Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
259,776 edits
m Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 15d) to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive43.
→‎Alan Haskvitz: new section
Line 939: Line 939:


This is irrelevant to Maxine Waters' biography and it misrepresents the Superdelegate process. The Wikipedia article on Superdelegates states, "All the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination." <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.162.143.161|67.162.143.161]] ([[User talk:67.162.143.161|talk]]) 04:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
This is irrelevant to Maxine Waters' biography and it misrepresents the Superdelegate process. The Wikipedia article on Superdelegates states, "All the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination." <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.162.143.161|67.162.143.161]] ([[User talk:67.162.143.161|talk]]) 04:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Alan Haskvitz ==

This middle school teacher wrote this page about himself as a means of self promotion. If you go on his own website, you will find the exact same content. There are also no citations whatsoever on his page.

Revision as of 07:29, 4 April 2008

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:



    Please edit the main page of the noticeboard.

    Individual articles

    What about this case?

    (Note - this is reposted from BLP page.) Wanderer57 (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm posting this here because, though the subject of the article is no longer alive, I believe his children are.

    This diff has just been posted.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desi_Arnaz&diff=198326795&oldid=197729277

    I don't have the reference material at hand tonight but I am 'assuming' for the moment that the information in the edit is true.

    Question one - how does one decide if the episode described is 'important enough' to be included in the article?

    Question two - should the information be left in or taken out of the article in the interim?

    I would appreciate feedback on this. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, first this should be at the BLP noticeboard, not here. See WP:BLPN. That said, I don't see any serious concern since the children are mentioned only in passing in this context. I'm not sure that the incident justifies mention at all though. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe this is a BLP concern. Presuming it is merely a content dispute, the first place to discuss whether the detail merits inclusions is probably at Talk:Desi Arnaz. I'd request feedback there, and if there are no objections remove it after several days. If wider opinions are sought, you might look for one of the other dispute resolution avenues, like WP:3O. Since it is not a BLP concern and it is sourced, I would not remove it until consensus to do so is reached (or until it is obvious that there are no objections.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think with celebrities there is a tendency for editors to take an "if it's negative, include it" approach. Is this just me being "negative" or do others here find the same tendency? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jon Courtney

    An anonymous editor at 78.105.130.169, a previous sockpuppet of Justpassinby, added the plagiarism claim to the Pure Reason Revolution article. I've removed it. Bondegezou (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jon Courtney

    This biography page is more of an autobiography page, most of the references being taken from interviews with the subjectJustpassinby (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, now that he brings it up, I could use some assistance with this article, as the editor who filed this seems to be a WP:SPA with a serious grudge against this individual and/or his band. This isn't specifically a BLP issue, but I'd still be grateful for more eyes. Evidence suggests that this individual posts as an IP and under this account. He recently filed an AfD on the article, which closed as keep. While some recent changes have simply involved inserting unsourced unlikely facts, his most recent edit to the article was to replace its contents with "Jon Courtney plays a guitar in a group that is shite. He can't sing, and writes absolutely meaningless lyrics and composes 'music' in strictly 4/4 time. His band last played on October 15th, and will next play on April 12th. Now, I ask you, is that a band that's going anywhere?" Note the same titled section above concerning this editor's insertion of unsourced allegations of plagiarism against this individual and his band in the article Pure Reason Revolution and in the AfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the above is true, including my opinion which, whilst being 90 per cent factual, I now admit I shouldn't have tried to impress upon others. I am truly sorry and will try to be a good person from now on. Justpassinby (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#Media coverage of Obama's religious background

    we are having a problem with proper use of the word Muslim here. I already requested a 3-O a few weeks ago- the 3-O editor was in over his head and consensus was achieved separate from his efforts. This was mostly due to me not having understood the full BLP policy yet. The more I read it the more I find the text does not meet the standards of: [being edited] "conservatively with respect for privacy." We use language that leaves open the implication that Obama is currently a muslim. This is done while in the context of explaining how and why Obama is not currently a muslim. Sounds confusing huh? Basically we are using the language from a non-RS source, but not actually citing the source. This is due to the text in question going through an extreme level of edit churn- and one editor who rv-s me every time I attempt a fix. This editor will not accept any text unless it uses the actual word Muslim- any "conservative" edit which uses less-inflammatory language such as "heritage" or even "raised a muslim" is instantly rv-ed. So I feel there is no factual basis for this statement, and even if there was it would violate the "conservative" edit clause of BLP. here are some more reasons or arguments from me:

    • the non-RS source was later picked up on by normal RS-sources, which is why we are even bothering with a non-RS source in the first place.
    • the non-RS says Obama is a Muslim BECAUSE of heritage and childhood- it makes no claim towards his present life, save the use of the actual term "obama is a muslim..." twice in the entire text
    • the RS does not use language as direct as that, in its reporting of the original source.
    • even the quote from the non-RS, cited anyways, in an attempt to appease the other editor, was considered unacceptable "Obama had sought to misrepresent his heritage."

    so anyways now that I understand BLP better, I removed the word Muslim (citing the BLP policy) and created a new section on talk. The editor rv-ed me without even a descriptive edit summary and has not yet posted on talk. This editor is accused by others (and me) of tendentious editing practices, on several different pages.

    By rv-ing without comment the editor violated the BLP policy: "Administrators must obtain consensus before undeleting material that has been deleted citing this policy, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article."

    (sorry these are red, I don't know what is wrong. those are the right numbers though) Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008&diff=198378172&oldid=198375146 offending edit

    Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008&diff=198141225&oldid=198134793 my BLP edit

    Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#First sentence.2C Muslim allegations section; Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#edit warring; Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#Martin Text

    outside examples (from pages I don't edit as much) Talk:Barack Obama#NYT article by Jodi Kantor; Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 12#Requested full protection; Talk:Insight (magazine)/Archive 2; Talk:United States journalism scandals#Important change required during page protection

    as you can see must of these are on similar subjects (not that different from my edit history lol)

    so anyways for all these reasons I don't think the word belongs. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: the problem with the red links is that they're not real diffs.
    See Help:Diff for how to clear that up. — Athaenara ✉ 07:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, this [16] is the diff we're arguing over. Now, saying Martin said Obama is a Muslim is not "use[ing] language that leaves open the implication that Obama is currently a muslim." We say Obama is a Christian, we say Martin is "falsely alleging", etc., etc. and MORE etc. Belt, suspenders and duct tape. Now, as 72.0.180.2 concedes, Martin said "Obama is a Muslim" twice. Martin also alleged that Obama was currently "hiding" his Muslim Kenyan relatives, etc. We don't have to mention Martin at all, but if we do accept the Nation 's thesis that he is important we can't misreport what he wrote! 72etc (or maybe it was WNDL42) sought a third opinion on whether we can report accurately what Martin said, and the 3rdO was indeed that we should say what he actually said. 72.0.180.2 says the 3rdO was "over his head". I say 72.0.180.2 is just forum-shopping. Andyvphil (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    so if you thought the 3o was so helpful, then how come you left this text as consensus for weeks before starting to rv again? also from WP:words to avoid
    "It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear biased or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't. A more neutral wording is preferable and can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label"
    considering WP won't use martin because its not RS, and the nation doesn't use that word, its "poorly sourced" which is BLP vio. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As I wrote in the edit comment on the first diff Athaenara has supplied,[17] "I see the weasel snuck back in." You keep sneaking the weasel version back in, then claim "consensus" if nobody notices and it sticks for awhile. But the last time this was discussed on the talk page was here [18] and the only editors who weighed in apart from you and I were Amatulić, who responded to the request for a third opinion by saying "But a more neutral way to say it is 'An allegation that Obama is a Muslim was made by columnist Andy Martin in a press release in 2004.'" and "If you are going to quote someone, you shouldn't change the quotation. Martin didn't say Obama was a Muslim; he said Obama is a Muslim." johnpseudo weighed in with "I'd go with Andyvphil's version, because it's more straight-forward about the claim that was made. Using vague terms like 'public claims concerning Barack Obama's religion' when Martin really just came out and said he was Muslim is just poor form." And Justmeherenow said "...at the moment, I'm too lazy to try to align text in the article to this standard. Sorry, Andyvphil.", which isn't to clear on the point at issue, but sure doesn't sound like he's endorsing your version. And the editors endorsing your version were... no one. Nada. Zip. Your claim that it is the consensus version is just bogus.

    As to the claim that we can't say what Martin said because he said it on a site which is not a RS, I already disposed of that. "Nor is there any question that on Wikipedia you can, when a primary source is referred to by a secondary RS consult a primary source for its content:

    To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

    • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
    • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
    Any any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge can see that Martin says Obama is a Muslim. Confirming that he says it doesn't require any analysis, synthesis, interpretation, explanation or evaluation. "Fact: Obama is a Muslim..."-Andy Martin. Doesn't require much education either. All that's left is "reasonable". You're not being reasonable. --Andyvphil, 09:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)([19], again) Andyvphil (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response needed asap

    there have been several edit wars and 3rr blocks handed about because of disagreement on this subject. It would be very helpful if you guys could come up with a decision on this topic, or even "wash your hands" of it, simply so the regular editors of that fast-moving page would know where they stand. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a content dispute. The 3rdO you asked for told you you should, if you quote Martin at all, quote Martin accurately, rather than obfuscate.[20] The Admin who blocked you told you that the sentence is question is not a BLP vio.[21] Here, nobody is taking your claims any more seriously. Want a fourth venue? Try an RfC. But the answer is unlikely to change. BLP gives you no extra powers to impose your obfuscatory and, as I've pointed out to you again,[22], POV-advancing text. Andyvphil (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    wow andy, I didn't realize you were a BLP admin, but hey thanks for the help... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Ratner bio--repeated insertion of material below that editor has removed

    the material under controversy had been removed quite a while ago---despite the editor it keeps going back in--here was one of editors earlier comments

    Preceding paragraph reformatted to fit page. Cheers, Lindsay 16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    comment removed:

    Controversy

    Michael's Brother, Bruce Ratner, heads Forest City Ratner a company which has been accused of having undue influence in New York politicians which has resulted in controversial building projects in Brooklyn, and of eminent Domain Abuse. Critics have accused Michael Ratner of making contributions to politicians that help his brother, to the extent where his offices are used for meetings and as 'drop offs' for campaign contributions including one to Roger Green who was indicted. In short, critics accuse Michael's concern for human rights ends where Ratner family interests begin:
    Michael Ratner and his wife, Karen Ranucci, both Greenwich Village residents, have recently made campaign contributions using Forest City Ratner's Brooklyn building as a return address. Ranucci has matched many of her husband's contributions. And Bruce Ratner's girlfriend, Pamela Lipkin, as well as other Ratner family members, have made contributions engineered by an FCR lobbying firm.
    "For Bruce and Michael, however, business in Brooklyn comes first. That's why Bruce's company has required gag orders of those selling property for the Atlantic Yards project, thus clamping down on criticism and even requiring sellers to say that Forest City Ratner treated them honorably.
    That's why, even though Bruce and Forest City Ratner (FCR) stopped giving political contributions years ago - apparently to dispel suspicion that the donations helped win projects - Michael and his wife Karen Ranucci, the development director of left-wing radio show "Democracy Now," stepped in to fill the breach. Though residents of Greenwich Village, they reliably wrote checks to Brooklyn candidates from the county Democratic machine. Some contributions, according to state records, even had the return address of Forest City Ratner headquarters in Brooklyn. Michael, who apparently has an office there, owns a piece of the Nets, the sports team his brother wants to bring to Brooklyn. The extended Ratner family controls FCR's parent company, Cleveland-based Forest City Enterprises." [http://www.brooklyndowntownstar.com/StoryDisplay.asp?PID=4&NewsStoryID=7470 The Ratner campaign money trail leads to... Michael (& his wife)

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawhigh (talk • contribs) 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    • I agree that this insertion, in spite of its citation now to a newspaper, is inappropriate as it stands per WP:BLP. Among other problems, the title of the reference is inaccurate (the newspaper article is called "Democracy Now? Ratner Plays Hardball When It Counts" not "The Ratner campaign money trail leads to... Michael (& his wife)") and inflammatory. The extensiveness of the material is problematic with regards to Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism, which indicates that we are to "[b]e careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one" and also notes that "If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article." This particular newspaper article seems to be an editorial. If there are critics (as the insertion claims), rather than "critic", surely there are more reliable sources that can be cited than this editorial? It may be that the viewpoint of this critic (and we see only one) should be represented within the article, but it will definitely have to be pruned and appropriately presented as what it is: the so-far-as-we-know unsubstantiated allegations of one man. Before making that choice, however, we also need to consider the section of WP:V that is titled "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Newspapers typically do meet WP:RS requirements. Editorials that do not cite the sources of their allegations? Any other thoughts? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Moonriddengirl, you claim a. the allegations are unsubstantiated - this is false - the evidence is clearly supported and verfiable (campaign contributions are easily available via the NYState donor database, where the reporter first found them) - and are referenced on the reporter's blog. the article is not an editorial, it is a, I suppose a side issue a very controversial developer (Michael's brother, Bruce) and his tactics, which have raised red flags with a lot of newspapers and editorial boards in the areas where he operates. the basic facts of the article could be put back into the biography - they are easily verfiable: Michael Ratner and his wife live in Greenwhich village - (manhattan) but make campaign contributions to local politicians in Brooklyn (another borough) where his brother is involved in highly controversial development projects. Further since his wife runs "Democracy Now" - many activists and opponents feel this shield Bruce Ratner from further scrutiny 141.157.248.209 (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Don Murphy

    I recently overhauled the article for Don Murphy, and the work has been undone by at least two editors. One editor says in his edit summary, "Page reverted back to the Wikipedia and Don Murphy approved version." Can people who are more familiar with WP:BLP please review the article and see if the expansions I made are unacceptable? RTFA (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Runabrat has been blocked. — Athaenara ✉ 08:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Curiosity Inc. has also been blocked. — Athaenara ✉ 08:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Banning SPA RTFA from Don Murphy. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark D. Siljander

    This article seems to have been getting somewhat unbalanced after Siljander's indictment in January about his connection to fund-raising for an Islamic charitable organization that was also allegedly a front to raise money for terrorism. Some recent edits seem to be going out of the way to defend Siljander and make defamatory statements about the US Attorney responsible for the indictment, Bradley Schlozman. I'd appreciate some editors more adept at this to lend a hand. older ≠ wiser 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand your point and I am responsible for some of the edits. The original edits were done from articles based on statements later withdrawn.


    Much stronger statements of prosecutorial misconduct could be made but not adequately supported. As acceptable sources are only statements from goverment prosecutors, even those facing investigations themselves, as in this case, Wikipedia is used as a tool of propaganda and improperly influencing the justice system.

    This site: http://www.truthinjustice.org/p-pmisconduct.htm is a good indication of the type of things we are dealing with. Wikipedia is used, due to its popularity, as a way of "getting the word out", even if that word is unsupportable.

    In this case, how can a former congressman be indicted for "terrorism" and still receive support from, not only the SG/UN but former Secretary of State Baker and Attorney General Ed Meese, all very conservative?

    If you don't detect a serious smell, then perhaps Wikipedia is totally open to misuse as a form of propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpduf (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob Grill

    We have a dispute in a short bio for 70s musician Rob Grill, who in 2007 was arrested for illegally obtaining prescription painkillers, eventually going into drug treatment possibly to avoid jail time. This is sourced to two Orlando Sentinel articles that are only partially available online.

    • Hudak, Stephen (2007-06-05). "Singer arrested on drug charges" (fee required). Orlando Sentinel. Orlando, Florida: Tribune Company. incomplete
    • Comas, Martin E. (2007-07-31). "Drug program may save singer from jail" (fee required). Orlando Sentinel. topix. Excerpt from article not available online. Not used in the article.

    The plea agreement is not used in the article since sourcing is was sub-optimal, and to keep this part of the bio short. Leaving it out also helps minimize humiliation of the subject, tho this reference does demonstrate the non-trivial nature of the charge, and that the drug problem is being treated (one way or another) as a serious issue.

    Concerns are raised about undue weight, and humiliation of the subject. A pair of anon editors (apparently the same editor as both are SPAs from Naples, FL using similar edit summaries) edit warred to keep this information out (grounds: "defamatory", "inappropriate"). A third editor now argues that WP:BLP recommends it be left out for reasons of "doubt", which is established by the edit war; this editor removes this information accordingly. WP:3O passes this dispute on to this noticeboard.

    Some arguments for and against including this information can be found on Talk:Rob Grill. An anon editor was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation, but it can be guessed that this editor will resume deleting this information from the article if it is there when their block expires. It would be helpful to establish whether this information is worth including, less it be automatically removed, with windy procedural discussions repeating at each iteration.

    I am concerned that the current rationale on Talk:Rob Grill for omitting this information on "doubt" means that anyone can have a BLP sanitized by aggressively deleting unwanted information, edit warring as needed to keep it out, thus establishing a precedent of "doubt" requiring unwanted information to be declared "better left out". / edg ☺ ☭ 13:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Feedback request

    Re the issue represented by this diff:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Grill&diff=next&oldid=198764025

    I removed the information from the article as I thought it was not sufficiently important to include.

    There was discussion between editor edg and myself, which got into procedural issues as well as the substance of the matter (discussion is at Talk:Rob Grill).

    A third opinion was requested; the opinion given was to raise the issue on this page.

    It was raised here in the above section on 17 March 2008 but to date there has been no feedback. Please can we have some feedback from people experienced in BLP issues. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps this article should be simply deleted as not sufficiently important, a fan/promo page squatting on Wikipedia's servers but not worth maintaining. Would anyone recommend WP:AFD for this article? / edg ☺ ☭ 22:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject's notability is probably too great for AfD to be a productive forum for dealing with this dispute. — Athaenara ✉ 08:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Photo of a random person

    Someone keeps adding to chav a photo of a person whom he snapped at a public event, labelled as a "chav". I'd say this is potentially insulting to this person. If someone could comment on the article talk page, I'd be grateful. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aside from the question of labelling a person as a "chav" or whatever, doesn't the photographer have any obligation to the subject as to if and how the image of them is used? Wanderer57 (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, no - if you're in a public place, at least in the U.S., you have no expectation or right of privacy. However, we certainly can't have images of random persons defamed by calling them "chavs." FCYTravis (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: User Oldmanmike89 uploaded an image with the following summary:
    "Me and my cousin had a bet where be both dressed up as chavs and took photos of ourselves; the loser having to upload his photo to the chav page of wikipedia! We bet on the six nations Ireland vs England match.."
    (If that's the image which was meant ... ) — Athaenara ✉ 08:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently not: see Talk:Chav#Pictures in re images uploaded by user SteveSims. — Athaenara ✉ 08:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Holocaust denier category for acquitted people

    Dariusz Ratajczak is refered to in some media as a holocaust denier; he was sentenced for this by a Polish court in 2000 but acquitted after an appeal in 2002. Should he or shouldn't he be referred to as a holocaust denier, and is the Category:Holocaust deniers ok or not in his article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you specifics of the media making the accusation? A charge of this gravity can't be just attributed to 'some media'. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe its covered in the English refs; I did not write the article, just did a quick search and noted the fact that his appeal was successful.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Change it to the supercat, Category:Holocaust denial. Relata refero (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See Joel Hayward for a comparable case. Relata refero (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Cuddy

    Article:

    Single purpose accounts:

    Christopher Cuddy appears to be autobiographical with no external primary sources. I have added {{notability}} a couple of times. These are merely removed by the "main editor". How should I proceed? Finavon (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The {{Uw-coi}} warnings on the user talk pages might help. — Athaenara ✉ 07:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the {{COI}} template to the article. — Athaenara ✉ 09:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    James Cone

    On both of these pages, there has been an attempt to add a poorly sourced quote supposedly from Cone. The only real source is an opinion piece from the Asia Times: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html The other sources provided are either blogs or opinion pieces that simply reference that first souce: http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/03/obama-wright-an.html http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/7498/. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120568855824539755.html#WRIGHT

    Even if the quote is real, it seems farfetched to suppose that it is an accurate representation of Cone's views on black theology, as it is presented in both articles.

    The other issue is the controversy section in the James Cone article which simply lists some quotes from Cone's books and asserts a controversy surrounding them. This smacks of original research without any source to show a real controversy. - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The first aspect has since been addressed. The issue of the controversy section in the James Cone article has not at this time. - Maximusveritas (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bruce Woodcock

    Bruce Woodcock (computer games analyst) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I'd appreciate if a few people could set this article on their watchlists. There's currently an edit war between the subject of the article, SirBruce (talk · contribs) and someone else trying to insert negative info, Notsirbruce (talk · contribs). I created the article, as I do know the subject very casually through industry conferences and felt that he was notable enough for a bio. The article has also passed AfD. However, I was disappointed to see that after I created the article, he decided to take an active interest in editing it. I have told him repeatedly off-wiki to keep off of it, but he is not listening to my advice, and my impulse at this point, rather than getting dragged in to a messy COI edit war involving the subject, is just to wash my hands of the situation. Some neutral observers would be appreciated here. Thanks, Elonka 05:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone is entering negative information without proper sourcing/context, then it is not inappropriate for the article subject to respond to that and remove it. Of course, we would prefer that they instead contact third parties to intervene. I will take a look. FCYTravis (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Error on Ricardo Montalban page

    Per the Archive of American Television interview on YouTube, part 5 of 5, he is actually an American citizen. There is a line about not having taken out US citizenship that should be removed. Cspublishing (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Geoffrey Edelsten

    Geoffrey Edelsten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - an article about a medical practitioner who, among other things, served time for ordering an assault. An apparent single purpose account is trying to remove some negative material from the article - it could be the person in question. Some of the negative material cites material that might be more primary than third-party sources. Also, I'm concerned about the person's notability. Andjam (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Horror show, deleted and stubbed - please watchlist for further trouble.--Docg 10:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OH, FGS. Do a google search before that sort of thing, please. Mentioning the case wasn't nearly as problematic as all that, the man's highly notable for the assault conviction, one of the most major cases in Australia in the 1980s. Some of the article was sourced to court records, but the vast majority of it was sourced to his own website. Sheesh. Relata refero (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion led to the loss of one of the few reliable secondary sources there, an article from the Sydney Morning Herald mentioning the legal issues ([23]). I'll restore the ref. MastCell Talk 22:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Was a valid deletion, though, for all that. An overwhelmingly negative and very poorly sourced article. Interesting guy, by the sound of it. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Philip D. Zelikow

    Talk:Philip D. Zelikow#Complaint_from_subject, Philip D. Zelikow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Truthers vandalising article. Last problem account now blocked indefinitely, please watchlist this article. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Watched. FCYTravis (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Watchlisted. MastCell Talk 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jason Anthony Griffith stubbified

    This is notification that I have blanked the article Jason Anthony Griffith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for constant violations of our policy on biographies of living individuals, in particular, large unsourced section about controversy, three month old tags on the page relating to verifiability. Some of the older diffs aren't too nice either.. I request that all editors do not revert, but work to include verifiable material. Will (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not just semi-protect? There seems to be an identifiable problem section which could be removed. The rest of the article seems straightforward. Relata refero (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sceptre/Will did blank the article, but the content other than the Blp-violation section was restored by other editors. — Athaenara ✉ 07:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrea Spinks

    → See also: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 20#Andrea Spinks → Pixie (porn star).

    This was a page that redirected to an article on a particular porn star's stage name, and is supposedly her real name. We now have an editor, claiming to be the original author of both pages, seeking to remove the references to the actress's real name, including blanking the redirect. Claims are that the actress wants privacy and does not want the links between the two names to reamin floating around the net. So definite BLP concerns on the redirect and the stage-name page.

    I have placed the redirect up for a procedural RFD. I have not !voted myself on the removal because I really do not know what is the proper path forward. Any additional opinions in either direction from people better versed in BLP matters would be greatly appreciated. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are 10,500 Web pages (including some purporting to be her "home page") that identify "Pixie" and Andrea Sparks to be one and the same. This is not analogous to a person who uses a stage name and tries to hide his/her real name - both were used to promote a product. Let's consider the motivation here: she has decided to walk away from her very public past and wants to erase it somehow. So, how is the redirect a violation of her privacy? It would be used only as a search term by someone who already knew her real name in the first place. Now, if someone wishes to try to expunge her from Wikipedia, I'd urge AfD for the Pixie article, but with solid Wikipedia grounds as "privacy" is not valid as she gave it up years ago. The disclosure of her home or current work address, telephone, etc., for example, would be a valid BLP concern, but not a redirect to an article to her past, public, life. B.Wind (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Colin Angus

    Colin Angus (explorer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    VRTS ticket # 2007030410010963, VRTS ticket # 2008021910001641

    An external legal dispute exists. Tim Harvey (Galiano kayaker (talk · contribs) and some IPs) may not edit this article, but may comment here ina manner consistent with WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP, provided his suggestions for changes are backed by reliable independent sources.

    Please watchlist. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tina Tinio

    Something weird going on with this article about a Filipino socialite. To be honest, I don't know if she meets the notability criteria (though there are lots of sources given); irregardless, her article seems to the target of a coordinated attack. There is a reference on the article talk page to an off-wiki campaign. Nesodak (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Watchlisted. Unfortunately, she seems notable enough as a cosmetics executive with at least two major profiles in reliable sources. Relata refero (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Merle Terlesky picture

    What do we do when an article subject objects to a (GFDL-licensed) picture of him in the article? Merle Terlesky is in the process of doing so right now. I've advised him to contact the Foundation office if he feels that the picture poses a threat to his safety, but I imagine they're closed until at least Monday. Should the picture be removed until then? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Does he have an alternate photo he would like to contribute? He doesn't seem to be the type of person who shrinks from publicity - apparently a public figure by the standard used here. Nesodak (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think his concern is that any photo of him endangers him, because it makes him the target of "communists and anarchists". I think it's a frivolous complaint; I'm just wondering how to best deal with it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Here are the diffs of his messages: [24][25] (for that matter, is the latter blockable under WP:NLT?).
    He's an inexperienced user so he should be warned rather than blocked. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the article he was a recent candidate for city council and has run for public office on several occasions - so it's hard to see how he'd have an expectation of not having his picture published. Also, according to the image description the photo was taken at a "counter-protest" - he can't be that afraid of being seen by 'anarchists and communists' if he shows up in public, at their events, counter-demonstrating against them. If he just thinks it's an unflattering photo he can release a better one but his stated objections to the photo don't look very strong. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds frivolous to me. He's a politician, according to the article. Clearly a public figure; there's no basis to object to having a photo published. Send him to OTRS. No need to take it down in the meantime. TJRC (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon my ignorance, but what's the proper OTRS address for this sort of thing? My only experience with OTRS is image-licensing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe WP:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject), which, despite the article title, is for where "There is a problem with an article about me or about someone I represent." TJRC (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely a claim of possible endangerment trumps the "need" of Wikipedia to display a photo. What harm is done if the photo is not displayed? There are many many articles in Wikipedia without photos. I'm deleting the photo. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim doesn't appears to be credible since he's run for public office and goes to public events. He's obviously not afraid of being seen by his enemies if he attends a counter-demonstration (that's where the photo was taken). Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that you are in no stronger a position than I to judge how serious the concern is. The article talk page signals to me that high emotions are involved. It costs Wikipedia little if anything to take a cautious approach. I think the overall tone of the BLP policy is to take a cautious approach, though I realize this specific case is not dealt with. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just common sense, if you have serious concerns that your opponents will snap a picture of you then you don't go to their events and protest. If you don't want people to know what you look like you don't run for public office. Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be right. However, you may be wrong.
    The photo gets different exposure here than only the people who were at that event. Do we know what has happened since the photo was taken? Do we know the state-of-mind of the people involved? Wanderer57 (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are all good points for him to make in his formal complaint. But we shouldn't censor the wikipedia for every informal complaint (a nicer word than "whine") made, regardless of its credibility.TJRC (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the complaint was formal or informal doesn't come into it at present. The person who made the complaint made it by what might well be the only method they know. We AGF. As noted above, the office where a formal complaint might go may well be closed for Good Friday. The word "censor" does not apply here, IMHO. How about describe it as "respond to a concern expressed by the subject of an article."? Wanderer57 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I took that photo. Many, maybe most people had cameras at the rallies. Here he is giving one of multiple on-camera interviews. He made no objections to taking photos. He welcomes attention. But he's associated wikipedia with people he thinks are his enemies, and wants to censor it. --Rob (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He's also already got photos of himself up on the internet, see his campaign page for instance so his appearance is not some sort of secret. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the above, I'm thinking the complaint is silly. If he hasn't even removed photos of himself from his own website, then how can he complain that we also display a photo of him? I'll restore the photo to the article. Nesodak (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Merle only wishes "communists and anarchists" pay any attention to him. Most of the people in the Communist Party have his e-mail set to auto delete, and most view him a a nut job and loner. Calgary ARA is busy with the Aryan Guard and most young people don't know who Merle is. Also, he is known to seek out contact with "communists" himself, and admitted this on the article's talk page. The last time he e-mailed me 6 years ago he sent me his picture in the e-mail (the one of him sneaking in to the picture with Manning), so his claim is frivolous. --Mista-X (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Post Chronicle

    In dealing with a recent "in the news" BLP (Ashley Alexandra Dupré), it's come to my attention that the Post Chronicle is not remotely close to being a reliable source. Despite the name (which sounds like a reputable newspaper), the site appears to be a mashup of bits from a variety of places, including random gossip, and its management specifically disclaims any responsibility to ensure that its content is accurate. The Post Chronicle accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or inaccuracies of any story or opinion.

    That signals, to me, that we cannot consider it a reliable source and should carefully examine everywhere where it is linked as a source to ensure its usefulness. Especially where it might be used as a source in a biography of a living person. FCYTravis (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't find any reputable source establishing the bona fides of this publication (and I've looked). I don't think it can be relied on for any potentially controversial information. Nesodak (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Apparently about this site) It is not wise to post libelous and or slanderous discernment regarding any company. It is not in WP's best interest. Smokefan2007 (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is nothing which is libelous or slanderous about discussing the suitability of a Web site to serve as a reliable source for matters of biographical sensitivity. FCYTravis (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Smokefan, for admitting to being the site owner, we can now proceed with the business of cleaning up your linkspamming. Your site disclaimer disqualifies your site for use as a source and also means that we cannot link to you per our copyright policy. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP is clear: "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link." (Wikipedia:Reliable sources adds "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.") Reliable sources stand behind their stories. A source that will not is likely questionable under Wikipedia's definition and is at least dubious and hence unusable as a source of material about living persons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TMZ.com

    Could I get a quick read on the reliability of TMZ.com as a source for BLPs? A user has edit-warred to remove it from an article, calling it a "gossip rag". The site is owned by AOL/Time Warner and according to this article in USA Today, it's editorially vetted and researched for accuracy. It's presently used as a source in hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Nesodak (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, that article says the owner of TMZ claims its vetted, etc. We specifically try and avoid tabloid sources for anything in the least contentious, so in this case I'm afraid the user in question has policy squarely on his side. Relata refero (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See also profiles in Time[26] and Newsweek.[27] Nesodak (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    TMZ may be tabloidy but so are other media. Reliability of a source is tied to the content being sourced - "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". If the content is not terribly controversial it may not be an issue; if someone is crying foul on it based on it being TMZ alone that seems wonky but if they deem that the source isn't good enough for a particular claim a secondary source would be wise. Benjiboi 11:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lovette (closed)

    Opinions Wanted

    In earlier discussion above (section titled Merle Terlesky picture), a concern about safety was noted, discussed, and then dismissed as "stated objections to the photo don't look very strong", "silly", and "frivolous" (three times).

    I was the only one in the discussion who thought an expression of a safety concern more important than Wikipedia's need/desire to continue to display a photo.

    Will some other people with knowledge of BLP or OTRS issues please take a look at that discussion and give me some feedback on my Talk page?

    If I'm as far out to lunch as the other people in the discussion seem to think, I would really like to know. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why start a new section instead of posting this in the existing section? Nesodak (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I went to a separate section a) because my purpose is not to continue the earlier discussion, and b) to draw attention to my request from people not involved in the earlier section. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, every stated concern over safety doesn't have to be assumed to be reasonable. Given he has recent photos on his website, one of which shows up when you run a Google Image search on his name, I think we can assume this one is unreasonable. Relata refero (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Al Lutz

    Al Lutz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Tom Sawyer Island section of article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. Information is impossible to verify, and there's no way to make the connection between Lutz's blogging and Disney making their final decision. It essentially is a fallacy. Repeated attempts to remove this section from the article altogether continue to be restored with no explanation and no attempts to fix this transgression. Really, it is better off not in the article at all, but it certainly is poorly sourced (links don't work anymore) and present information in such a way as to lead the reader down a path which would have them end up believing Lutz somehow is responsible for Disneyland's decision to keep the Tom Sawyer Island name. // 65.103.3.173 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Brian Leiter

    Could experienced editors please take a look at this page and assess whether any of the content is libellous? An IP is edit-warring to have comments critical of the subject struck.Thanks, скоморохъ 15:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ishmael Beah

    Ishmael Beah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), VRTS ticket # 2008020710015739. The Australian has set off on a crusade to undermine this person's credibility, as far as I can tell this is in order to save face after being caught out in some shoddy research about him, but that might just be my jaundiced view of the press. Either way, the section "dispute with The Australian" was titled "Credibility controversy" - I think the former is a better title though other titles may also be fine. I also removed a para which gave a blow-by-blow of the Aussie's followup stories, as they have not apparently been covered in secondary sources and their accuracy is disputed by the subject. What we have gives the basics anyway, and I think we should see how it's covered in literary journals and other more thoughtful sources. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomas Moorcroft

    Thomas Moorcroft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (TheHeartbreakKid15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Thomas Moorcroft says he is an actor playing Regulus Black in the movie Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. He created this page about himself. I think it is very finely written with no nonsense or extraneous information (and it is also nicely sourced), but I don't know if he is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. A number of the cast members in the Harry Potter movies do not have any articles for them (see List of Harry Potter cast members). Cunard (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is now listed at AfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking into it! Cunard (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. E. Fuller Torrey

    The article contains quotes attributed to "MindFreedom". If you go to that site, you will see that they are anti Dr. Torrey, and that is reflected in their quotes and their edits. MindFreedom is the citation for the individual who runs the anti Torrey site. The fact they said it on their site, doesn't mean it should become part of the wikipedia record. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.151.119 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Brandt

    Daniel Brandt, the redirect, has been deleted again. Much discussion is brewing on Talk:Daniel Brandt, User talk:WJBscribe#Daniel Brandt, and possibly a 5th DRV (depending on if this can be quickly resolved or not). -- Ned Scott 05:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Alig

    • Michael Alig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Fascinating person who likely earned a lot of scorn from those he wronged in the nightclub scene and perhaps was generally obnoxious - which helped build his career. He was even immortalized in a book which begat a documentary which begat a feature film (see Party Monster). However tabloidy items have been multiplying in the article with less than stellar sources, IMHO, and someone with a good broom would be not only entertained but appreciated for helping clean out some of the worst items. // Benjiboi 11:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sun Myung Moon

    Could someone check out this article? About half of it is taken up by a "Criticism and controversy" section. For instance in the first part of the article it says he founded the Washington Times, and then in the criticism section it says he was criticised for founding the Washington Times. Redddogg (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Silvia Lancome & McTools

    There is a user, User:McTools that has some sort of agenda trying to repeatedly post Silvia Lancome's "birthname" and citing it to IMDB. The page is currently locked due to the edit war but he keeps on posting her "real name" in the discussion page of the article in order to prove that Ms. Lancome is not Afghan despite multiple warnings and removals. As IMDB biographies are not reliable and being named as a porn star is potentially both libelous and may violate the presumption of privacy per WP:BLP, what can be done? He's also been accused of being a sockpuppet during the edit war but I haven't been able to evaluate that accusation. Vinh1313 (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sean Hannity & Hal Turner

    Could someone with BLP expertise take a look at the recent history on the above two articles? I originally noticed the traffic on these articles when they came up high on Wikirage...once I checked them out, it looks like campaign is going on in the two articles to link Hannity, a prominent media figure, to Turner, an avowed white supremacist. I don't know that much about the background, and some sources are being given, but I'm not sure how well the sources can be trusted. I think caution is warranted here given Hannity's apparent high profile in television and radio media in the U.S. Nesodak (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have Turner's article on watchlist. I'm RWIing. Sceptre (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I did my best to reword the Sean Hannity claims in a neutral way, included the statements from the other side, and integrated into the main article (as opposed to being in a stand-alone "Controversy" section). Would appreciate any BLP-savvy folks to check my work. Nesodak (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Hannity article seems to be undergoing a major dispute. One person wants to quote critics in the first paragraph, seemingly to protect impressionable WP readers from this dangerous right-wing guy. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the brief truce at Sean Hannity has fallen apart and people are back to edit-warring. I'm wondering if protection is going to be required. Nesodak (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from uninvolved user Bear in mind that the outcome doesn't have to be the same in these 2 casec. If Hal Turner has claimed he had a good relationship with Sean Hannity (from what I can tell he has) then that may be noteable enough to include in the Hal Turner article, particularly if the claim has received sufficient prominence that Sean Hannity has responded to the claims. However there is probably no justification to include the claims in the Sean Hannity article if it was only a relatively minor issue in relation to Seah Hannity, which it may be if the claims only received coverage in 2 relatively lesser known sources Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My involvement started as "an uninvolved user" also...I totally agree with you that a case can certainly made for that. I just wish people would discuss on the talk page rather than revert warring. The whole thing is now officially annoying so far as I am concerned, think I'll wash my hands of it. Anyone else want an at-bat? Nesodak (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Prabir Ghosh

    Can some editors take a look at this article, which has been a target of edit-warring between IPs and SPAs for months, and repeated addition of poorly sourced/unsourced allegations of fraud, sexual harrasment etc against the subject ? The latest allegations (diff) are sourced to emails about the subject on the Mukto Mona website [28] (an organization that bills itself as an "internet congregation of free=thinkers") and a yahoo group [29]. Seven month back similar allegations and their refutation were sourced to the talk page of the article itself ! (see links deleted in this diff and problematic version of talk page) Both the article page history and the talk page history evidence long term and persistent BLP violations.
    More eyes on the article, and page semi-protection would be appreciated. Some SPAs may need to be warned/blocked/banned too. Abecedare (talk) 05:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aga Khan IV

    User Venkyhyundai keeps inserting completely unsourced and libellous info on the subject under Criticism and Some Critics Say

    Homosexuality

    Otto4711 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly reverting my removal of an actor's sexual orientation from Peter Stickles. I have been contacted directly by the subject of this article via unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org asking that this information be removed. There's no debate as to the factual accuracy of the information but there is significant debate as to the relevance of the information. I do not believe this relevance has been established and so I removed it as per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT (not trivia) and WP:BLP (privacy). Despite my request that this information not be readded, Otto4711 has continued to readd this information. I have expressed on Talk:Peter Stickles that I would support readding the information if and only if we have a reliable source indicating that this is anything other than trivia. No such has been provided. Although I am an admin, I would like at least a second opinion on whether a person's sexual orientation should be included in an article given that the subject of the article does not wish it to be there. It is a fact that the subject has disclosed his sexual orientation and it is a fact that he has expressed a desire to have this removed from his article. It is a matter of opinion whether or not Otto4711 has established the notability of this information, though I firmly believe he has not. --Yamla (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The section needs to be reworded - "openly gay" is loaded and unnecessary. But he has talked about his sexuality in a public interview, and if it relates to the content and selection of the films he's participated in, I would find it hard to argue that it's inappropriate to include. I mean, he's a professional actor starring in a gay-themed television series that is produced and aired on a network specifically targeting gay and lesbian audiences. If that doesn't make his sexuality relevant, what would? FCYTravis (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Openly gay" is pretty standard language when discussing people who are, well, openly gay. As for relevance, consider this section of the interview that was used as a source for the section:

    AfterElton: Do you have concerns about being typecast as an out gay actor? Peter Stickles: Of course I have — absolutely. The producers of The Lair took me aside and we had a meeting about whether or not I was going to be an "out" gay actor and whether they were going to be able to market me. But they wanted me to take it very seriously, because it's a very big decision and I had to stop and think about it. Because even though it sucks, and it shouldn't matter, it does matter. So yeah, I had to really think about it — not so much in terms of being a horror movie actor, because if I could do horror movies for the rest of my life I'd die a happy man. But being pigeonholed as a gay film actor is kind of weird for me.

    Along with the quote from another interview which is linked on the article's talk page:

    "A lot of times, it's not good, and it hurts," Stickles says of his decision not to remain in the closet in order to build a mainstream career. "A lot of time, people can't watch a gay guy playing a straight role. I was reading an article about Rupert Everett, about how his career is not happening, that [people in the business] won't hire him for the lead because he's gay. It's unfortunate, and I do understand how people can have a problem with that, but in the same respect, I just want to be publicly out anyway, because in ten years it will all be different. "It's nice to have a little bit of success with a very small group of people. I live in Chelsea, which is the gayest neighborhood in the world, and people recognize me, but there will have to be a time when I can show that I can be more versatile."

    This clearly establishes the relevance of the information. Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to think we're past the point when we have to say "openly." Just say gay. FCYTravis (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not at all clear to me that an actor's sexuality is relevant to the roles they choose. Many straight actors have taken roles where their characters are homosexual and vice versa. Anyway, the key point here is that the subject of the article requested the removal of this content as he personally did not think it relevant. He could be wrong and if the consensus here is that the information should be added, I would be happy to revert my removal and unprotect the page. Note that the subject of the article has claimed he has been misquoted in the interviews but this does not meet our requirements under WP:RS. Once again, if people believe this actor's sexuality is relevant under WP:NOT and WP:BLP then it should be there. My concerns are that it does not meet the criteria outlined by those policies. --Yamla (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't quite know what WP:NOT has to do with it. A person's sexuality is definitely not "trivia."
    He has chosen to take roles in a gay-themed TV show on a gay-themed network, and do an interview with an entertainment news site run by a different gay-themed network, in which he discusses his sexuality.
    But there is definitely a problem in that having a whole long paragraph about it is undue weight on that aspect of his life, given that the rest of the article is two sentences about his roles. FCYTravis (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is relevant and should be there. On the other hand, we removed (after much debate) all mention of Jay Brannan's sexuality from his article, because of his preference. Aleta Sing 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I don't believe for a second that the person claiming to be Peter Stickles really is Peter Stickles. Email me a jpg of his drivers license and maybe then I will. Second, this claim that he's been misquoted is ludicrous. He was asked by AfterElton "Are you gay yourself?" and his one-word answer was "Yes." What, he really said "no" and the reporter wrote it down wrong? Pfft. Third, even if we are to believe that not only did the AfterElton interviewer somehow "misquote" his one-word answer or the two paragraphs about his decision to come out, and if we are to believe that the other interview quoted here is somehow fabricated or "misquoted," that still leaves the question of the podcast (episode 91) recorded in his own voice in which he speaks extensively of being gay. Is he suggesting that the voice recording is being "misquoted" too? Not to mention that his sexuality was part of why he was cast in the part that he was in Shortbus. I'm sorry if Peter Stickles, if it is Peter Stickles, is having some second thoughts about deciding to come out. I'm sorry if he feels bad about having his sexuality mentioned in his Wikipedia aricle. I wrote the article and it certainly was not and is not my intention to cause him distress by writing it. But the information on his sexuality is factual, verifiable and relevant and his personal wishes should not dictate the content of the article. Otto4711 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I, through unblock-en-l, have confirmed that this was indeed Peter Stickles. --Yamla (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Outside view: I think his sexuality is relevant exactly for the reasons he cites in the interview, viz., it may influence the roles he is offered and how the audience views him. Therefore, it should be mentioned in the article, but we have to careful how we phrase it. Starting the article with " Peter Sticles is a gay American actor from New York" is clearly unacceptable; adding a whole paragraph on the issue would be undue too. Perhaps we can add a sentence along the lines, "Sticles has expressed concern that his being gay may lead to him being pigeonholed as a gay actor." (may need rephrasing), which not only says that he is gay but also explains how it affects him professionally. Abecedare (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The same discussion has taken place in relation to Simon Amstell. Read the 'Personal Life' to see an example of how this could be worded. I don't like articles that say "John Doe is gay" but mentioning why it's notable is a good idea if a person's orientation is included. IMHO, it seems notable for the subject we're discussing. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely with User:Abecedare, and think that a small discussion of it would be more than appropriate. I do understand where the subject of the bio is coming from, and I sympathise, and we need to present information in an acceptable manner, but we shouldn't leave out something if it seems relevant to the roles he's being offered or choosing. Relata refero (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Abecedare's idea seems to be pointing the way forward, in my view. Orderinchaos 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is indeed. I will immediately unprotect the page. Thank you, Otto4711, for keeping your cool and working within Wikipedia's framework for resolving this matter. I am not going to revert my removal of your content because the consensus seems to me to be that it was too long in the context of the article, but I will not revert your readdition of the information on his sexuality, appropriately cited (as your additions generally were) and I apologise for making you jump through these hoops. I hope you understand that I felt I needed to err on the side of caution. --Yamla (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Section "Entertainers with Crip affiliation" on the article Crips

    I'm concerned about it if we really need to have this section. I don't see no relevance to the article, the section is cited with mostly no-reliable sources. I removed it but some user claims it should be included because "it has been since 2006" diff.
    A category "clasifiying" these people was also deleted. See CfD. Tasc0 It's a zero! 04:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Some help would be appreciated. Tasc0 It's a zero! 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a horrible section, chock-full of BLP violations. We've got gang affiliations being sourced to Tripod sites, freely-editable sites like IMDB, and so forth. I've removed it and if anyone puts it back I will take it out again. *** Crotalus *** 13:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support. I also removed the "same" section in the article Bloods. You may want to have it on your watchlist. Tasc0 It's a zero! 21:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Brandt (redirect only) on DRV

    See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 24. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no need to create another section. A simple update would be sufficient, even unnecessary, as those originally interested and monitoring this noticeboard will have followed the links to the DRV themselves. Relata refero (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Geoffrey Edelsten - Serious BLP, Libel, Coatrack Issues.

    There has been heated discussion on the article of Geoffrey Edelsten.

    The article has the following serious policy issues. WP:COAT - Coatrack, WP:LIBEL - Defamation, WP:BLP - Biographies of Living Persons, WP:NOT - What Wikipedia is Not, WP:HARM - Avoiding Harm.

    Negative comments have been removed consistently and then added back by aggressive users. The administrator Doc glasgow has already deleted the comments in question but as mentioned, they continually come back by this selection of users.

    Please block users who are performing vandalism and protect this article. It is probably best for deletion. --Wikifactsright (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop forum shopping. It's at WP:ANI#Serious and Continuous Wikipedia Policy Breach of BLP and Other Policy Amounting to Vandalism and on the talk page of a user and at talk:Geoffrey Edelsten. You aren't receiving the answers you wanted elsewhere, and I highly doubt that continued pestering of others and edit warring will do much good. seicer | talk | contribs 13:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All statements at Geoffrey Edelsten are appropriately referenced from independent, third-party sources. Wikifactsright wants to totally bias the article so that it is just a rosy, feel-good story. WWGB (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that editors in the ANI thread have made a pretty good case for the current form of the article, and have shown that the negative information is in proportion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The information seems to be in proportion. The user who reported it here has been blocked for 3RR over the article and appears to be a single-purpose account. Orderinchaos 19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ben Stevens again

    The editor claiming to be Ben Stevens is back removing stuff from his article. Stephens is apparently a Alaska state politician under an FBI investigation. Previously I reported this here a month or so back, and the article was stubbed for careful rebuilding. This time User:Bostonb5 has removed an unsourced section about Stevens' personal life, a link to Stevens' web page (with the edit description of the link as being out of date), and most importantly, an apparently well sourced section that had been restored about the FBI probe. This last section needs close scrutiny before it is re-added. but if the sources do hold up, then IMHO it should remain, reguardless of the wishes of the article's subject. But I'm not a great judge of sourcing and BLP, so here I am asking for assistance in dealing with this situation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reviewed the "Alaska fishing rights" section and it is validly sourced. I have removed the section listing the names of his wife and children as it is not clear they are public figures. If Mr. Stevens has further concerns I think he needs to take them up with the WMF. Jfire (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Bostonb5 has left a comment on my talk page. Jfire (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Erik Prince

    There is a potentially defamatory statement in the article, sourced to John Edwards. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Prince#Philanthropy_and_political_donations The offending material was removed from the Erik Prince article by someone else, but it has since been reverted by another user.--Davidwiz (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see the problem here. This is a noteworthy criticism by a major U.S. political figure. In fact, Edwards is far better known than Prince himself is. If we were citing bloggers or random local opinion columnists, then there would be a problem. But as long as this statement is properly attributed and doesn't overwhelm the rest of the article (per WP:UNDUE), then it should be fine. *** Crotalus *** 00:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Pipes - coatrack issues

    The article on Daniel Pipes is dominated by two subjects: Pipes' views on various issues ("Views and positions" section) and other people's views on Pipes ("Praise, criticism and controversy" section). Both these sections comprise the bulk of the article, each of them easily outweighing the section with biographical information, so that right now the article is not biography, but a collection of quotes, either from Pipes or about Pipes. One section ("Campus Watch") is not even about Pipes, but about a certain project started by a think tank that Pipes runs. The article thus suffers from serious WP:COAT problems, which probably put it in violation of WP:BLP as well. The easiest solution would be to: 1. Cut sections "Views and positions" and "Praise, criticism and controversy" to only those views held by Pipes and comments about Pipes that clearly add to his notability. 2. Remove section on Campus Watch as irrelevant to Pipes' biography.

    Beit Or 21:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The "think tank" in question, according to reliable sources, consists of Pipes and one other full-time researcher. Basically, the think tank and Pipes are interchangeable, and the think tank is actually only notable as a conveyor for Pipes' views. That being said, it certainly is the case that some trimming of views is possible in that article. I note, however, far from being a BLP vio, some of the more frank reviews of Pipes' work by academics are actually not in there. Relata refero (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mary DeMoss

    Aqsa Parvez

    Aqsa Parvez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Blatant violations of privacy (of family, not of subject herself) added twice. Please watchlist and delete/oversight inappropriate edits if possible. Andjam (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Orl Unho

    Orl Unho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is no evidence that this person exists. The one "source" is a YouTube video. There is also a WikiQuote page with an unsourced quote. // ivan (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Papoose (rapper)

    Repeatedly reverted edits are based on either the editor's interpretation of songs or postings to internet forums that interpret the songs. In either event, the interpretations make claims about a shooting and an alleged assault. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full names and birthdates?

    Re Kathy Hilton#Family

    Should this article include full names and birthdates of "non-notable" family members?

    I don't think so but there seems to be a general tendency to put every celebrity-related thing we can find into Wikipedia, whether or not it is significant.

    I would appreciate both an answer to my specific question, and comments on the "general tendency" I sense. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe this question is addressed by Wikipedia:Blp#Privacy_of_personal_information. We have no articles on the sons, so I suggest including only the year of birth for them. The birthdays of the two famous daughters may already be widely included in secondary sources. If that's the case, then they may be kept, but if not, they too should be reduced to just the year of birth. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know we don't have an article on Barron Nicholas, and I'd suggest that while he's not sufficiently notable to rate an article, he is enough of a public figure due to his DUI arrest that including his birthdate, or maybe just birth year, is not particularly intrusive. 18:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    I pulled the birthdates (leaving the year) for the two we don't have articles on, and undid the redlinks as well. A DUI arrest does not make someone a public figure. FCYTravis (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Craig Cheffins

    Craig Cheffins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A student newspaper is being used as the sole source to spread a story about Cheffins conduct as a teacher (allegedly neglecting his teaching duties). Cheffins is notable as a politician, not a teacher, and I feel this is irrelevant, unencyclopedic, and poorly sourced. IMO, few student newspapers are reliable, particularly on matters of fellow students. --Rob (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Student newspapers are definitely reliable sources. They are generally well-written publications of record for their universities, have established policies for fact-checking and sourcing, and most importantly, take responsibility for what they publish. A lot of important journalism is done by students at college papers.
    However, I think the issue here is undue weight - as you said, he's really only encyclopedic for his (brief) career as a politician, and a minor dust-up at a university does not seem to me to be relevant to his political career. FCYTravis (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lobster Boy

    This disturbs me a little. The tone is too weird for Wikipedia, and it's been tagged as inappropriate for months. I'm too busy with other stuff to do a cleanup, but I would be grateful if somebody else could at least put it on his watchlist, if not clean it up right now. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe this article should be renamed/moved to Lobster Man forthwith. Another Wikipedia subject, Grady Stiles, has been known far and wide as "Lobster Boy" for years. Google gives us 28,600 hits for "Lobster Boy" without the word Carnegie; that would be Grady. Under the article's current name, we risk confusing young knowledge seekers. --CliffC (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced criticism of John Aravosis at Americablog

    There have been several recent edits with unsourced criticisms of blog founder John Aravosis at Americablog. With multiple editors posting negative information, and interspersed less POV edits, it is hard to see how far back to revert without losing possible good edits. See [30] , [31] , [32] , [33]. This article needs someone familiar with its subject and with Aravosis to straignten out whether he is a Republican or Democrat, let alone the other BLP issues. Edison (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Did some cleanup, issues seem resolved for the time being. Edison (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Matt Sanchez

    Post-arbitration BLP article is under arbitration probation and full protection. Seeking independent review for a proposed job title update.

    Currently the article calls Mr. Sanchez an embedded blogger. The proposed change would be embedded journalist, to be substaniated by a citation to the Weekly Standard. Five separate sources support the proposed change, also including humanevents.com and nationalreview.com.

    No editor has produced a citation opposing the change, but the proposal has not received unambiguous support. Reelm objected when the first two citations were offered and has not commented after three more citations were supplied. A brand new account called Dale720240 showed up today and argued against a different warning that had not been proposed. An odd thing is that this is the account's only post[34] and the article talk page is semiprotected. Multiple sitebans have been implemented in connection with this article, so it is likely that a banned editor created that account and waited four days for the specific purpose of complaining.

    Talk:Matt_Sanchez#Change_embedded_blogger_to_embedded_journalist

    In compliance with the article probation I ask for an uninvolved editor to weigh the merits of this proposal. Yes, I'm posting this thread just to ask whether we can change one word blogger to journalist. DurovaCharge! 19:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response requested. DurovaCharge! 02:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of property ownership records as source to support residency

    A web site that provides property records in New Jersey has been used as a source to document residence of notables in a number of communities -- for Missy Elliott in Kinnelon, New Jersey and for John Madden in Montville, New Jersey -- which raises a few questions.

    The first question is the validity of the source. Does the fact that there is someone named John madden who owns property in Montville satisfactorily demonstrate that this is the same person named in the article? For Missy Elliott, the circumstantial evidence is a bit stronger, with the name on the record matching her given name and the owner's address near her hometown in Virginia. Should this be used as a source on this basis?

    The bigger question is the propriety of a source that provides an individual's home address, and not just their city of residence, which raises privacy concerns. While I am baffled as to why people who almost certainly have an unlisted number not doing anything to protect this information (say by using a corporation or trust to own the property), this information is in the public record. Is there a privacy issue with this information? Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless the residence is very well-known, I don't see any good reason to provide residential addresses. That sounds like an appalling privacy issue to me. The sort of exception I'm thinking of might be, for example, the Neverland Ranch. I wouldn't have any problem with property records being used in that sort of article, where the property itself is well-known.TJRC (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that this is speculative synthesis. The fact that someone owns a property somewhere does not necessarily mean they live in that location. They could have bought the home as an investment, or for a friend, or for any number of other reasons. Ownership isn't equivalent to residency. FCYTravis (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a top rated website, we would be putting into widespread circulation information that otherwise would be a bit less prominent. We don't publish the birthdates of less notable people, and we do not publish the (listed) phone numbers or certain other information that could be found in other databases. Then, too we are extremely likely to publish as the street address of a celebrity the actual address of the celebrity's elderly relative for whom he bought a home, or the address of someone else with the same name. If the person is the target of kooks or assassins, this could lead to serious harm. Even if the address is accurate, it is unlikely to be relevant and might aid stalkers. This smacks of original research if it comes from someone's database rather than a published source. Edison (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two words: Rebecca. Schaeffer.. TJRC (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Property records cannot be used as per BLP[35] " Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. ".Momento (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dawn Wells (again)

    Proxy User seems rather obsessed with somehow connecting a minor ex-Gilligan's Island actress with marijuana use, to the point of creating an entire section heading entitled "Marijuana incidents" and repeatedly reinserting uncorroborated, recanted claims. I have reverted to last good and protected; more eyes and a cluebat would be handy. FCYTravis (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why use full protection, instead of a blocking the offending user (and maybe semi-protect to stop socks). No other user seems to be causing a problem in that article, so why stop others from editing. --Rob (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Avigdor Liberman

    The page is protected, you've made an editprotected request, its been mentioned at WP:AE and WP:AN; how many more eyes do you want on it? Relata refero (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AE was a 3RR report by Pedro Gonnet, I'm not aware of an AN report but I'll give it a look.
    On topic, we can't have articles locked with BLP violations. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any noticeboard you haven't taken this to yet? Jaakobou, we really do have a policy about consensus here, and it's just as much policy as the other ones. You can't go around removing whole sections of sourced material with a frankly incomprehensible rationale, even if you do think it's based on WP:BLP. <eleland/talkedits> 16:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uninvolved admins may give a look at the section and decide on their own if there's a BLP violation. Consensus, btw, involves the general active members of discussion, not the 3-man clique who joined the discussion with a preconception on how the page should look. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Don Murphy (2)

    Hello, I am trying to expand the article Don Murphy with verifiable information from reliable sources. This is my revision, and I was wondering if any interested editors experienced with WP:BLP would like to join discussion at Talk:Don Murphy to evaluate all aspects of my revision and determine how to best describe Don Murphy's personal life and professional career as significantly reported by published, third-party sources. RTFA (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You are a SPA account designed to attack Don Murphy and draw the Foundation into unpleasantness. It was your sloppy revision which led to the revert war and the afd. The fact that you chose a wholesale reversion of the article after all that happened confirms it. You have only edited with this one article and your obsession with this individual alarms me greatly.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Don Murphy article is marked with a padlock symbol. Isn't it usual for locked articles to carry a note re why they are locked? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have proposed a topic ban to restrict RTFA from Don Murphy. Interested parties can comment here.--Docg 22:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Lerner

    ScienceApologist is engaging in blatant WP:BLP violations on Eric Lerner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), starting with an attempt to make a controversial claim concerning him sourced only to a political attack website [38] [39] [40], and continuing with the use of original research for the purpose of criticizing Eric Lerner's work justified only by personal attacks against myself [41], both in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. Though WP:BLP also requires strict adherence to WP:NPOV, ScienceApologist is also engaging in blatantly imbalanced editing by removing information concerning Eric Lerner's theories sourced to peer reviewed journals, including one published by the respected Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, while insisting that personal faculty webpages and blogs constitute good, reliable sources for criticism of Eric Lerner -- please see [42], which uses [43] and [44] as sources, as well as ScienceApologist's explanation of why blog posts are reliable sources, but peer reviewed journals published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers aren't [45]. John254 21:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Testicular_cancer#Famous_survivors

    Testicular_cancer#Famous_survivors needs better sourcing, or else the entries should be removed. Corvus cornixtalk 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jordan Maxwell

    The Wikipedia page on Jordan Maxwell keeps getting reverted back to a highly biased version submitted by Cohan8 where Jordan is basically accused of being a fraud/charlatan.

    Here are some quotes: [quote] Many view the way he conducts his research as pseudo professional and heavily based on the sale of his own products rather than the objectivity of the "research" itself. [/quote]

    [quote] is a self proclaimed researcher and independent scholar in the fields of astrology, theology, religion, secret societies, the occult, and UFOlogy since 1959. He has produced numerous video lectures and documentaries on these subjects. [/quote]

    Also, the article repeatedly puts "believes" in scare quotes so as to demean any claims he makes.

    This kind of personal bias reflects poorly on Wikipedia as a reputable source for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.88.83 (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to the issue raised above, there are other problems here IMO. As it stands, a significant part of the article seems to me to be a copy violation of one of the references.
    http://www.world-mysteries.com/doug_jmaxwell.htm
    Will someone else please take a look at this
    I removed the section "FBI surveillance" as it had no references at all. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Xeni Jardin

    I have concerns about the amount of private information that contributors appearing to be trying to put into the article with dubious sourcing. In particularly, people appear to be trying to put her alleged real name in the article, despite the fact the only sourcing appears to be from employment records and IRS records and she has expressed a wish not to have it included. Also, her birthdate is include despite the OR used to derive it (see the footnote). Anyone else agree with me on this Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I protected the article because of edit warring over this. On looking into it further, I agree with your points. User:Yeago needs to be restrained here, and is now repeatedly posting a presumed name in bold on the article talk page. Note there has been contention over this article in the past over a different issue, namely an attack site concerning the subject. Ty 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to be restrained in what sense? I'm engaging in a discussion about the matter, just like you. I'm repeating posting a name in pursuit of my points, and I'm not sure if you're implying bad faith in my doing so, but I use bold occasionally to illustrate points. Also, please do not connect me (if you may suspect) to the 'attack site', as I had never read it before today, nor am I a reader of BoingBoing or anything else like that. I'm simply looking for Wikipedia standards to be extended to this article.Yeago (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hydrino theory

    The article on Randell Mills, the inventor of this theory, was merged into this article. Tom Stolper wrote a book on Mills, his SPA is currently on 1RR (see COI Noticeboard archive). His opponent Michael Busch has just left the project.

    After a slow edit war, Tom Stolper has now begun to change only a few things at a time [46], enabling reasonable discussion. I am concerned about the plagiarism comment. The accusation seems credible, and the justification added by Stolper unconvincing. But our only source for the accusation in the first place is the blog of a physicist who avoids using the word. More blunt formulations can be found in forum posts, but that seems to be all.

    I am inclined to remove the accusation, but that will probably be questioned. I'd appreciate it if someone could have a look. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have found the relevant BLP passages after all, but as it's not a biography in the strict sense I would still like to have some input, especially concerning the categorisation of a one man show theory as pseudoscience. I have removed both the plagiarism accusation and the potentially offensive categories. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Nazi orgies" tabloid allegation regarding Max Mosley

    Before I run over 3RR regarding a person I know little about, can I please have at least one sane person look at Max Mosley's page? I believe that tabloids -- Bild, News of the World -- are not reliable sources, and the section that anons and occasional editors keep adding fails our BLP policy. Am I out of my mind? Is anything in this section acceptable? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely completely non-encyclopedic. FCYTravis (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Treat as vandalism, revert revert revert, if you get 3RR blocked e-mail me for an immediate unblock.--Docg 18:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The page has been fully protected for a day, fyi. -- Naerii 20:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, in which time its now all over the Times, the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph. Sheesh. Over-reaction, anyone? Relata refero (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Magdi Allam

    Magdi Allam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm involved in a dispute with a single purpose account over the article Magdi Allam. I know almost nothing about the subject of the article, but when I saw it, it seemed to me there were clear problems with it. Before this goes farther, I'd like to get some advice as to whether I'm reading the situation properly. Is this a clearly a POV article with unsourced contentious statements? Should I continue removing the unsourced statements, which the account has reinserted?

    Thanks. --Bwwm (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John McCain - John McCain presidential eligibility

    → See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain presidential eligibility.

    Two editors are trying to interject original research into articles relating to John McCain that he is inelligble to be president because he was not born in the United States. One of these editors User:2ndAmendment is new account (created March 19, 2008) and I suspect may be a WP:SOCK given their knowledge of WP policy and creation of this article after only 3 edits. The other editor User:Mr.grantevans2 has been trying to insert contentious material into the McCain primary article for some time. With the recent creation of this article, they appear to be performing original research to "prove" their case, and are using an unreliable (and McCain attack source) as a premise for their assertation that McCain does not qualify by this webpage's defintion of a natural born citizen. Discourse does not seem to be working at this time. Arzel (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The sources they are using look pretty reliable to me (MSNBC and New York Times) but I AfD'd it on the basis that it's not worth of a seperate article. -- Naerii 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I reverted the insertion of the unreliable part. Look at the history. I don't have a problem with having the article in general, it is a topic of discussion, and I suspect it will become more of an issue as the election draws on. I do have a problem with editors that feel he is inelligible trying to present their research on this matter. Arzel (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sorry, I was wondering where your link to WordPress was coming from. I looked at the old revision and the paragraph:

    The constitution does not define "natural born Citizen". One definition, however, is "where only the natural act of one being born in a place determines the status of ones citizenship with no additional stipulations necessary to influence that status".[3] The definition put forth by Blackstone in 1765 is "Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England".[4]

    is almost certainly original research and/or synthesis. Talk:John_McCain#Is_McCain_a_.22Native_Born_American.22.3F is interesting, shows the POV pushers ignoring what seems (to me) to be a consensus that McCain's citizenship is not a significant issue. I'd say drop a note on their talk page about BLP but it looks like they're already experienced editors.. sigh. It looks like the fork is going to be deleted, btw. -- Naerii 19:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Laura Bozzo and LatinGossip.com

    Laura Bozzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I need some help with the Laura Bozzo article, which I believe has been a longtime troll magnet. First off, I had to clean out some dubious info about Bozzo today, sourced with the site LatinGossip.com, practically a self-published blog site that makes no proof of its claims whatsoever. ON a similar note, another BLP page is using the site. I think LatinGossip.com should be blacklisted.

    And now regarding the Laura Bozzo page. IP's are continuously vandalizing it so that it's slanted towards her controversial talk show career. Take this vandal for instance. It took about 2 weeks for removal of accurate content to be restored, by me in this instance. (Here's the source documenting the claim about her "women's rights" activism/legal scholarship I restored). Things get worse as days go by. This right here is unacceptable because it fails to give proper sources to such claims. And this was the new lowlight I just had to remove on Saturday. I'm just raising concern over the Bozzo article so that administrators can help in keeping the integrity/accuracy of the article and deal with LatinGossip.com and other libel that may be added again to the Bozzo article, possibly even protect it. Thank you. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks OK now, and there is no enough disruption to warrant protection. I will add this article to my watchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have it on my watchlist too. If libelous edits continue, I'll revert 'em. You can too. Protection may come if necessary. Also, what's Wikipedia gonna do with the LatinGossip.com site I just mentioned? Should'nt that site be blacklisted for being basically an unverifiable, inaccurate site? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Feedback needed re Rob Grill article

    Please will people with a sense of BLP issues take a look at this?

    It concerns the article Rob Grill. There is discussion in Talk:Rob Grill about whether or not to include a particular news story in the article.

    We requested a third opinion, which was to come to this page for an opinion. So we are here.

    Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Jim Davidson (comedian)

    I've cleaned up some questionable stuff from the article proper, but I'm unsure of the policy regarding talk pages. Can someone take a look and redact/excise anything that violates? Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Same as with the article, we don't tolerate BLP vios on talk pages either. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Carolyn Farb

    Good examples of BLP

    Im looking for Rated FA-Class or better examples of poets/writers but falling under BLP. One first class rate article for a poet I found is William Butler Yeats. But he is not living... Any BLPs? User:Wikidas 10:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There are none (unless you expand the set to include Bob Dylan). Seamus Heaney is the best of the lot, and you can see the state its in. Strangely, however, Modernist poetry in English is FA-class. Relata refero (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say poets/writers do you mean poets or writers or someone who is a poet and writer? If you mean the former then there is J. K. Rowling, David Helvarg, Thomas Pynchon, Bruno Maddox and William Gibson, all of whom are writers of some kind from a quick look (Well I recognise most of them anyway). I don't think any of them are really poets. There are a whole bunch of FA non BLP poets, Chinese, Bengali, American and others. Check out Category:FA-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles (which I found from Category:FA-Class biography articles which I found from Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography). If Wikipedia:Category intersection is ever implemented, then I guess we could just intersect BLP and the above category but in the mean time, you can just look thru the FA list and look for BLPs (but I looked thru the whole list and I'm pretty sure there are no poet BLPs there) Nil Einne (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Edit: [47] may be useful Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Neve Gordon

    Neve Gordon has won a libel action in an Israeli court, confirmed at appeal, against Steven Plaut. Since the appeal court ruling at the beginning of this month, there have been a dozen edits to the article, repeating the substance of the original libels, by confirmed or suspected sockpuppets of Borisyy. I have requested semi-protection of this page, in order to prevent libellous edits by sockpuppets, but this has been refused. Is there any other way to prevent such libellous vandalism and abuse? RolandR (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Plaut article is protected, the Gordon article is not. Interesting. — Athaenara ✉ 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Analysing the BLP problem

    OK, this should probably be on the talk page. But honestly, would you read it there?

    I am trying to define and analyse the BLP problem. I've made a start at User:Doc_glasgow/The BLP problem. But I'd really like feedback from anyone with an interest. Thanks.--Docg 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Don Murphy (3)

    This article has been the subject of intense controversy recently and is currently fully protected following a spate of vandalism. The controversy has not abated and has every possibility of continuing for some time. It would be helpful if uninvolved editors could watchlist it to ensure that further vandalism is reverted promptly in the event of its protection being lowered (which will presumably happen at some point). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rick Reilly

    In May of 2007, I noticed a certain editor (Tanninglamp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) had a fixation to add info in a biased manner to Rick Reilly's article (My first revert here). My recollection is that he was blocked for 3rr and for using multiple IP's and socks to edit war (An archived ANI thread I found is here). After dealing with the socks for a while and trying unsuccessfully to keep out the material which was, as far as I could find, only linked to one source (unlike the U of Colorado sex scandal, which Reilly criticized; it was subject to much media scrutiny) --I tried to keep the material and the source, but present it in a factual way (change diff). This change did not satisfy the editor as it did not properly impugn Mr. Reilly's character and successfully paint him as a hypocrite as did his earlier version. I have no idea why it is so important to this editor (appears to be the same user) for this info to be included, but s/he has occasionally popped up to re-insert the info (latest diff).

    • Could a couple of editors help watch the article?
    • Does anyone have an opinion as to whether the info should be included in whole or in part?
    I'm thinking just throw out the info all together. My recollection from doing research on it last year is that no further news articles could be found. Also in the only reference for this info, it stated, "Prosecutors decided not to file charges because there were conflicting statements from the teenagers involved and not enough physical evidence to determine who was telling the truth." I'm not even sure if they were talking about charges against Reilly or not, as Reilly was not at his home when the alleged incident took place.

    Alan Moulder

    Entire article has nearly no citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh0570fchurch (talk • contribs) 23:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There does not seem to be anything of concern from a BLP perspective here - unless you consider claiming someone worked with My Bloody Valentine is libelous. Which you should. Skomorokh 23:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gabrielle Giffords

    Gabrielle Giffords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A new user has repeatedly (>6 times) tried to add poorly-sourced OR that, among other things, alleges that the article subject's support of a certain bill shows that she has violated her Democratic values. All attempts to conform to policy and reach consensus have been met by continued reverts and personal attacks. It's a low-traffic article and I could use someone to give an outside opinion, help revert the offending content, and better-introduce the new user Bobheath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). johnpseudo 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I notice the offending user's talkpage was a redlink as of your writing this; it might have been a more appropriate forum to escalate the discussion, per WP:DR#Discuss. Skomorokh 01:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops! I incorrectly capitalized the name. It should be fixed now. johnpseudo 03:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The page has now been fully protected. Various other opinions have been given to Bobheath on the talkpage, which will hopefully sink in.--Slp1 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Lehman bio

    from current text: "Because the Vietnam War was raging in 1968, many people found that they had to have connections or influence in order to gain admission to the Reserves and thereby avoid serving in jungle warfare in Vietnam."

    gratuitous and irrelevant with clear intent of malignant inference. delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clanranald (talk • contribs) 02:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, that's definitely right out, and has been removed. The clause was inserted by an anon IP back in February. Page watchlisted. FCYTravis (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lotfi Asker Zadeh

    This is not a serious BLP issue, just a minor one, as the claims made are not really controversial, but a third party opinion would be good for resolving the dispute. The dispute is related to the current citizenship of Mr. Lotfi Zade. According to Mr Lotfi Zade himself: "I am the citizen of the United States. I was born in Baku, but I was not Soviet citizen, I was an Iranian citizen. In 1944 I came to the States as an immigrant, not as a student". This clearly means that this person is currently a US citizen and he used to be a citizen of Iran in the past. However according to User:07fan, Mr Lotfi Zade has at present the Iranian citizenship as well, but the aforementioned user fails to present any source to support this claim. While I do not consider this to be a serious issue, BLP rules require that any info about the living person needs to be properly sourced and be accurate. A third party opinion on this issue would be appreciated. Grandmaster (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Grandmaster is making an WP:OR assertion that that Lotfi Asker Zadeh is no longer an Iranian citizen or that he is "former Iranian citizen", sonly based on the fact that Zadeh also became an American citizen in 1994. However, User:Grandmaster is ignoring the fact that "Voluntary acquisition of a foreign citizenship does not lead to automatic loss of Iranian citizenship". [48]. Zadeh has never said "I am a former Iranian citizen", he grew up in Iran, moved to US on an Iranian passport, and even after moving to US, lived and worked in US and traveled around the world as an Iranian for decades, and did not acquire an American citizenship until 1994, three years after he had retired, and there is no indication whatsoever that Zadeh ever renounced his Iranian citizenship. Furthermore, BBC, in a recent interview, refers to Zadeh as "an Iranian scientist" and I have even offered User:Grandmaster to contact Zadeh and ask him if he ever renounced his Iranian citizenship, but User:Grandmaster has so far refused to do so. More discussions can be found at Talk:Lotfi_Asker_Zadeh --07fan (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The OR is to assert that a person holds a certain citizenship without any sources to support this claim. Mr Lotfi Zadeh talks about his Iranian citizenship in the past tense, and there's no other evidence to support the claim on his second citizenship. I would be glad to see any reliable source about that. Again, I do not consider this to be a big issue, but for the sake of accuracy this info should be verified. Grandmaster (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Trombino

    There has been some debate on the Mark Trombino page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Trombino) about including a quote from a member of a band he worked with.

    It is verifiable, but is not a particularly positive comment. I believe this is allowed by Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, which clearly allows for opinions if they are sourced and attributed (see specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements)

    Can someone please confirm this, because a user takes the quote down, almost daily. I'm completely impartial here, I just found the quote to be very interesting! Mikenosilly (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    libel and defamation on user page

    Two court cases have found the statements User:Cult Free World is making here libelous and defamatory.

    The details are described here on the page's "Miscellany for Deletion" page. Thank you for reviewing the actual court case which is provided in the above post. Renee (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Miscellany for deletion/User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India is the current link. — Athaenara ✉ 22:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just been moved here: Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India. Thanks. Renee (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, two different pages: the MfD itself and its talk page. The specifics of the libel and defamation issues are addressed more specifically on the latter. — Athaenara ✉ 23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Cult Free World just posted yet another claim of sexual abuse as fact here, when two courts in India have found such allegations libelous and defamatory. This is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy. Please, can someone act? Renee (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dorothy Tillman

    Dorothy Tillman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) unblock-en-l received a complaint about the content of this article, which does seem sketchy to my eyes. More eyes would be appreciated. WilyD 14:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Goli Ameri

    Goli Ameri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User Mahmoudg, using his username and possibly at times when not logged in, is consistently adding negative-biased, unsubstantiated information to the Goli Ameri article // Mahmoudg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) // Johndoe555 (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    BLP Violation needs attention

    Can someone please take care of another BLP violation, described here? It derogates the living guru of this meditation system by taking liberties with translating from non-English sources. The tone of this whole article is to make Sahaj Marg sound as strange as possible when in fact it is a meditation group that is not on any English language cult list and is considered by the United Nations to be a spiritual and humanitarian non-governmental organization. Thanks!! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sebastian Bleisch

    Resolved
     – Removed unsourced material per WP:BLP

    Sebastian Bleisch is a living person and shows up in Category:Child pornography with no other real people. Could someone check this our as far a appropriateness of the categories he is listed under. Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sylvia Bourdon

    Resolved
     – Removed unsourced catgegory per WP:BLP

    Sylvia Bourdon is a living person and is listed under Category:Animal pornography, Her article has no reference ctations. Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Marina Hedman

    Resolved
     – Removed unsourced category per WP:BLP

    Same problem as above. How do living people become listed under Category:Animal pornography. Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 00:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ben Modo

    Resolved
     – Page has been speedily deleted per A7.

    I am inclined to ask for speedy deletion in order to clear the history. Article could then be recreated with proper references. Is this right?

    There is an open RfC as well. —BradV 00:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick Carnes

    Patrick Carnes, a BLP, is the only person under Category:Sexual addiction. Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maxine Waters

    Is there a way to semi-protect or otherwise stop the inclusion of "Rep. Waters said she's going to cast her Superdelegate vote for Candidate A but Candidate B won in her district and that goes against the will of the voters."

    This is irrelevant to Maxine Waters' biography and it misrepresents the Superdelegate process. The Wikipedia article on Superdelegates states, "All the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.143.161 (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alan Haskvitz

    This middle school teacher wrote this page about himself as a means of self promotion. If you go on his own website, you will find the exact same content. There are also no citations whatsoever on his page.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=203240259"