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 5 thread(s) (older than 4d) to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive49.
Line 176: Line 176:
:Not sure if deletion will help. (Some of the documentation collected there might be useful to have on record, in case of future incidents. Trolls have a way of returning.) I do think though that now this issue is more or less resolved, the discussion about the controversy could be archived. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 15:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:Not sure if deletion will help. (Some of the documentation collected there might be useful to have on record, in case of future incidents. Trolls have a way of returning.) I do think though that now this issue is more or less resolved, the discussion about the controversy could be archived. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 15:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, not even sure if archiving entire current discussion is in accordance with BLP policy (although I don't really know the policy). I looked at the [[Barack Obama]] talk page and that has a lot of stuff, pleasant and unpleasant to one viewpoint or other. Perhaps we could archive the older sections and begin to delete new attempts to revive the discussion. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 16:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, not even sure if archiving entire current discussion is in accordance with BLP policy (although I don't really know the policy). I looked at the [[Barack Obama]] talk page and that has a lot of stuff, pleasant and unpleasant to one viewpoint or other. Perhaps we could archive the older sections and begin to delete new attempts to revive the discussion. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 16:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User MathSci's introductory post above significantly misrepresents the controversy and the sources available. Briefly, the controversy is this: Michael Atiyah, a well known British mathematician delivered a [http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/strings05/atiyah/ research seminar at the KITP, Santa Barbara] and then a large public lecture at the University of Lincon in which he discussed the issue of a possible link between functional differential equations and quantum mechanics. He stressed the potential importance of this idea even referring to it as potentially deserving a `Nobel Prize' and also his own priority: `dont forget I suggested it first'. He was subsequently informed ([http://www.ckraju.net/atiyah/atiyahcase.html#Correspondence see correspondence]) that very similar ideas had already been published by an Indian scientist C.K. Raju.

The controversy is that *subsequent* to receiving and acknowleding this information, he approved the publication of a [http://www.ams.org/notices/200606/comm-walker.pdf prominent article] in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society reiterating his priority.

Prof. Raju complained to the AMS and, under extreme pressure, the AMS published this [http://www.ams.org/notices/200704/commentary-web.pdf belated acknowledgement] of Raju's work. However, the key issue that constitutes academic misconduct -- namely that Atiyah approved publication of the AMS article despite knowing of previously published work -- has not yet been addressed.

35 prominent academics signed a [http://www.ckraju.net/atiyah/Petition_against_celebrity_justice.pdf petition], supporting Raju's allegation of academic misconduct. This petition states that "there is a prima facie case that ... [Raju's] ... work was initially suppressed." It states its suspicion that "there are no answers to Raju’s charges" and refers to "extraordinary circumstance".
The signatories of this petition include luminiaries like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashis_Nandy Ashis Nandy], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva Vandana Shiva], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumit_Sarkar, Sumit Sarkar], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanika_Sarkar Tanika Sarkar], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mambillikalathil_Govind_Kumar_Menon MGK Menon] (the links here link to their wikipedia bio pages which demonstrate their eminence) , and others ([http://www.ckraju.net/atiyah/signatories.pdf see complete list of signatories]).

Furthermore, Raju complained to a prominent ethics society in India -- [http://www.scientificvalues.org/ the society for scientific values] -- and after consulting three independent experts and also corresponding with Atiyah, the society declared that it found the [http://www.scientificvalues.org/cases.html complaint valid].

To conclude, I would like to point out, as an academic myself, that the fact that Prof. Atiyah is a well known mathematician does not gurantee that he will not be guilty of academic misconduct. In fact, as is commonly known, eminent academics often feel they can use their power and influence to get away with academic misconduct and abuse this immunity. It is clear from the above sources -- and I would encourage neutral editors to explore other source material available on http://www.ckraju.net/atiyah/atiyahcase.html that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. This is significant, since if Atiyah is guilty of misconduct, at this stage in his career it would require a biographer to carefully examine the possibility that he has been guilty of this before. In my opinion, the sources presented above are reliable but I have started a discussion on this at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_Petition_signed_by_Eminent_Academics_a_RS.3F reliable sources noticeboard].

I would like to request neutral sources to weigh in on this. Unfortunately, Users MathSci and Fowler&fowler have consistently, used ad hominem attacks on Prof. Raju and other editors in this debate and I hope that this does not repeat on this noticeboard. Thanks, [[User:Perusnarpk|Perusnarpk]] ([[User talk:Perusnarpk|talk]]) 16:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


== [[Leonard Horowitz]] ==
== [[Leonard Horowitz]] ==

Revision as of 16:08, 27 July 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.

    Connie Talbot

    Does the world need to know where this child lives, goes to school and what her siblings are called? The editors argue that this information has already been published in newspapers, but this is no excuse for Wikipedia to possibly aid her endangerment. Graham Colm Talk 18:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Information removed. We have a presumption in favour of privacy and must be especially careful when minors are the subjects of articles. Exxolon (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Connie_Talbot#Basic_Common_Sense - requesting more editors for more input on this matter. Exxolon (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the school name has been removed, but I guess I'll leave this open in case there are any others who agree with GrahamColm's extreme position that we should not cover the subject because she happens to be below [insert arbitrary age here]. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nautica Thorn

    The above article is about a porn actress. The person's birth name is being added to the article, with the source either being a blog, or legal documents filed with the Trademark Office when the actress registered her name. It appears that the article subject is attempting to remove the name (supported by at least one other editor), but these changes have been reverted. I seem to remember this type of situation being discussed here before; what was the consensus? Personally I think the name should be removed. Kelly hi! 20:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion is still above (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Porn actors' birth names although appears to have died down. There is also mention on Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Real names of performers although this obviously is just a guideline on policy. I can't be bother reading through the whole discussion, it looks to me like a consensus is far away but I personally think any real name has to be well sourced and widely disseminated. Definitely anything sourced to blogs should be removed ASAP, and IMHO so should be anything relying on primary sources (that just reaks OR). Indeed I think this example demonstrates one of the problems with primary sources. How do we even know that the person registering the trademark is the porn star? It could be her sister, mother, aunt, friend, soulmate, manager, agent, whatever who she's decided to assign the trademark to. Unlikely perhaps, but definitely possible. P.S. From a quick read through I appear to agree with the majority although I'm not sure if consensus was ever really achieved. I am rather disturbed by those who seem to want to hunt down the information, e.g. with COPPA filings. Nil Einne. (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll counter your "how do we even know..." with my own... How do we even know that the person who registered the user name User:Nauticathorn is the same person as the article's subject? Why are we just assuming this? Does this mean that I can register User:Georgebush and start removing anything that might be the least bit embarrasing or even remotely private? (I don't think I'd be able to erase his entire presidency but it would be interesting to see how far I could get.) Dismas|(talk) 04:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure who else would register that username, who would also have an interest in concealing the actresses' real name. Kelly hi! 05:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a red herring. We shouldn't be assuming anything about a user based on their username; we have no data with which to verify they are who they claim to be, so it doesn't matter what their username is, we shouldn't make such assumptions. If they wish to verify their identity, they can do so by filing an OTRS ticket; although I don't really see why it would help to have them do so. Celarnor Talk to me 06:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. That's why I worded the message on their talk page in the way that I did. For all we know, it's a relative of their who doesn't approve of her career path and is trying to dissassociate themselves. Dismas|(talk) 07:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that when speaking with someone, you should never presume they are someone. However I for one don't think it is essential for someone to prove their identity, when all the are asking is for us to remove information which shouldn't really be in the article in the first place. If it were a request for oversight, or a whatever then yes, this request should probably be made directly to the appropriate avenues. The point is, we are erring on the side of caution. If it turns out the user is not Nautica Thorn, then there is no great harm. For starters the information shouldn't be put back anyway in this case. Even if it was a more borderline case where the user's request perhaps helped affect our decision, it still doesn't matter. The fact that a stage name was chosen, and the owner of the stage name has never tried to link the stage name to her real name indicates she doesn't consider it important that people know this piece of information about her. So we wouldn't have caused any harm by leaving the information out. (P.S. The George W. Bush example was perhaps poorly chosen, for started such a username would be banned on sight per policy and only allowed if the person was indeed the same person who is currently president of the USA. Secondly anything solely sourced to a trademark dispute in the GWB article is likely to be deleted within minutes since he's of sufficient noteability that anything so poorly sourced should definitely stay out of the article and it tends to be well watched... Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But you seem to be missing the point. The real name is poorly sourced. That is definite. Any poorly sourced information should generally stay out of the article. When we have some indication (yes it isn't definite), that the person involved may not want this poorly sourced information in the article, that's even more reason to keep it out. But it comes down to the fact that it is poorly sourced. Also, there is a big difference between what I can say in a talk page, and what I can say in an article. I strongly suspect that the person who registered the trademark is in fact Nautica Thorn. I can say that here. I also resonably suspect the user called Nauticathorn is in fact Nautica Thorn. Again I can say that here. However it would be quite wrong for me to make or mention either suspicion in the article about Nautica Thorn. I am not presuming that either suspicion is definitely true. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Poorly sourced? We have primary sources from state and federal trademark agencies. It doesn't get any more reliable than that. Celarnor Talk to me 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as it can be sourced reliably (primary or otherwise; preferably the former, as it would be more accurate; the blog would be out, but the documentation of her trademark registration should certainly be of note), I don't see the problem with it, since it would already be discoverable information by anyone curious about the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 06:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again who says it's her registering the trademark? The fact that it may be discoverable is not good enough reason to include the information, when all we have is a primary source not backed up by any reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Primary sources and common sense can often bring you a lot further than an article in a newspaper somewhere. Since the name has been commercially used, only she is eligible to register it (or a corporation, if she were to incorporate herself or sell her likeness; in either case, it would be registered under either her name or DBA (doing business as) alias, which are also publicly available and cross-referenced). Since there are no registered DBAs with this name, we can tell that she incorporated herself nor has she sold her likeness; the only possible remaining answer is that it is that person themselves; under priority torts, if the person registering a trademark did wasn't the person actively using it, or doing it on behalf thereof, they would be guilty of a few misdemeanors nationwide and a few civil statutes (depending on the state). With things like this, I'd much rather have a primary source than a secondary source; primary sources (especially ones generated by public entities) are much, much easier to verify; they're pretty much guaranteed to be available for as long as the USPTO remains open, as matters of Federal record-keeping requirements; you never get that with newspapers. Besides, the latter are quite problematic and raise a number of issues that are better dealt with by simply looking at the facts;i.e, "Someone by this name registered this trademark". No secondary reporting necessary. Celarnor Talk to me 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While the reasoning is likely impeccable, it is reasoning nonetheless, and thus Original research and outside our purview. "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors" from WP:NOR. And even if we can figure out what her (likely) real name is, no other reliable source seem to have made the same deductions, so why is it notable enough to include in the article? I think the name's inclusion fails on several counts.Slp1 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not reasoning; that's just believing that the source says what it says. which is exactly what we're supposed to do with primary sources (re-read OR Section 1.2 for more information), and even secondary sources for that matter. We aren't in a place to second-guess any kind of source, primary or otherwise. In this case, there's no synthesis, no analysis, no interpretation. The source says "This trademarked name belongs to this person." That is more than sufficient for putting "This trademarked name belongs to this person" in the article. It is no more original research than summarizing a secondary source (which, IMO, is much more likely to result in OR because of the distance from the secondary sources from the facts). This debate should be about the relevance of this information, not whether or not we can source it. We can source it impecabbly with the most reliable, verifiable kind of source around; that much is clear. The question is whether or not we should, taking into account the usefulness of the information and BLP considerations. Celarnor Talk to me 23:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree with you that there notability/usefulness is a major issue, I can't agree with you about the original research aspect. Your post above contains many deductions "Since there are no registered DBAs with this name, we can tell that she incorporated herself"; "the only possible remaining answer is that it is that person themselves...."; "Since the name has been commercially used, only she is eligible to register it". This is analysis. Smart analysis, no doubt, but analysis none the less. However, I do now see that according to the application the applicant claimed "The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark identifies Shauna Tokumi, whose consent(s) to register is submitted" as you note above. I also note that the trademark application was abandoned: "AS A RESULT OF THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PROCEEDINGS, THE ABOVE IDENTIFIED APPLICATION STANDS ABANDONED". What does this mean? What happened at the trial and appeal? Who knows, but obviously something did. As a result, I don't even think the bald statement can be taken as read. And in fact, I think this is an interesting example which is exactly why using original documents is dangerous, because it leaves us in the position of determining what is and isn't reliable information in situations like this. But in any case, the truth of the information, its sourcing etc, is, as you note, possibly moot, as it doesn't not appear to be a notable aspect of this person's bio.Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that the deductions aren't necessary; I was explaining why they aren't necessary. They aren't necessary for the same reason that we believe that an article in the New York Times is by the person in the by-line; it's a red herring, and there's simply no reasonable doubt with regard to the matter. The fact that "An application for a trademark for this name was filed by person X" isn't debatable at all; that's in black and white, right there in the application. Everything else is semantics; like I said, just take the source at face value like you would anything else, and it should start to make sense. Celarnor Talk to me 00:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Antifreeze

    Antifreeze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An anonymous user continues to add unreferenced material about a person named Kate Knight into this article, purporting that she killed her husband using antifreeze. The same user keeps vandalizing my user page to boot when he sees that I did another revert on the article. Not only did I believe that the story was WP:not notable, I felt it violated WP:BLP, all while having no references WP:citation needed and being tagged as such for a certain period of time. I need help trying to figure out how to block the edits of the anonymous user whose IP address changes often. I like to saw logs! (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be possible to reference that event [14] (that she was found guilty of attempted murder using antifreeze) - but I'd agree it has no place in that article -Hunting dog (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about getting an admin to semi-protect? She'sGotSpies (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Edwards

    The tabloid National Enquirer has a new "sex scandal" about John Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the page is being hit by anon IPs adding this in. Possibly a semi-prot may be in order? ∴ Therefore | talk 00:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I certainly agree with the comments at Talk:John Edwards, that the National Enquirer is not a reliable source. I don't think the story belongs in the article, unless a mainstream (i.e., reliable) news organization reports it. I'm watching the page; there've only been a few anon edits so far. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been inserted a total of seven times by three anons and one newly active named account. ∴ Therefore | talk 01:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The odd thing is that even the editors discussion of the published accounts and their reliability or lack thereof keeps getting deleted from the talk page. You have to read the talk page diff-by-diff through the history. patsw (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a difficult issue. As discussed on the talk page, the allegations have been covered by other, more reliable, media sources. The policy itself says "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." In this case, the origin of the allegations is a non-reliable source, but multiple reliable sources have covered the fact that the allegations have been made, and the fact that some circumstantial evidence corroborates at least some aspects of the Enquirer story. It seems like it may be appropriate to cover the allegations, using language that carefully avoids creating the impression that Wikipedia is taking them as truth. PubliusFL (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Charlie Crist

    Charlie Crist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Action objected to: inserting Project LGBT tag on talk page of BLP of politician who does not acknowledge being gay, when the article has been the focus of discussion for many weeks, if not months, as to whether rumors he's gay should even be mentioned. Indeed, there is an active RfQ for this article on that very issue. On 11 July, user Benjiboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inserted the tag (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Crist&oldid=224920781, "explanation=Charlie Crist has come within the scope of LGBT studies due to being "dogged by gay rumors" in international media") and it was not noticed for a week. Then a longtime editor of the article removed the tag (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Crist&oldid=226737607). Benjiboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reinserted the Project LGBT tag 20 July (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Crist&oldid=226743398). A different editor deleted the tag the next day (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Crist&oldid=227020748) and two other editors seconded the removal.

    As of now, the tag is still off. I am reporting the action nevertheless, for the following reasons: the tag was put on twice; under the circumstances, it represents high handed disregard of an active debate; it involves an allegation as to sexual orientation. I solicit comment as to whether I have accurately identified matters that call for vigilance by this forum. Hurmata (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikiprojects are intended primarily for organisation of wikipedia articles that are of interest to a subset of editors, and only appear on talk pages. The inclusion of an article in a wikiproject therefore only indicates that editors from that project are likely to find the article of relevance to the project. There are likely to be a lot of people who are not LGBT in the LGBT studies wikiproject, e.g. those involved in research, 'gay icons', advocates, perhaps even people who have campaigned strongly against LGBT people in some way (e.g. I just found out Talk:Fred Phelps has been tagged, I don't think many people consider him gay). I suggest you discuss this matter with the wikiproject involved and see if they feel he is of great interest to their wikiproject or not. If there is good reason why the wikiproject is likely to find the subject of interest and particularly if that reason is obvious from the article it self, it seems harmless to me. As it stands, I don't personally see any reason to include the article, if the rumours have too few sources for mention the only other thing is his apparent opposition to adoption by same-sex couples which seems too minor to be of note. On the other hand, if there were persistent and well sourced rumours mentioned in the article e.g. as with those for Larry Craig then it would seem perfectly understandable the wikiproject is likely to find the article of interest (as is indeed the case for Talk:Larry Craig). It's not an indication wikipedia, or the wikiproject, is stating the subject is gay. P.S. With some controversy Talk:NAMBLA is also tagged as part of the wikiproject even though the LGBT movement have distanced themselves very strongly from the organisation. The persistent attempts by other parties to connect the two is one of the prime reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This was very helpful. Edifying, and helps me clarify my formulations. True, people such as Dr. Kinsey or Fred Phelps are of great interest to the gay society and/or history and/or etc. In this case, the *sole* reason for gay militants to be fascinated with Crist, leading to such acts as the "tagging", is precisely the combination of him being suspected of being gay and him being in fact a Republican. If he was conceded by all to be hetero, then gay militants would have no interest at all in his biography. (He *would* be of concern as powerful official who holds gay unfriendly policies, but his stances in this regard are relatively ho hum and politicians who share them are legion). Hurmata (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bensbargains.net

    Can someone here can take a look at Bensbargains.net?

    It's a very poor article, and is up for deletion. However the subject has a high-ish Alexa rank and it may survive. The article contains unsavoury trivia about posters to the site, including this about a user called nuisance_, of whom there is a picture and the idetifying information "nuisance is an employee of a comic book store, and frequents many Magic the Gathering tournaments"

    nuisance (aka nuisance_) – shortly after joining, nuisance began attacking the regular visitors. Stemming from an incident where he posted pictures of exploited children, nuisance_sucks vowed to have nuisance banned. However, as of July 2008, nuisance still posts comments to this website.

    &

    nuisance announced his engagement to another man, confirming his sexual orientation.

    I don't know if this needs someone with oversight to take a look, or not? AndyJones (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted the offending section as it seemed to be non-notable trivia anyway. I don't expect the article will survive AfD. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a way to speedy Image:Nuisance.jpg, which only exists for identification of the subject, at what is in effect an attack page? AndyJones (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible BLP violations at Talk:Michael Atiyah

    The Talk:Michael Atiyah page could do with attention from someone experienced in BLP policy. R.e.b. (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indiana Gregg

    This article has evidentally already been part of an OTRS complaint earlier this month. I'm concerned that things aren't any better with some reverts wars occasinally flaring up. It appears the subject was involved in a controversy surrounding website the Pirate Bay last month and I guess this has attracted the attention of numerous editors. There is an active dispute about whether to cover the controversy, and if so, in how much detail. There also appears to be some active disputes about stuff like her real name and date of birth, and I'm concerned that while I'm sure well meaning, some of the editors may be trying to hard to source some of the stuff e.g. relying on birth record for her birthdate, looking at voter records for her legal name. I've left a comment on the talk page, but the eye of experienced BLP editors would be helpful. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I second that 'pedians that are more experienced can look into it too and that we newb 'pedians adhere to the WP:rules. So while I understand that we should do no original research (as in look up voter records or othr oficial gov stuff) But how about the case if the subject herself has given out infos like birthname and age and other personal data freely to the press and we want to use those press reports as source who itself refer to the subject and interviewee itself? Wikieditor2008 (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I could draw your attention to the comment Nil Einne made on the Indiana Gregg talk page;
    '(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). Unless it's been cited by reliable secondary sources, then we can presume that it private, and doesn't matter enough for this article.' (My emphasis)
    PS: I hope you don't mind but I've indented your comment as it was very hard to read squashed up against Nil Einne's comment. She'sGotSpies (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    no, absolutely not, it actually looks better that way :-) I'm relatively new, the style symbols used for such stuff are not transfused into flesh and blood so far so i'm actually thankful that you did it for me.
    BTW i read Nil Einne's comment on the talkpage ( i actually came from there to here. and because of that I asked about what about reliable sources if newspapers[plural!] cite the age (not the DOB!) in exclusive interviews and the artist/labelmanagement has used these numbers widely in promo material/articles. Are those newspapers articles then considered "reliable secondary sources" or not? That's what i'm unsure about and since there is actually (again with someone that is accused of being a sockpuppet that participated in an edit war already that got the article on my request protected until the day before yesterday) )an edit war in the begin at teh moment I thought to get some clarification. If those newspaper articles and promotexts of the label do not count as sources anyway there is no need to demand the inclusion of the ages in the first place and as far as I'm concerned I can live without the mentioning that she is highly in her thirties already. Wikieditor2008 (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    just a note, I would be grateful if you could take a look at the aggressive comments and stance that the wiki editor above ::::(wikieditor2008) has taken in the discussion. He has been making numerous accusations. The most recent is that he claims that ::::Ian Morrow has thretened wikipedia and also the Mirror. He has reverted edits about the UK songwriting contest making the ::::section laborious and mentioning the cost to enter, etc. (who cares? does anyone know how much it costs to enter the Formula 1 ::::or to enter any other contest? Beauty contest also cost money to enter them.) He makes unsources alleged statements and has ::::been reverting simple edits that I have made to remove weasel words and help with the citations, etc. I personally believe that ::::this person is not aiming to improve the article.Littleredm&m (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Orlando Sentinel

    Not a major issue, but I'm having a dispute with a user who keeps re-adding the names of staffers who have been laid off by the newspaper. I see no valid reason for keeping those names, and I think that policy as well as editorial reasons exist for removing them. However, I've already reverted enough times, and would appreciate other eyes. -- Donald Albury 16:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    George Gollin

    George Gollin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has had some extremely disgusting things added to it over the past couple years. More recently a wp:SPA account Fred Ridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making edits that indicates an axe to grind and little hesitation to smear as blatantly as possible. A recent checkuser on the account confirmed multiple other accounts were being used for the same purpose by the same person. I just noticed that he created a new article about someone else that may be somehow related to George Gollin the person because I noticed she apparently worked at the same University. It got speedy deleted so fast though I didn't read the article and I can't be sure. In any case, this fellow appears to be really bad news and I think he should probably be banned. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem resolved. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kathleen Battle

    Robert Novak

    I originally looked at this article because there was a mention in the news that the article subject hit a pedestrian with his car...sure enough it's in the article, in not one but two places, and seemingly written to cast the article subject in the worst possible light. One section is even titled "Hit and run driving", although apparently he wasn't charged with that, according to sources. A further look seems to show the majority of the article is a coatracked list of "controversies". I'm not sure where to go with this. Kelly hi! 00:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit the article. Remove the stuff you think is bad. I would consider denouncing the editor who inserted the hit and run claim -- although I don't know the procedures to choose from for doing that. Beg your pardon, but I've never heard/seen the slang term you used, "coatrack". Hurmata (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COATRACK. I would clean it up, but I've learned my lesson about getting involved on these articles about controversial media figures when I tried helping with the Sean Hannity article. Maybe at another time, but I don't have the time or energy right now to fight with POV-pushers. I was kind of hoping someone else would do it. :) Kelly hi! 02:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Trimmed per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. Let's see how long it lasts. Steve T • C 10:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's a BLP violation to mention even in its current, neutral form (but definitely good work, Steve). Either this is a routine injury traffic accident that may or may not be negligent on Novak's part (he was cited but that's an unproven civil charge), in which case the correct weight is zero, or there's more to it than we know, in which case it's all speculative. But because it is neutral and thoroughly reported by the press it seems to be relatively harmless. Wikidemo (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chip Berlet

    I am Chip Berlet. The entry under Chip Berlet has, since it was created in 2004, been off and on a collection of biased, defamatory, and false information. It is currently biased and POV and fails the NPOV standard, much less BLP. It is currently under attack from conspiracy theorists and supporters of neofascist antisemite Lyndon LaRouche. Now being attacked are some entries where my work published in reputable journalistic and scholarly sources is being called unreliable and problematic. I have been trying to work within the Wiki guidelines on the entry Chip Berlet since December 2004. It is obvious that there is no interest in dealing with this ongoing problem and that Wikipedia's leadership ahs no solution to wikistalking and attacks by fanatics, which in my case has extended to a battle at Wiki quotes. Enough. Please delete the entry Chip Berlet. If it is appropriate for Dan Brandt, it is appropriate for me. Wikipedia has shown that it is unwilling or unable to enforce its own policies, and I have no faith that this will change in the near future. I have been through RFC's, Mediations, and Arbcom. It has been an utter waste of time. Please delete the entry Chip Berlet, and when that is accomplished. Please delete my user account. I have no interest in discussing this.--Cberlet (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The AfD did not succeed. Mr. Berlet should raise any specific issues on the talk page of the article.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Glenn Greenwald

    • Glenn Greenwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Could someone explain to CENSEI why this edit is inappropriate. Specifically why we don't say in our biographies that the subjects are "inherently deceitful" and "unethical" based on anything, excepting very reliable (and probably multiple) secondary sources. . . considered in the light of Undue Weight, No Original Research and WP:BLP. And not based on lifting the text of a court case. . .and definitely not without a consensus to do so. My patience is wearing thin tonight, and I don't trust myself in this capacity. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. R. Baley (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Notification of this thread at CENSEI's talk page here. R. Baley (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the judge really did write that in his published decision, then I don't see a problem.Verklempt (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The judge did, and I would encourage anyone who is interested to review it. Very interesting. CENSEI (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that we don't use primary sources in this manner (someone else who isn't about to go to sleep can look up the relevant policy section). We use secondary sources to describe notable controversies, we don't dig up controversies from primary sources ourselves. Gamaliel (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion a published court decision should not *always* be considered a "primary source" for the purpose of excluding it from WP. Now, if a WP article were to venture a legal analysis based on a court decision, that would violate WP:OR. But to simply quote from the judge's decision -- I don't see a problem here, as a general matter of policy. A relevant passage from WP:OR states that: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care..." Certainly a published court decision meets the reliable source qualification. That brings us to the "use with care" qualification. In this particular case, you have to be concerned that someone may be trying to make a point about Greenwald by quoting the court's decision out of context. Probably several editors of differing political viewpoints should examine the decision, to ascertain that the quotes are being excerpted accurately and fairly. And if a sitting judge really did chastise Greenwald for bad behavior, then that belongs in the article.Verklempt (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it belong in the article? If no secondary source has taken note of it, why should we? Gamaliel (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After going over several articles, including articles of living people, its seems pretty clear that we do use these kinds of primary sources for information. Secondly, this is not being described as a "notable controversy", its simply a statement of fact added into the section on Greenwalds involvement of the Hale trial. CENSEI (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And why are we singling out this "statement of fact" among many many other statements of fact contained in such primary sources if no secondary source has done so? Gamaliel (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, its interesting for one (this is the same Greenwald who is always complaining about invasions of privacy), and since this interpretation is not followed in other articles, I don’t see how it applies here. But as far as the secondary source goes, if a secondary source is found will you drop your objection? CENSEI (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Tatchell

    Peter Tatchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I've posted about this article before, Tatchell is an internationally known LGBT / human rights activist and campaigner so it's unsurprising that his article is a hit list of controversies, much of it is borderline but passable. However in Peter Tatchell#Against religious imperialism there is a massive section that seems to paint him as being Islamaphobic. Would appreciate someone clearing out and cleaning this. // Banjeboi 06:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Atiyah

    I have already posted something on the Wikiproject Mathematics talk page. At the moment the BLP of the eminent mathematician Sir Michael Atiyah is under attack from a number of recently arrived editors and User:Bharatveer. It concerns the originality of unpublished work by Sir Michael (presented by him in several informal public talks to mathematicians) which they are suggesting amounts to plagiarism becomes of his apparent slowness in recognizing that another scientist had previously written something on related topics. There do not seem to be any reliable sources for the assertions (copied emails, comments in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, a petition submitted to an NGO in India). Atiyah is a member of the Order of Merit. He will soon be 80. He has been a recipient of the Fields Medal (the equivalent of the Nobel prize in mathematics) and the Abel prize, amongst other honours. He was formerly President of the Royal Society, the highest scientific honour in the U.K. Why can charges of plagiarism about a piece of unpublished work, not backed up by any WP:RS, be introduced into his biography? He has a biography in the Encyclopedia Britannica, which I presume even in future editions will not record the libellous assertions of this small group of POV pushers. The fact that several recently created accounts have appeared on WP who solely edit this page is also somewhat troubling. Any thoughts? Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bharatveer has now increased his disruption by creating an article Raju - Atiyah Case which breaks all the rules of WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nominated the above article for speedy delete. Please could an administrator caution or block User:Bharatveer before he causes more disruption. He is already the subject of ArbCom editing restrictions for other disruptive behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I second every proposal made (and sentiment expressed) above by Mathsci. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I also strongly agree with this. Moreover the page Talk:Michael Atiyah has turned into a gross violation of the WP:BLP policies, with several SPAs adding their bizarre speculations about Atiyah. I suggest that almost the entire current content of the talk page should be permanently deleted. This mess would be easier to control if the numerous recently arrived SPAs disrupting the page could be blocked. R.e.b. (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if deletion will help. (Some of the documentation collected there might be useful to have on record, in case of future incidents. Trolls have a way of returning.) I do think though that now this issue is more or less resolved, the discussion about the controversy could be archived. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, not even sure if archiving entire current discussion is in accordance with BLP policy (although I don't really know the policy). I looked at the Barack Obama talk page and that has a lot of stuff, pleasant and unpleasant to one viewpoint or other. Perhaps we could archive the older sections and begin to delete new attempts to revive the discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User MathSci's introductory post above significantly misrepresents the controversy and the sources available. Briefly, the controversy is this: Michael Atiyah, a well known British mathematician delivered a research seminar at the KITP, Santa Barbara and then a large public lecture at the University of Lincon in which he discussed the issue of a possible link between functional differential equations and quantum mechanics. He stressed the potential importance of this idea even referring to it as potentially deserving a `Nobel Prize' and also his own priority: `dont forget I suggested it first'. He was subsequently informed (see correspondence) that very similar ideas had already been published by an Indian scientist C.K. Raju.

    The controversy is that *subsequent* to receiving and acknowleding this information, he approved the publication of a prominent article in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society reiterating his priority.

    Prof. Raju complained to the AMS and, under extreme pressure, the AMS published this belated acknowledgement of Raju's work. However, the key issue that constitutes academic misconduct -- namely that Atiyah approved publication of the AMS article despite knowing of previously published work -- has not yet been addressed.

    35 prominent academics signed a petition, supporting Raju's allegation of academic misconduct. This petition states that "there is a prima facie case that ... [Raju's] ... work was initially suppressed." It states its suspicion that "there are no answers to Raju’s charges" and refers to "extraordinary circumstance". The signatories of this petition include luminiaries like Ashis Nandy, Vandana Shiva, Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Sarkar, MGK Menon (the links here link to their wikipedia bio pages which demonstrate their eminence) , and others (see complete list of signatories).

    Furthermore, Raju complained to a prominent ethics society in India -- the society for scientific values -- and after consulting three independent experts and also corresponding with Atiyah, the society declared that it found the complaint valid.

    To conclude, I would like to point out, as an academic myself, that the fact that Prof. Atiyah is a well known mathematician does not gurantee that he will not be guilty of academic misconduct. In fact, as is commonly known, eminent academics often feel they can use their power and influence to get away with academic misconduct and abuse this immunity. It is clear from the above sources -- and I would encourage neutral editors to explore other source material available on http://www.ckraju.net/atiyah/atiyahcase.html that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. This is significant, since if Atiyah is guilty of misconduct, at this stage in his career it would require a biographer to carefully examine the possibility that he has been guilty of this before. In my opinion, the sources presented above are reliable but I have started a discussion on this at the reliable sources noticeboard.

    I would like to request neutral sources to weigh in on this. Unfortunately, Users MathSci and Fowler&fowler have consistently, used ad hominem attacks on Prof. Raju and other editors in this debate and I hope that this does not repeat on this noticeboard. Thanks, Perusnarpk (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Leonard Horowitz

    I tried to follow BLP policy closely in this article. Since leaving it, however, I noticed some fairly extensive anonymous edits that trouble me. Most of these have had the effect of lauding the subject (or in one case, softening on-the-record criticism by a former colleague) and touting his credentials, education, training, honors and experience. However, none of these new anonymous edits cites any sources. I have since put most of these changes in bold face and added [citation needed] tags. In some cases I have pointed out how some of honors attributed to Dr. Horowitz were very probably minted for him by organizations that are (at least in part) in the business of selling bogus credentials. And in fact, in my researches on the subject, I had run across some of these same issues, and had decided then to simply not include any credentials that I couldn't verify as legitimate.

    I would prefer to simply revert all of these anonymous edits. (If anything, the article should be shortened considerably, I think.) I certainly don't want to write whole essays within this biography about, e.g., Knights Hospitaller mimic orders, simply so that the reader can understand how little it means that Dr. Horowitz has been "honored" by one of those operations. What I'm wondering is how hard it would be to get an IP block against the editor who brought these "facts" in? I'm open to working on this article with any editor who can adhere to BLP (and who has a basic understanding of how to treat fringe theory on Wikipedia). But I don't think this anonymous editor cares about those things. Yakushima (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    qy, which editor is responsible for the uncited pov statement that 'Starting from some time in the early-to-mid 1990s, Dr. Horowitz's opinions and thinking began to consistently fall well outside the mainstream of medical thought, though perhaps some such tendency was prefigured in one of his publications over a decade earlier, "In Defense of Holistic Health".' I agree the attempted softening is uncited, but so are some of the attacks. The "in popular culture" section is particularly troublesome. The entire article should be rewritten. DGG (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Timothy C. May

    In light of Wikipedia:Blp#Non-article_space and the apparent lack of reliable references for the accusations being levelled, does action need to be taken against the Racism section on this talkpage? Skomorokh 04:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=228207677"