is untrue and inaccurate, and the people have troubles in their lives & organisational work because of it!

libelous information & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation is used upon nl.wiki/Deckers & nl.wiki/EDEV and repeated requests to change or delete the incorrect stuff is being ignored; not just today but also before after complaining per email through official i n f o @ e d e v .nl emails

please help here as the nl.wiki does not seem to care! 83.232.236.174 (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC) (signing here but i dont think i'll ever be able to re-find this in the wiki-jungle ..)

The en.wiki has no jurisduction over the nl.wiki; just as they have no jurisduction over us. Stuartyeates (code test) (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Air rage[edit]

I'm concerned that the article Air rage consists mainly of a list of incidents where people behaved badly on planes or at airports. I'm not sure if the content is acceptable based on the BLP policy, and was hoping to get opinions from people who are more familiar with the policies. I wasn't quite sure if this was the right place to ask for opinions, since there isn't any dispute on the article, but this was the best place I could find to get opinions of people familiar with BLP policy. No one responded when I posted on the talk page of the article. Anyway, is that content acceptable, or is it problematic? Should the list of incidents be removed, or perhaps just the names of the people involved (or maybe just the names for people who aren't celebrities)? Calathan (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is a mess. I've started in but more eyes would help. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for working on the article. Calathan (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned up the obvious WP:NOR and removed un-sourced content. Cwobeel (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Shingo Nishimura[edit]

Article is about a Japanese politician who has made controversial statements. It is currently categorized under Category:Disbarred lawyers and Category:Japanese criminals, but these claims are not mentioned in the text, and consequently not cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.215.250 (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Now fnixed, thank you for letting us know. (I don't see why people take objection to him ranting at Koreans; I rant at lots of people, regardless of their nationality.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst (again)[edit]

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

After Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) and Shrikanthv (talk · contribs) nominated the BLP article and all of the authors' book articles for deletion, one of the discussions centered on the serious NPOV violations in the article.

They were already brought up at this noticeboard at least once. Some improvements were then made by User:Collect, but they were reverted by another editor. The article may need to be protected.

The NPOV violations were explained in great detail by the subject of the lemma here:

These links say among other things:

Well, there you have it. The lemma on me has ended up taking this form because some militant among your contributors purposely wanted to “warn readers” against me. Please cite me an instruction for encyclopedists that names “warning” among the legitimate goals of an encyclopedia.
Either you remove the lemma altogether, or you straighten it out and apply the rules of encyclopedia-writing to it. At any rate, in a encyclopedia, I count on being judged for what I myself have said or done, and not for the gossip my declared enemies have come up with.
If Wikipedia wants to live up to its promise of being a reliable encyclopedic source, it will strike this and all sentences resembling it from its article on me. At most, it can use me as an example of how it was fooled by some of its all-too-partisan collaborators. Speaking of whom: the history page accompanying my page proves forever that some Wikipedia collaborators wanted to inflict on me the maximum harm possible, an attitude incompatible with work for an encyclopedia.

The old discussion was here:

Someone claiming to be the subject of the article Koenraad Elst has written a long blog post with a set of criticisms of the article. Some of the criticisms seem slightly overwrought but there's probably quite a few which are valid. Anyone want to sort this out? —Tom Morris (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well -- the BLP was replete with "claims" and polemical wording which I did a little clean-up on. Not a shining example of Wikipedia biographies in any case. More for others to work on. I specifically did not seek out the blog, bit worked from Wikipedia normal best practice on it. Collect (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear; in this edit Calypsomusic (talk · contribs) reposted an old thread with commentaries of two editors, without signing it himself. --Soman (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to sign. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Some users are even calling him a fascist in wikipedia space. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Diffs would have been useful. Looks like just one editor, NarSakSasLee, here. I don't find the claim to be particularly outlandish. See, for example, Nanda, Meera (2003). Prophets Facing Backwards: Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India. RutgersUP. pp. 9–11. . However, it would probably be best if NarSakSesLee explained what s/he meant. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Commented. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The guy is a nutcase. All of his books belong on his own article - not separated. No one is discussing them except fringe authors. There is also very little criticism or praise of him. He's part of Vlaams Belang (which is fascist) and is coming up with piles of bullshit no one actually cares about. So why have his own articles on irrelevant non-notable books? NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Look who's talking? One who believes that this book is related to science. If you already know now, that you are Incompetent about these stuff, you can just stop or pursue useful contribution, in place of typing extreme nonsense that violates the policies. I cannot find any source of him being fascist anyway. So stop making up. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The Koenraad Elst section was deleted (removed from public view) by Lesser Cartographies and later archived, but the issue is not resolved. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I hatted the section, as an admin had taken a look and blocked the offending user. I think that's about as resolved as you're going to get. What else did you want to see happen here? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification. But the issue is about the Koenraad Elst article, not about the personal attacks on various talkpages. It was not related to that user, so the blocking didn't solve the issue. --Calypsomusic (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Dan Patrick[edit]

It states on Dan Patrick's Wikipedia page that his spouse is Wendy Davis. I believe that not to be true. Wendy Davis is a political opponent. I believe that Dan Patrick's spouse is Susan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.169.129 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Different Dan Patrick, but you're right about his wife. I've fixed the vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 13:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Billy Bob Thornton[edit]

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

Regarding the CBC interview incident, I have twice updated the paragraph to note that, despite negative press, Billy Bob's band The Boxmasters played the next night to not one, but two standing ovations from the Canadian audience at the end of the show. I am Mr. Thornton's Webmaster and work very closely with his team, and my source is someone who was physically present at the concert. Twice, this update has been deleted.

Also, Mr. Thornton did not complain that Canadians were like mashed potatoes without the gravy. He joked about it. Anyone who watches the interview can see that he is joking.

108.91.105.124 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Amélie Frank

I've re-worded the section somewhat, as I found it to be overly focused on a Canadian perspective despite being justified by reference to multiple international sources which seem not to share that perspective.
Regarding the standing ovations, unfortunately personal accounts of the reception of the show can't be used to add material on Wikipedia unless they're published by reliable independent sources.
An argument could perhaps be made that the section is actually WP:UNDUE and therefore shouldn't be in the article at all, but I can't quite see that at the moment; would welcome comments from others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks like it's being given undue weight. As a badly conducted interview (interviewer and interviewee), it was certainly covered, and it might be worth a sentence as a public incident under "other". But right now it's being given more weight than even his marriage to Angelina Jolie, and given equal weight as his music career as a whole. I don't usually like staff interventions for celebrities but there's no way this one interview is worth more weight than any single one of his acting roles, movies etc. Right now his career section is "Film, Music, CBC Incident".__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It also looks like the writeup of this incident relies heavily on the Jian Ghomeshi article. This was a page that had severe COI concerns in the past, as shown here. I don't think we should have more than a sentence on the interview in Thornton's BLP, and without the negative cast that could have originated from Ghomeshi's staff. If you look at the verbs used to describe Thornton's behavior, they seem to run foul of Neutrality and the spirit of WP:SAY.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Victor Yanukovych[edit]

Lvivske keeps adding a defamatory information to the article about Victor Yanukovych.

The user reverted me twice [19], [20].

The user also lied about having fact checked the source : [21].

I hope the user is blocked cause it was intentional.

(I removed the section a few days earlier and then Paavo273 readded it. I believe the readdition was in good faith.)

For the record, the source says only:

Where is Viktor Yanukovych? (VIDEO, UPDATE)

Today's great guessing game is where ex-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is hiding out. Border guards said they stopped his plane in Donetsk trying to leave the country on Feb. 22, but have not said anything publicly today. Member of parliament Vitali Klitschko said today that he doesn't know where Yanukovych went, nor were his whereabouts disclosed in parliament today. Amid the uncertainty, rumors have swirled, with places such as the United Arab Emirates or Russia as possible destinations abroad or, if he's still in Ukraine, somewhere in his home oblast of Donetsk, where he was the regional governor for several years.

A videotape shot at an unknown location and released to the pro-government UBR business channel for broadcast on Feb. 22 is all that Yanukovych left the public for clues.

--Moscow Connection (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Moscow Connection is lying. First he blanked the content and another user reverted him, and today he tried blanking the fully cited content again. The content includes a direct quote from an article by the Kyiv Post. I have since opened a talk page discussion showing both the source link, quote, and even a screen shot for good measure. I don't know why Moscow Connection is denying the source exists; this is widely cited information that a quick google search would find further information from every major newspaper in the world it seems. I warned him on his talk page and informed him that I had fact checked the source, and he called me a vandal, and now threatened to have me blocked....for fact checking? --Львівське (говорити) 19:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible the article was changed since it was originally posted? Ravensfire (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, a quick google search using the first bits of the quote show plenty of other potential sources for that quote. Ravensfire (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Article's the same, posted a screenshot of how it appears today with the quote highlighted. I've since added refs from Bloomberg and the Washington Post to assuage any doubts.--Львівське (говорити) 19:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I saw your screenshot, and don't doubt you, but there is something odd happening then. (Perhaps some regional filtering, which I've seen before) I don't see that quote at all in the link provided. I would recommend considering using an alternate source. Ravensfire (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what you see. I will reply there on the talk page with a screenshot of what I see. (I've quoted the whole text I see above.)
Actually, I've looked at your screenshot and I've heard about what it says, but it was just a statement by a party official, not an official statement by the party. There were a few statements like that issued, but the party didn't officially disavowed Yanukovich. So what your added is incorrect even if some article actually says what your screenshot says. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The guardian.com timeline article says "Viktor Yanukovych, who has not been seen since his pre-recorded video apperance on Saturday, has been rejected by his own political group, the Party of Regions." The full statement is apparently posted on their website. But you've got a secondary source saying he's been rejected by his former party. Maybe just better phrasing is needed? Ravensfire (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Could you please help? Could you please ask the people who are adding the statement to either provide a link to the official statement or remove the section? --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "a statement by a party official" when it was made in a formal address by the head of the party itself. That's about as formal as it gets. Also, the quote is "The Party of Regions faction and members of our party, strongly condemn...", he is not speaking in a personal capacity, but on behalf of the entire party...as the quote makes clear. --Львівське (говорити) 19:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It's just a statement by the party's parliamentary faction, not by the party. I've just searched the net and there were reports about some statements like that by the party's parliamentary faction and by some regional section back in February. But I believe there never was any official statement by the party.
Cause you see, Yanukovich asked to exclude him from the party much later himself and his request was granted: [22]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's remove the warnings to each other. If you remove the complete section on my talk page with some edit summary about it being a mistake or something like that, I will remove the section on your talk page. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
If we're talking about the same thing here and I THINK we ARE, I had mentioned to Moscow Connection that the reason the info was missing from the cite (which IMO seems clear if you look at the cited source) is KP deliberately cuts off articles to try get paid subscriptions. I had told MC that I would add a substitute link--the one I also added on the talk page in this section about 2/3 way down in the paragraph that starts "Здравствйте Мocow Connection...." Unfortunately, that archive is for some reason a banned website and the article would not allow me to add it--just spit it back out. That may be what precipitated all this--Causa causae est causa causati! Well that, and my originally splitting off the newer info about VY asking 2B excluded from where User:Yulia Romero had placed it as part of her IMO seemingly tireless efforts to expand and improve the UA-related articles of this encyclopaedia. Regards all, Paavo273 (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I obviously didn't notice the second half of that message.
But I've explained above (and attempted to explain before on the talk page) why the info you re-added was incorrect. These are statements by some party official and by the parliamentary fraction (see the link Lvivske provided). Not by the party (the whole party). --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Saying it's a statement by "the parliamentary faction, and not the party" is an obfuscation of the material. The faction is the party, Finkle is Einhorn. The quote by the head of the party clearly says "The Party of Regions faction and members of our party" --Львівське (говорити) 20:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The parliamentary faction is not the party. The parliamentry faction is the people who are members of the partliamentary faction. (I bet you know yourself what the situation was right after the coup.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Recognising that there may be regional filtering issues, as suggested by Ravensfire, may assist in explaining why you were arguing with a number of contributors on the talk page who could see what you couldn't is one thing, Moscow Connection; not accepting that others were telling you that the information was there is not assuming good faith. Blanking the section while we were all still actively engaged in establishing what the problem was on the talk page is tendentious editing by anyone's standards. It would have been reasonable to tag the section as needing better sources: removing it altogether (yet again) is not reasonable.
You've now essentially turned this into a demand for explicit evidence in the form of primary sources (i.e., as per this comment and the one above) on the basis that implicit secondary sources do not meet your personal, exacting standards. Your problem does not appear to be with the sources but the content itself. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reasonable or rational argument for striking a section from a timeline. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I've already explained 100,000 times that Yanukovich wasn't disowned/disavowed/excluded from the party until he asked to be exluded. I'm starting to lose my patience. Wikipedia lies. Thanks to you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Here: Talk:Viktor Yanukovych#Content blanking on his disavowing by Party of Regions.
The article is a BLP. Please remove the incorrect info. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Steve Starr Pulitzer Prize Photographer[edit]

Hi. I'm still alive. My Wiki bio has me confused with another photographer who died in November 2012. Can I get the bio changed? It seems my efforts at changing the bio are not wiki literatre. Thanks - Steve, steve@stevestarr.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.252.247 (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you made the change to remove the offending information. That should be good enough. Somebody had already raised the issue on the talk page for the article. —mako 20:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

John Angus Campbell[edit]

This John Angus Campbell biography seems to have potential problems that I have detailed on the article's talk page. In particular, the article's subject has created a list of errors in fact and in imputation that somebody should look through carefully (also: [23] [24]).

I think these issues are relatively easy to fix. That said, I am currently a faculty member in the subject's old department so I would prefer not to do the editing myself if somebody else can. —mako 20:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Rand Paul - Quote from the Freedom Summit[edit]

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

Rand Paul spoke at the Freedom Summit on April 12. In his speech, he insisted that the Republic Party has to broaden its appeal in order to grow, and that to succeed, it can't be the party of "fat cats, rich people and Wall Street.”

Editor CFredkin (talk · contribs) says that the quote is sensationalistic and as such it can’t be included because it violates WP:BURDEN. My position is that this is a quote from Paul, which has been widely reported in reliable sources, and as such it is notable for inclusion.

Here is the diff: [25]

Discussion at Talk:Rand_Paul#Superfluous_quote.3F

CFredkin and I agreed in bringing this to the attention of this noticeboard for guidance. Cwobeel (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Without re-creating the Talk page discussion here. I'd just like to comment that my main point is that the quote is not relevant to Paul's BLP and adds no value beyond being sensational.CFredkin (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Deny science[edit]

The article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is a list of scientists who have expressed some differences of opinions with the mainstream understanding of global warming. For example, one of the scientists on the list is Judith Curry, widely recognized as one of the leading experts in the field, and currently the "chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology". In this edit User:Ronz states:

Let's be clear, these scientists are like creationists in that they deny science.

While there may be a creationist in the list, the remark is not limited in any way, and cast aspersions on all entries on that list. IMO, to claim that a scientist denies science is not acceptable (save very solid evidence, which is not supplied). I hoped this was just a rhetorical excess, and the editor would remove if asked. I asked (with the intention of removing my own quote) if the editor would revert, but the editor declined to remove the remark and claims it is supported. These are all scientists, who have expressed reservations about some aspects of a UN document. To characterize those reservations as "deny[ing] science" is over the top.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a problem, specifically as the editor is trying to insert other creationism items into this list in order to share his (perceived) link between these scientists and creationists. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Adrienne Harun[edit]

The first name of Adrianne Harun is misspelled in the title of her Wiki page. It is currently spelled Adrienne. Please note that the references cited on her Wiki page support this correction. I was able to correct the spelling in the body of the page, but not in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granitedesk (talkcontribs) 04:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Martin Landau[edit]

Just a heads up for the members of the Bio Project. A new user has made several post to Talk:Martin Landau. It looks as though they may need some guidance as to the way that things work around here. I am happy to AGF that they may be able to add information of value to the article but if we could get some an extra eye or two in explaining things that would be great. Thanks for any help that any of you can provide. MarnetteD | Talk 06:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hassanal Bolkiah[edit]

The page about Hassanal Bolkiah does not provide information on him bringing back the death penalty by stoning. See the source below:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/brunei-sharia-law-sultan_n_4143352.html

http://rt.com/news/brunei-gay-death-stoning-104/

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/15/un-condemns-brunei-over-new-law-allowing-gays-to-be-stoned-to-death/

Hassanal Bolkiah[edit]

The page about Hassanal Bolkiah does not provide information on him bringing back the death penalty by stoning. See the source below:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/brunei-sharia-law-sultan_n_4143352.html

http://rt.com/news/brunei-gay-death-stoning-104/

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/15/un-condemns-brunei-over-new-law-allowing-gays-to-be-stoned-to-death/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.151.206 (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Elon Musk[edit]

There is a severe case of vandalism on this page from Spicyitalianmeatball and CNMall41 I have edited the page, now countless times undating information that his false, or improving on the article... such examples include...

Adding 'investor' to the title list that is currently 'Business Magnate, inventor'. He is an investor in Solar City, Tesla, SpaceX, PayPal etc. He was also listed on Forbes 2014 Midas List of investors.http://www.forbes.com/video/3391084854001/ - This fully qualifies him as a investor, and Frbes is an extremely reliable source. However these two users, have deleted this reference every time I edit, then remove 'investor' from the list, with absolutely no reason.

Secondly regarding the Tesla Motors section, it currently reads... "The company was co-founded by Martin Eberhard, Marc Tarpenning, JB Straubel, Ian Wright, and Musk." While this is correct it does not give the full picture and is misleading, as Musk was not part of the original team. Musk came in as after the original team was formed AND had incorporated the company in July 2003. He then became involved with the company in series A round of funding as a INVESTOR. SOURCE: Mainly http://www.marketbusinessnews.com/tesla-motors/12064 This is a reliable Online Busness newspaper, however both users, merely deleted the source and added detail tot the article, whenever i edit the article. I have tried to change it to The company was co-founded by Martin Eberhard, Marc Tarpenning, JB Straubel, Ian Wright, and Musk. However the company was incorporated in 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning prior to Musk's involvement. Musk became an investor in the company in 2004 in the series A round, other such series A investment groups included...." But again this is deleted.

Thirdly I have removed inventor from occupation, this implies he is inventing on a day-to-day basis. This is hugely untrue. The only this he could be considered for in terms of inventing is Hyperloop, when in actual fact all he has done is conceptualise it, while announcing it as an open source project. This means that even if it could be classified as inventing it would be more of a hobby that a occupation. Despite the fact they have provided no reason or COUNTER-ARGUMENT to this they merely deletd this and refer the article back to inventor. I have provided a good reason to remove however, they revert the article sac time, meaning they are evidently conflicted by personal opinions.

I also removed 'inventor' from the introduction titles Business Magnate, investor etc. This is again fro similar reasons above, but that compared to his activity as a entrepreneur and investor, conceptualising a SINGLE technology does not seem noteworthy or significant, for a introduction title. The titles are followed with 'He conceptualise the Hyperloop' which is true, but the only thing he could ever be considered for inventing IS hyper loop, therefore including inventor implies he has multiple inventions which he has not, they have failed to provide any list of inventions and have deleted my input with no reason.

I have tried improving/editing the article tim a and time again, and ever without failed these two users have undone ALL my edits with no reason. I'd appreciate if an authoritative user could sort this dispute out. Thank You. Dirac740 (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)