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
Line 919: Line 919:
***Semi-protected the page. Warned the user. -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 17:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
***Semi-protected the page. Warned the user. -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 17:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
****My goodness, semi-protection seems unwarranted as the "offending" edits were not made by an IP address. Very heavy handed ... [[User:WWGB|WWGB]] ([[User talk:WWGB|talk]]) 06:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
****My goodness, semi-protection seems unwarranted as the "offending" edits were not made by an IP address. Very heavy handed ... [[User:WWGB|WWGB]] ([[User talk:WWGB|talk]]) 06:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
*****Could you protect the Britton Chance article as well? It's suffering from the same poor sourcing that I just reverted (but as I am just a lowly IP, I will likely be reverted right back soon enough...) [[Special:Contributions/96.52.5.187|96.52.5.187]] ([[User talk:96.52.5.187|talk]]) 05:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


== Ed Reilly (karting) ==
== Ed Reilly (karting) ==

Revision as of 05:57, 20 November 2010

    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:




    Dilma Rousseff

    This article is beign subject of vadalism. Dilma is the elected president of Brazil, and this probably is being made by one non supporter. I recommend to limit edition of it.
    plavius.

    Semi-protected the BLP during ongoing BLPN investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tani_Cantil-Sakauye

    Resolved
     – Issue was resolved; this seems to have been an (incorrectly formatted) notification of a good-faith edit that removed violation of our policy on neutrality. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed this line... Electioneering "She has voted to raise wages to staffers to the tune of $1MM, 3.5% as quoted by the Sacramento Bee, let's kick her out of office."

    And made some biographical changes, removing her job a card dealer and extraneous biographical information about other people. The card dealer job was only a matter of months. This is was excessive detail combined with her other experience. Also I added some current committee positions and responsibilities.

    Rayo Withanage

    Rayo Salahadin Withanage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The living bio is being attacked and questioned since its inception which is unfair to the subject and the readers. The originator of the biography appears to change the history not realizing the facts submitted by the same username over 2 years prior to the current version. I believe this bio should be removed as its misleading and unfair to the person the bio is written about nor the audience reading the bio. In conclusion, unless accurate dates of employment with certain banks can be disclosed, clarification of investments undertaken be verified and disclosure on the world zakat foundation is explained, this bio is nothing more than advertising for the BMB Group. Mannuk (talk)

    If you believe the subject is not notable or otherwise should not have a Wikipedia article then you should raise a request for deletion using the process detailed here. NtheP (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sent to AfD... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD closed, see result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rayo Salahadin Withanage. -- Cirt (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Zuckerberg...

    Mark Zuckerberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    is recently all over the news and popular culture, but edits to his blp have been fairly quiet. Nevertheless, I myself added a few small tidbits to his blp and I came across an interesting phenomenon. The other contributors on the article are more than reasonably well versed in Wikipedia practices and guidelines (or at least it would seem so to me!), yet somehow their arguments all trend toward removing things that conceivably could be construed as being--positive? Eg, I added the word "prodigy" per the sources, and it was objected to as hyperbole. The word "philanthropist" was objected to due to the fact that the timing of the subject's philanthropy had been criticized. Brief reference to items having to do with the subject's home life, his childhood tutor, his secondary schooling, were all thought not of interest to anyone. It's very subtle but it almost seems the editors there are more interested in a polarized pov than the balanced one that exists in the actual sources. (In fact, editors seem to decline to read the sources I add but simply state "no one cares about this" or "not notable" without their seeming to even consider them.)

    My interpretation may be off. Maybe the crew there simply like extremely lean biographies of people under the age of 30. But, I thought I'd broach the subject here on the long shot that some person or two from this page might want to mosey over to 'the article and offer a fresh editing point of view?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggest first addressing these issues through editing the article, discussion at the article's talk page itself, and if necessary pursue WP:Dispute resolution. -- Cirt (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yishayahu Yosef Pinto

    I'm getting anonymous complaints that this is an advertisement for the guy; and posts to my talk page linking to blogs that say that this Kabbalist rabbi put a death curse on a NYC orthodox rabbi who died under mysterious circumstances! Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Doesn't look like an advertisement article to me. Is well sourced in addition. Perhaps the list of famous people who consulted with him is a little tto extensive, but there is more to the article than that alone. In short, I see no problem here. Debresser (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, what about those blogs? What do they have to do with the article? Debresser (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the in addition, but not related (smile), I moved to article to Yoshiyahu. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe Sulzer

    There are multiple profiles with his name, but there are two of them that contain multiple falsehoods and some libelous material. It appears that someone, who doesn't like Sulzer has used his Wiki profile to embarrass and trash him. I can't find a username on the page for the changes which apparently started last week, but the IP address is listed. Miggyt (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    White Argentine

    I consider that much of the content of the article 'White Argentine' may be in breach of WP:BLP policy, in that it assigns multiple persons to the supposed ethnic group 'White Argentinians' without providing any WP:RS, and indeed without actually demonstrating that this 'ethnicity' is itself recognised by a significant number of Argentinians - instead the article seems to be using an arbitrary 'ethnic category' only normally used by outsiders, given that (as one of the contributors to the article himself put it) "...it is probable that all the living people I mention in the article -if asked about their ethnicity- will not answer "White Argentine", but "Argentine of European/Spanish/Italian/German/Arab/Armenian descent", because the exact term argentino blanco is not commonly used in Argentina") here.

    I'd draw particular attention to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality in relation to this issue.

    I have tried to discuss this on the article talk page here, but have had little useful response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the title is quite unfortunate and misleading. I am uncertain that it is a direct BLP violation, but does run afoul of reasonable categorization guidelines, in my opinion. Perhaps something like "European ancestry: Argentina" or the like? which would allow parallel construction for other national demographic articles? Collect (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the problem, the expression does actually exist as it does in Brazil , but it is almost uncitable in relation to notable people that are stuffed into such articles by people in the know - as in .. just look at his picture he is clearly an African American, awful, wikipedias ethnic categorization car crash at its worst. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A response to Collect: I'd not actually object to the title as such, if it was a reasonable translation of a term customarily used to self-describe ethnicity in Argentina. The problem is that as the article itself explains, it isn't. The only scholarly sources for the term (at least when used in the same way) seem to be external ones. The article includes people of Middle-Eastern descent among the whites, which rather rules out the title you suggest, too.
    In any case, I think the real difficulty is that it then applies this largely external 'ethnic category' to living persons (many of rather doubtful notability), which might be problematic even if it were sourced - it isn't. The sad thing is that ethnicity in Argentina is clearly an interesting case: this just isn't the way to discuss it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I noted that the article as it stands violates categorization rules on WP. All I did was suggest that there might be a possibility for articles based on sourced information about ancestry of people in nations, but not using the term "white" which is a highly difficult thing to source. Collect (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is just about impossible to source, the articles are better with the uncited and original claims removed. Bloated and uncited, written by users who are interested and involved, a real mess, I could make that article into a decent stub, which would be a huge improvement and would bring it in line with policy and guidelines. Articles been basically written by a single user Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yitzchak Ginsburgh

    The user "Nomoskedasticity" repeatly re-inserts libelous material of a severe nature in the Controversy Section of article. m656 (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The material is not libelous; instead it is attributed to a perfectly respectable source, i.e. an academic book published by SUNY Press. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's expand a bit. This guy made a name for himself by praising the actions and character of Baruch Goldstein. He said what he said, and academics now write about what he said. There are certain types of rabbis who believe that a Jewish life is worth more than a non-Jewish life -- that's what Ginsburgh's game is. It is a matter of WP:NPOV to omit the fact that people have noticed this about his views. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you just read the particular quotation that is being contested (that was deleted and repeatly reinserted), you'll see that it crosses the red line and is outside the boundaries of what should be acceptable on Wikipedia. m656 (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no issue of "libel" here given that the individual made the comments in question. It also is well sourced and relevant, so there's no BLP issue. You might be able to argue that the section on this controversial view is too long compared to the rest of the article. The solution to that is to add more well sourced content elsewhere in the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You say that this is a well sourced quote. The book quoted itself is highly controversial. How can you guys possibly see this quotation as well sourced when the book itself is highly controversial, up to the point that even the name of the book contains the term "fundamentalist" which is officially recognized (in WP:LABEL) as a contentious label ? It is a book of political polemics, and is clearly labeled as such by the author already in the name of the book, Jewish Fundamentalism and the Temple Mount: Who Will Build the Third Temple? This is not exactly a standard reference book. m656 (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I wasn't so much concerned about the BLP issue. I just think the quote from Inbari is too detailed, and should therefore be removed or referred to a footnote. I don't think we need a four-line quote in the main text here. Debresser (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just answered Nomoskedasticity at [[1]]m656 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I wrote there "Nomoskedasticity does not seem to understand that not everything that is published at a university automatically complies with all of the important Wikipedia restrictions. I have explained to Nomoskedasticity that the material is extremely libelous. Please note that it is not libelous just to Ginsburgh, but is defamatory to Judaism and the Jewish people as a whole. This type of irresponsible text is used by neo-Nazi-style fringe websites."m656 (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What utter bullshit. Ginsburgh is what he is, and he doesn't get protection from criticism just because he happens to be Jewish; the things he says can be criticized without the criticism somehow becoming anti-Semitism. I'll repeat that Ginsburgh's critic (Inbari) is himself Jewish. The issue here is NPOV; it is entirely reasonable (indeed, necessary to uphold NPOV) to include the kind of academic critique Inbari has published. That view is part of the range of positions observers have adopted on people like Ginsburgh, and to omit it is to have the article present Ginsburgh in a false light. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Awareness Center and Its Executive Director

    Resolved
     – Questionable footnote removed, in-text attribution for most inflammatory claim, additional reliable sources cited, more descriptive and non-negative material in lead
    Further information: [[:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 15#The Awareness Center|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 15 § The Awareness Center]], [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 18#Links to the The Awareness Center in articles on individuals accused of sexual abuse|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 18 § Links to the The Awareness Center in articles on individuals accused of sexual abuse]], and [[:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#The Awareness Center|Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45 § The Awareness Center]]

    There is a long-standing complaint here that the article is an entirely one-sided presentation of a person's work, sourced entirely to detractors. Unfortunately, the people who are trying to balance it don't seem to know how to write free content prose of their own (see the first edit given above), or how to revert properly (see the second edit given above), or use just one account, or … . Perhaps people looking at this noticeboard who know how to edit Wikipedia can assist. Uncle G (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I was invited here by a note on my user page. I've worked on the article over the years, although my description in the note on my page overstates my role.
    The article started out as hagiography. It's now more balanced. Please look through my edits over the last several years and you'll see the evolution. The executive director's WP page was blanked, and that was correct. The requests to blank this page have been rightly rejected. TAC is notable. Most of the reliable sources note criticisms of the Center and its executive director. The laudatory stuff is mostly found on TAC's own pages. TAC's pages are chock full of copyright violations. Reliable sources that speak well of TAC should be added, if they can be found. The executive director's inclusion among twenty contestants for a grant is not notable, unless it leads to more. Being one outta 20 in an obscure popularity contest is not notable. But if she wins, and it's in a reliable source, it belongs in the lede and the article.
    As a long-time observer and participant, I can comfortably say this page attracts kooks of every stripe. Generally, the help of experienced editors and the attention span of the kooks conspire to help create a slightly better page. Then it starts up again. Rinse. Lather. Repeat. There is an ongoing problem with SPA's on both sides of the debates, and a fair amount of editing by someone who doesn't always sign posts and whose user name is uncomfortably close to that of the executive director. David in DC (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, as regards the note on your talkpage .. the major contributor to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy poop. I had no idea. The article had stood for some time before I first came to it. I guess the edits pile up. I probably should have marked more of my edits as minor. Nonetheles, thanks for the correction.David in DC (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of the SPA's ... David is basically right about the history of the page. It looked like it was created by TAC and for years (as you can see in the talk archives) there were ongoing complaints about it being a hagiography (I think the word was "whitewash") of the organization. I have not seen a lot of "kooks" among those with a negative view of TAC, but there's no question David has stood in the middle and policed. Now that a verifiable source has finally printed what those who knew, already knew, the page has taken a more negative slant. This is also true because reliable sources have also become more and more critical as the real story came out. Anyways, David has been a good cop and it's no surprise he's one of the top contributors, erasing the stuff that Wikipedia shouldn't print (I didn't know you can't put a link to a youtube video unless the copyright is verified...). Oh, and by the way, it looks to me like Chaim B is a VPolin sock puppet. The complaints are exactly the same. SunAlsoRises (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - The issue as I see it is, if you create a balanced article containing balanced content about a living person they usually do not come alleging libel and long term repeatedly attempting to balance up content about themselves. A person is usually not all evil and imo some energy should be looked at the content the user is attempting to add to balance up her representation here at wikipedia and look to add some of it sourced to somewhere. If this can't be done and no not negative content can be found thwen thoughts should be considered as to the fact that she is being unfairly portrayed through the limited negative content that we have cited and included about her and through BLP consideration should be considered to the removal or rewriting of the content we do have to remove some of the negative weight. Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • TAC have been emailing OTRS about this forever, the problem is that they hate us quoting critics like David Saperstein, but it would be hard to give a balanced picture without doing so. Including the sourced and highly public (Oprah being as close as you get to shouting from the rooftops) comment from Saperstein will always have them hating the article. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the Saperstein quote is pretty new. For years, the Oprah interview and anything related to it was unmentionable here, because while it was known to hundreds of people and was kind of obvious (her face was undisguised), it was only published in a verifiable source six months ago. A month ago, when it was Polin herself doing the complaining, rather than (my unverified assertion here) her sock puppet, Arakunem (talk · contribs) looked around and said the following on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard: "This is one of the strangest cases I've come across on this board. Digging for balanced information, I find almost universal criticism of this center and its founder; the undue-weight clause would seem to apply to the positive side of the discussion. Right now it seems about as balanced as the sources would suggest."
      Off2riorob, people do not usually come alleging libel, but people also do not usually claim on national TV that they were forced to participate in child sacrifice in Jewish synagogues, or create web sites using little more than anonymous rumors to slander Jewish figures. For her to cry "libel" is a bit rich, and she's never denied that any of this is true. On the discussion board, she contested the creation date of the organization (we eventually used the date from her own brochures) and whether or not an Executive Director is paid (which is true). She's crying libel while contesting none of the facts, none of the quotes, none of the context. See the problem? Her organization isn't notable because she gets quoted by a reporter here and there, but because of her notoriety. SunAlsoRises (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, you yourself are a single purpose account with regards to the organization since 2007 you are here only adding this stuff , and I think you have declared a COI somewhere as regards this organization, is that the case, I can't see it now in the history but I just had a quick look. As for her notoriety as you call it, I imagine that is local notoriety you speak of because outside of localized interested parties she is not a bit notoriousness and she is not individually wikipedia notable either. Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I could write the content in a npov way that would stop the subject complaining, the article is heavily weighted as an attack. A wikipedia good article is not one that is constantly complained about or one that is constantly disrupted by people trying to balance it up. A simple npov write is what the article needs, keeping a majority of the content, removing the simple insulting critical content and taking the undue weight out of the rest. Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Are there other independant sources for the devil baby eating claims apart from the jewish star? It on youtube which I just watched, from 89, did it take 21 years for the claim that it is her to only appear in the jewish star? could even be a different person, has she accepted that it is her? Is the claim that it is her in another reliable citation? Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Other independent source: Kelley, Kitty (2010). Oprah: A Biography. New York: Crown Archetype. p. 202. We get the New York Times quote from the Kitty Kelly book. I'll go try to get the NYT article directly over the next couple of days.
    But Rob, please re-read Arkenum's conclusion after starting where you are and looking for the positive sources. He was innocent of any knowledge about this ahead of time. He concluded that, if anything, WP:WEIGHT might require giving less prominence to the positive stuff. That would be the wrong thing to do, but it does delineate the scope of the problem.
    It may be true that people rarely come screaming libel, repeatedly, about a good article, but occasional a person does. I also agree that no one is all bad or all good (with the possible exception of whoever invented "elevator music).
    Guy knows better than anyone how often and how shrilly the complaints come on this one. OTRS is very pro-active with BLP issues. If OTRS is getting many complainrs and the article has not been overhauled, that tells you something. Please do not move forward with your proposed wholesale re-write without generating consensus here or on the talk page. David in DC (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The NYT article is not available online, so far as I can see. I won't get to a bricks-and-mortar library in the next few days but if someone else could find it to back up Kitty Kelley (or rebut her), that'd be nice. But I did find another reliable source (The Jewish Voice and Opinion) quoting two mildly prominent Jews, by name, averring that Rachel is Vicki. I've inserted it. into the article. David in DC (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will have a look, sounds like two more involved people with no evidence commenting their opinion.... so I take it that she does not accept that it is her in the video? Has she denied it, or commented on the accusations in any way? if she has then that needs to be included in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - Actually this accusation is not confirmed it appears to be the opinion of a Rabbi that is unconfirmed by anyone and has been republished in what appear to by other involved opinionated sources. I am looking for a denial from Polin, if anyone has a cite that would be helpful. We really need to make this totally clear in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can find a denial by the executive director, you'll be the first. It's not in any reliable source I've ever seen. And I've looked. There's what looks like a report of an admission. But it's on a site that WP has an agreement for free use of photos, and a consensus that its not a reliable source for BLP's. Luke Ford. David in DC (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some would say, false accusations are unworthy of denial as it gives them weight, better ignore. This issue is in need of a write, there is no confirmation at all that it is her, I have seen only opinionated, involved claims, can I have a link to the alleged admission, either here or via my email, thanks. In the article it is written as if fact, which as I investigate it is clearly not it is opinion of a Rabbi and some others only. It says this in the article "Before founding The Awareness Center, Polin appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show, under a pseudonym" fully presented as if indisputable fact... but its not fact is it, its opinion of a couple of involved Jewish people. Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's in three reliable sources, reported as fact. The Jewish Star, The Jewish Opinion and Voice, and The Catalyst. There's been some discussion about The Jewish Star on the talk page. Please review it. The consensus was that The Jewish Star IS a reliable source. I've never heard ANYONE suggest the Catalyst is not a reliable source. The Jewish Voice and Opinion hasn't been discussed. I believe it's a reliable source. I take BLP very seriously and policed the article for years keeping the V is R material out. The Jewish Star and the Catalyst articles changed that. If there's a policy-based reason that The Jewish Voice and Opinion is not a reliable source, I'm open to hearing about it. But that would just strike one out of 3 sources.
    I've suggested another place you can find it reported as fact, but concede that this one isn't a reliable source. You've asked for it anyway. Google the executive director's name and that of Luke Ford in a single query. I'm not sure why you want to see it. It proves nothing and cannot be relied on. But the other three can. Arkeneum was right, this is an odd case. All of the reliable sources are negative. The Awareness Center is notable. Its article reflects the weight of the reliable sources. Guy explains above why the complaints will just keep on coming. We must rely on only reliable sources. But here we do. There's no heckler's veto on WP, even if the heckler is a living person who does not like her press coverage. If the press coverage is there, and it's reliable, and it's relevant to the article (indeed it's what makes The Awareness Center notable in the first place,) it is wiki-kosher and should stay. David in DC (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Its clearly opinion and needs attributing , it is just a claim, thats all and the article needs to represent that. There is no actual confirmation in any way that it is Polin, is there? Users here that are opinionated are just as much if not more hecklers as you refer to the living notable subject of one of our BLP article. The jewish star is you could say the enemy of this person and the fact that they and some Rabbi claim it is her does not make it fact, no , not at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. Did the "Rachel" who appeared pseudonymously on Oprah wear a mask? If not, how could she reasonably have expected her true identity to remain secret?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will give you the youtube link and I have watched it multiple times and I have trolled through all the pictures of her I can find and there is no way I would say for certain that the two are the same person. I will email you the link.Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a New York Times article about that Oprah episode here. Also, Vicki Polin is mentioned in this article (in the Forward): "Some advocates for sexual abuse victims contend that anonymous blogging is necessary not only to shield accusers from potential harassment, but also to help them through the process of healing. 'One of the things most healing to any victim of a serious crime is to talk about it,' said Vicki Polin, founder of The Awareness Center Inc., a volunteer organization that maintains a Web site on sexual abuse in the Jewish community. 'When people start blogging, they realize they’re not alone,' she said. But some Jewish bloggers expressed disdain toward those who remain anonymous.". So, it's definitely a volunteer organzation, and I've put that into the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In this Wikipedia article, I've removed one of the three footnotes supporting the statement that it was Polin on Oprah. The removed source merely said: "According Rabbi Tzvi Kilstein, a former resident of Teaneck who now resides in Boca Raton; Arutz Sheva Radio personality Tovia Singer; and an inordinate number of blogs, Ms. Polin has claimed that, in 1989, she was a guest on the Oprah Winfrey program using the pseudonym 'Rachel'.". In other words, the source merely reported what some people said rather than reporting that what they said was true.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An editor has restored the defective footnote that I had removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles Jaco

    Charles Jaco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I find my biography on Wikipedia is peppered with false and libelous references to allegations that I and my CNN colleagues reported our January, 1991 Gulf War I coverage from a studio, and not from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Not only is this patently false, it denegrates all of the journalists who covered that war. I would ask that all references containing these demonstrably false and libelous statements be removed. Many thanks, Charles Jaco. 71.81.149.111 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ralph Drollinger

    Ralph Drollinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The Capitol Weekly article is a singular source lacking substantiating, documented sources. It is based on heresay. The Capitol Weekly article that is quoted in my biography is a single source that lacks substantiating quotations. It is based on heresay. I should add that Capitol Weekly is a tabloid, it is not a newspaper. The Grace Community Church website reference that is noted in my bio contains no reference to this matter. It is therefore a false reference to substantiate what is being proffered. comment added by RK Drollinger (talk • contribs) 16:58, 9 November 2010

    I made a small edit for wiki weight I don't think a minor issue with a local ministry should be given too much weight in the life story of a respected person. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Capitol Weekly is California's version of Roll Call. Calling it a tabloid is disingenuous. Whether the source is heresay or not is irrelevant, as it is clearly written in the Capitol Weekly article, and they have not retracted it. The Grace Community Church reference is supported by the newspaper article. OCNative (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My bio inaccurately states that I have left Capitol Ministries. The Capitol Weekly article that is referenced does not state that I have left Capitol Ministries. I remain the President and Founder see capmin.org for substantiation. Further, it should also be added that I teach the Members Bible Study in the United States Capitol (see kkla.com/FrankPastore show/Ralph Drollinger Bio. November 8, 2010)

    The bio now correctly states that 16 of the 22 chapters left Capitol Ministries but that Drollinger remains the leader of Capitol Ministries. OCNative (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Drollinger seems to have at least two sockpuppets, User:Rkdrkdrkd and User:SACPI, as well as identical whiny edits from IP User:66.124.63.234. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK Drollinger. OCNative (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    luba lesna

    the 'Luby Lesnej' is not an alternative spelling of her name. It is just a way of saying the name used e.g. when reffering to something she owns (example 'son of Luba Lesna' in english - 'syn Luby Lesnej' in slovak) There can be few other forms of a name found in the language. Again, this is NOT an alternative name or alternative spelling. 193.82.155.28 (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed it as unsourced in a BLP. Would need a secondary source satisfying WP:RS and WP:V. -- Cirt (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Charlie Crist

    Are rumours of homosexuality which have been denied by Crist properly in this article? [2] is the current paragraph, which is sourced to Salon.com and to local and national papers stating the denial. How strong should allegations or rumours of homosexuality be before they are placed in a BLP? Collect (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see here multiple reliable sources making allegations, based on seperate information. All that I see is one source, a polemic filmaker, making a claim in 'Outrage-- and multiple sources refer to him. I'm inclined to think then that it's not worth mentioning on Crist page-- the allegation doesn't pass my bar of sourcing. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly weigh in then - one editor appears quite set on this sort of stuff being used. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Debate on this is ongoing - more opinions would be welcome. Trebor (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This BLP topic has come up before in various forms. In July 2008 the LGBT category was discussed. In May 2009, the film Outrage was discussed, with WP:WELLKNOWN quoted as the relevant guideline. User Collect brought this up last September with no conclusive results. To me, it looked like editors not wishing to have any mention of homosexual allegations quoted parts of WP:BLP which were shown to be irrelevant or wholly addressed by WP:WELLKNOWN. This month's noticeboard entry on the topic can do little to overturn that guideline's assertion: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Its not very notable and it is not like its continued to be reported or that there are other claims he is a gay from other locations independent of this, its a scurrilous rumor that has failed to persist and we should not be part of assisting its perpetuation by adding it to a BLP article in Wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's notable by every measure on Wikipedia. It does not have to continue to be reported—that is not a requirement here. The Outrage allegation is quite enough! Regarding claims from other sources: anybody not seeing other claims has blinders on. There is Max Linn, a 25-year friend of Crist and a political opponent who said Crist discussed being bisexual with him on two occasions. Linn said this in October 2006.[3][4] Earlier in January 2005, Tampa area NOW chapter founder Lee Drury De Cesare, then a 72-year-old fire breathing reporter and columnist, asked Crist "I have heard that you were gay, sir, and I wanted to know if that was true" to which Crist replied "I'm not."[5] After Bob Norman outed Crist in October 2006, he followed up with another report in February 2008, saying that Crist used to hang out with a gay circle of acquaintances in a Tampa bar called the Green Iguana. After that, Norman was one of the people interviewed by Kirby Dick, footage used in the film Outrage. In England in July 2008, The Telegraph framed Crist's upcoming marriage as one which followed his "being dogged for years by homosexuality rumours." The rumor mill has been churning, breaking over at times into mainstream news, but you are somehow not noticing. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's notable by every measure on Wikipedia". If every measure on Wikipedia is based on the narrow confines of political discourse in the USA, possibly. Much of the rest of the developed world considers the sexual preferences of politicians as perhaps occasionally interesting, but hardly 'notable' unless there is a clear discrepancy between public statements and private behaviour. I know nothing about Charlie Crist, and unless he his voting record or public statements suggest any hypocrisy, I don't want to know either. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a supermarket tabloid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Andy. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, your comment shows that you have not researched anything of the topic. Hypocrisy is the central theme here. Crist would never have been targeted by people wishing to 'out' him if he was not perceived by them as hypocritical on the subject of laws controlling what gays cannot do. The director and producers of Outrage have been firm in their avowal that the closeted gay politicians in their film are only featured as such because of the anti-gay measures they have all endorsed, promoted, or even sponsored, or the gay-friendly measures they voted against. Crist at one time was more anti-gay than he is now, and reporters responded to that hypocrisy. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Has there ever been a content WP:RFC at Talk:Charlie Crist about this issue? If not, that is the next step to resolve this conflict. -- Cirt (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There was such a request one month ago, beginning October 12 at Talk:Charlie Crist#Allegations of homosexuality, which attracted no comment at all. Off2riorob shut it down after nine days. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats right, I would suggest that was because people that are uninvolved in the subject matter see it for what it is, an attempt to slur a living person without any basis in facts at all and not something worthy of propagating through wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rob, I could not give a flying fig about Crist. The only problem I have with this information is that it is encyclopedia-worthy but is fought by those such as yourself who simply do not like it. Not liking a notable fact is not a reason for keeping it out of Wikipedia, per WP:WELLKNOWN. You do not have the support of Wikipedia guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not well known and neither is it a continued and developed perpetuated claim either, its scurrilous gossip, and needs to be thrown were it is worth, the rubbish BLP bin. Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody here is required to disprove your assertion that the allegations are a "continued and developed perpetuated claim"—there is no such requirement on Wikipedia. One single notable source is enough, a level of sourcing we have long since passed. You are making up reasons to keep this information out, when reasons for keeping it in are found in WP guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (Undent) My only comment right now is that Wikipedia should not allow crud into a BLP whenever it is Wikipedia's opinion that the crud is indicative or suggestive of hypocrisy. For example, a gay politician might well support DADT and oppose gay marriage for policy reasons that are completely unrelated to his own personal sexual preferences or orientation. We should follow the sources without using our own hypocrisy litmus test. With one caveat: if the source itself is using this kind of litmus test, then the source needs to explain why it thinks the politician is letting his personal sexual preference affect his policy decisions; otherwise, the source is just an opinion piece that deserves less coverage by Wikipedia than a straight (no pun intended) news story would deserve.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rent the DVD Outrage and you will see the hypocrisy test applied by filmmaker Kirby Dick. I have no such personal test as you imply; I am only going by reliable sources who do. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Crist would probably take any position that would get him more votes, completely irrespective of whatever his sexual preference is, so I don't think we need to cover rumors about his sexual preference much (if at all). What evidence does the DVD provide that Crist is concerned about anything other than getting more votes, or that Crist is letting his sex preferences influence his policies?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What Wikipedia policy is preventing us from telling the reader about allegations from the documentary film Outrage? Please quote policy, not personal preference. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Our editorial judgment not to add unfounded spuroius claims hes a closet gay and BLP to write conservatively with respect to a subjects privacy, etc. Apart from this one rumor filled gay activist documentary there is nothing to suggest he is anything but a married heterosexual man. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your personal "editorial judgment" is valuable when making decisions not covered by guidelines. This decision is covered, and the guideline at WP:WELLKNOWN directs us to include the allegations. Academy Award-winning filmmaker Kirby Dick is not a gay activist, and if he was, his documentary would not be any less notable. You have continued to rephrase "I don't like it" but you have not quoted policy. Wikipedia policy is clear on this issue: put it into the article. There is even an apt example: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source." Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That right, we should keep that out as well, politician alleged to have affair. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:GOSSIP, "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for....[s]candal mongering, something 'heard through the grapevine' or gossip." If the DVD in question is reporting that Crist is basing policy decisions on his sexual preference, then that might rise above the level of gossip. Likewise if there is a high-profile public scandal about this, but I'm not aware that such a scandal exists.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GOSSIP applies to the case where an editor adds non-notable or original gossip material to an article. In Crist's case, the material added is already out in the national and international press, so that guideline does not apply. Regarding the scandal being high profile, I am resting my case on its appearance in The Huffington Post, The Los Angeles Times, National Public Radio, The New York Times, Salon.com, The London Times, Dallas News, The Daily Telegraph and the documentary film Outrage. Any one of these would suffice, but the documentary clinches it. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, just for purposes of this discussion, can you please say briefly what relevant material you think is common to all of those sources? That might help clarify matters here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As best I can tell, we should not be citing or relying on the film Outrage (2009 film). The other sources are much more reliable. Outrage seems to be a non-neutral attempt to "out" only those gay politicians who have not voted the way the movie's director would like. Outrage views non-coverage in the mainstream media as a "tacit policy of self-censorship when reporting on these issues", so it seems that Outrage has very different criteria from the mainstream media regarding this kind of thing. See WP:Neutrality.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What is common to the sources is their high profile, their notability.
    Of course Outrage is non-neutral; that is the nature of a political documentary. The film cannot be dismissed by noting that it takes a political position.
    What part of WP:NPOV are you quoting? I cannot see where it applies to a partisan political film such as Outrage. The funny thing about WP:NPOV is that it supports the inclusion of notable allegations. It says "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution and not as if they are facts." We are doing that. More to the point, at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Morally offensive views it says that a neutral point of view is supported "by attributing emotionally charged views to prominent representatives or to a group of people." We do that by saying which prominent people allege Crist to have had sex with men: filmmaker Kirby Dick and Florida reporter Bob Norman. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to ask what all those sources have in common. What I meant to ask is what those sources say about Crist's alleged gaiety-homosexuality that is common to all of those sources.
    WP:BLP says, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content."
    If Kirby Dick's biased viewpoint is reported in newspapers like the New York Times, that would make it much more appropriate as a Wikipedia source than Kirby Dick's own movie, which is basically a primary source in which he presents his opinions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Kirkby dick claims a notable person had sex with men and that man votes against gay rights, Straight into the vomit pit that is the BLP reject bin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Specific policy points

    Policy must be applied to this emotional topic, not personal opinions. This topic is the longest-running one on the Charlie Crist talk page, repeatedly discussed ever since January 2006. The first RfC was initiated in July 2008 by Hurmata, at Talk:Charlie Crist/Archive 1#Request for Comment (RfC) regarding whether to report rumors about sexual orientation, a request that was repeated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 16#RFC for Charlie Crist. Over the years, policy cited against the inclusion of same-sex allegations includes:

    Policy which supports the inclusion:

    "If an allegation or incident is notable". It isn't. Unsubstantiated rumours about politicians emerge all the time. There is nothing whatsoever notable about a rumour. Or if there is, Wikipedia is going to rapidly deteriorate into a worthless accumulation of unsubstantiated trivia. To avoid this, I'd suggest that 'notability' must include 'credibility' too (and already implicitly does: David Ike has frequently claimed that prominent individuals are 'shape-shifting lizards', and these claims have been noted in many reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't repeat Ike's claims in the BLPs of the individual involved). Given the denial by the persons involved, and the complete lack of any other evidence to back the 'allegation' up, it is no longer credible that the rumour is likely ever to be confirmed, and therefore not notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability does not implicitly include credibility. Check out Masonic conspiracy theories for a taste of incredible but notable nuttiness. On Wikipedia, we are not so much taken up with WP:The Truth as we are concerned about verifiability through reliable sources. The rapid deterioration you are afraid of is kept in check by WP:V and WP:RS. The reason WP does not repeat Ike's claims is that the source is no good, not because the claims are not credible.
    Your wish to keep out the allegations does not measure up against the example given at WP:WELLKNOWN, where by chance we are instructed that a politician's sex scandal reported in The New York Times is to be included in the article whether he likes it or not. Regarding your assertion that the allegations lack notability, it's instructive to look at WP:N where the guideline specifically states that it is not about article content but about article topics in general. However, the allegations of same sex activity would meet all the requirements of WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, which means there is enough material to create a POV fork called something like Charlie Crist homosexual allegations. I don't want to do that; it's not necessary. All we need is a mention of the allegations in the main biography article. It does not matter if some editors don't like it, the allegations meet Wikipedia requirements perfectly. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You've said that the "allegations" have appeared in The Los Angeles Times, National Public Radio, The New York Times, Salon.com, The London Times, Dallas News, and The Daily Telegraph. So I'll ask you again: what do those sources say about Crist's alleged gaiety-homosexuality that is common to all of those sources? Given that this material appears in those sources, I see no reason to mention Dick and his flick.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your use of the word gaiety makes me grin. ;^)
    The argument that the reviews of the film should be used as references instead of the film itself is a backwards one. The reviews in mainstream press make the film notable. Once the film is acknowledged as notable, it is suitable as a reference. The film itself and the press reviews of it can be used here. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Opposing positions

    Various editors have taken a stance against some or all of the allegations being included in the BLP. I think each opposing stance is vulnerable, that none are conclusive. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • AndyTheGrump said "I know nothing about Charlie Crist" but is against Wikipedia becoming a supermarket tabloid. He says that notability should include credibility, which the allegations lack. However, at WP:N there is no mention at all of credibility being a requirement, only that there "be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention". At WP:WELLKNOWN, a politician's sex scandal that has been mentioned in The New York Times is something that should be put into the article—an allegation published in mainstream press has gone beyond tabloid gossip. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    None of these opposing positions offers a compelling response to WP:WELLKNOWN which states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The allegations are notable, relevant and well-documented. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Louis Farrakhan

    Resolved
     – regular vandalism, wasn't in the article more that a few minutes - pending protection would have prevented publication to the wider world- Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Louis Farrakhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


    The picture on Louis Farrakhan's page is not of Louis Farrakhan but of Billie Buckwheat Thomas. This is racially offensive. Please change the picture.(unsigned)

    Removed. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ned Yost biography

    Ned Yost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Ned Yost's 2010 managerial stats do not add up. It shows he has more wins and losses than games managed. 69.150.193.1 (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed (I think). Unfortunately, the Wikipedia community does a poor job maintaining sports stats. It's something that many other sites handle much better. Zagalejo^^^ 00:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael R. Gordon

    Michael R. Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    It seems very odd that this biographical article contains no mention of Michael Gordon's role in the controversy over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, since Gordon co-authored many of Judith Miller's influential pre-war articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.108.94 (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That would need to come from secondary sources satisfying WP:V and WP:RS, and be noteworthy enough for inclusion - might be best to first propose such at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Marc Haynes

    Repeated re-instatement of a minor spat as some indication of his 'Politics'. Presented as the (understandably) distorted accusation of his accuser rather than a neutral tone. Results in a misquote - even his accuser in this incident, Toby Young, only points out the implication of his Tweet. History shows that Hanyes's apology was inserted at some point for the sake of neutrality. This was a decent effort, but really, this seems trifling and petty to include. It was not a notable incident, just one that happened to occur between two men over the internet, so there is evidence remaining, unlike if it were a sharp exchange of words in person. If the only references are the two men involved, surely this is not notable? Appears politically motivated, and not what Wikipedia is for. Is this incident any more notable than any other Twitter exchange or blog argument? Haynes barely seems notable enough on his own to me! RentaCenta (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for bringing this to the noticeboard. The content as worded was potentially defamation so I suppressed the edits in question. Additionally, I protected the article since the material was repeatedly added in over the past few months by different accounts and ip addresses. Discussion about how to address the content for mention in the article can be discussed on the talk page. If there is agreement, then it can be added to the article. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 09:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Catherine_McQueen

    Catherine McQueen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This article appears to be self-promotional, additionally two sources claim that the subject's date of birth is 5 years earlier than stated, and this item has been subject to repeated editing. Reversions to the currently stated date have been by a single user which appears to have only ever edited this page, or by a non-logged-in user and with missing/inappropriate comments. TimSmall (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed some poorly sourced material. Welcomed and warned the user. Also, now at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine McQueen. -- Cirt (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    allen timpany

    It seems there are additions to Allen Timpany's biography that don't comply to the BofLP policy. Being sensationalist, defamatory and slanted. When checking the editer of these additions. It seems that he has been banned before from editing biographies. Please advise. Myrtletheturtle2010 (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I have removed all the uncited and imo the gentleman is not really wiki notable or there is not enough independent coverage in the press that I could see for him to require his own Biography, it would simply end up as a CV, and it would be better redirected to the Varco company article, but perhaps someone interested in business will add a few citations and expand a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have boldly redirect it to Vanco. – ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Moises Salinas

    Potentially libelous material repeatedly inserted that don't comply to the BofLP policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiteraryEditor (talk • contribs) 14:52, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

    IP warned. Favonian (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcomed the user that filed this BLPN report. Semi-protected the page during BLPN investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mehrzad Marashi

    • article: Mehrzad Marashi

    The article is poorly referenced, and absolutely not correct, completely biased, I would not be suprised if the artist wrote it himself. It shows the artist in the best possible way, and at no point the article is written from a neutral point of perspective. Example? His CD review contains adjectives like 'glorious', 'groovy' or 'good'. Non of them are neutral. I request the immediate delete of the whole article. Thank you in advance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrzad_Marashi

    The article is poorly referenced, and absolutely not correct, completely biased, I would not be suprised if the artist wrote it himself. It shows the artist in the best possible way, and at no point the article is written from a neutral point of perspective. Example? His CD review contains adjectives like 'glorious', 'groovy' or 'good'. Non of them are neutral. I request the immediate delete of the whole article. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.210.64 (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Really this needs a re-write or something approaching one. I have made a start, but it probably needs attention from an expert (or at least someone who cares about the topic) because there's at least some of it that I don't even understand.
    I'm not sure there are any grounds to delete it, however you are welcome to attempt that; see WP:DPR.
    You could also add any balancing (negative) viewpoints about the artist, but they should be properly sourced.
    --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcomed the IP. Moved the unsourced and poorly sourced info from the BLP to the talk page. Semi-protected the page during BLPN investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Laura Callahan

    Laura Callahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I spotted some blanking here earlier, and semi-protected the article. If someone could take a swing through and make sure that it's BLP-compliant, that would be a good thing. It's mostly negative, but pretty well-sourced. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Trimmed a fair bit of content that was not actually about her and was coatracking on her BLP and edited the content a bit for undue negative weight. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The page is still semi protected, some cleanup has occurred at the article, appears to be resolved for the time being. -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen Gammell

    Resolved
     – Pending protection added by Administrator Andonic - Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The article for Stephen Gammell (the children's book illustrator) states that he died. There is no source cited, and I did a web search to verify this and found no source to back it up. I believe this to be inaccurate. Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 64.134.97.125 (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've simply deleted this "information". I could find no evidence either. It is probably not a coincidence that it was added on Halloween [6]. Voceditenore (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As the death report and date sat in the article unreverted for nine days I have requested pending protection, this will require any future such vandalism to have to be reviewed and accepted before it is visible to the public. Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA posting accusations

    Two posts to date: [7], [8] Novangelis (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that this particular issue has been resolved, for now. Further disruptive behavior pattern would likely result in a block. -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    robert swift pro -wrestling entertainer wrestler

    Resolved
     – wrong location Off2riorob (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template:Robert swift born sept.19,1960,michigan wrestler.has been in pro wrestling and independent wrestling since 1994.starting out in sarasota,florida.and tampa areas in 1992 and going pro in 1994.his short term pro career ended.after a move from the sarasota,florida area to the mobile,alabama.area and a 18 year absence from the ring,he has regained his status and has made a comeback march to the ring.

    ad to exsisting list of related persons in the wrestling entertainment area. Wrestling editor mega (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    McCain's birth place

    Resolved
     – Editor concerned about birthplace has gone on break, source relied on by him has been established to be ambiguous and unreliable even though at official government web site

    Natural born citizen of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    additional comment also at the Wikipedia:Editor assistance

    An editor on the page natural born citizen named Britcom keeps changing McCains birth place to Colon Hospital in Colon Panama when all the reliable sources say he was born on the Naval base. All the reliable sources, including every major newspaper, the U.S. Senate, and McCains own autobiography. He does this based on a forged birth certificate filed in court hearings by Fred Hollander (was dismissed) who was suing McCain during the election. I don't believe Fred Hollander counts as a reliable source any more than Orly Taitz would count as a reliable source to claim Obama was born in Kenya, especially in the face of so many other actual reliable sources saying different. This relates to the McCain birther conspiracy theory which claimed McCain was ineligible to run for President. Mystylplx (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure how any more discussion will help. The NY Times, the Washington Post, McCain's own autobiography, and the U.S. Senate all say he was born in the base hospital. A guy named Fred Hollander sued McCain early in the campaign and produced a forged (obviously forged) birth certificate claiming McCain was born in a civilian hospital. This is the source Britcom is going by. Discussion doesn't seem to be helping, which is why I'm asking for help.Mystylplx (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - Well I am from the UK, but it seems the content was pretty much in the article when you came to it and made a single edit in Nov 2009, you came back in march 2010 and didn't like it much and nominated in for AFD and removed it changing your mind. then in April someone else sent it to AFD and Bearian added the rescue template, you spent a few edits attempting to tweak the understanding of the expression natural born then you worked on the Obama section, tweaking it towards a less fringe write and so on and you removed the long term content version about McCain in October in this edit with the summary "might as well say the fake Kenya BC prove obama was born in Kenya" - basically, not that it was uncited or anything just you disagreed with the write. User:Britcom replaced it with the summary "McCain article to longstanding version. One cannot throw out facts that one disagrees with and replace them with undocumented suppositions" and he added a couple of cites to strengthen the content, you reverted,Britcom reverted, you reverted, Britcom reverted, you reverted, Britcom reverted, and you reverted. And now I have reverted, I suggest you continue discussion, use WP:RFC or WP:THIRD to find consensus and until then rather than to-ing and fro-ing with reverts, leave the long term version in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP says in no uncertain terms,

    Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability.

    The contention that McCain was born in the civilian hospital is contentious, and the source is poor to say the least. I have followed wikipedia policy and reverted your revert.Mystylplx (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - As I posted on the talk page to this article, at least three articles list a place where McCain was born: this article, John McCain, and Early life and military career of John McCain. The latter two say born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station. The first currently says Colón Hospital. It is complete foolishness to me that ONLY this article has an edit war going on, and that no effort has been made to go to the main John McCain article to actually talk about it. Get a discussion going on the main John McCain article and nail down the views and supporting references for each side, then put out an RFC on the topic and go from there. Until then, find how the page was before this edit-war started, lock it down and force people to talk. Ravensfire (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I responded to you on the talk page, I'm quite certain they have gone through all this many times in the main McCain article. Perhaps not with Britcom, but with other McCain birthers. This is not a new debate at all.Mystylplx (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A review of the cited sources seems to show that Mystylplx is right: the reliable sources agree with him, at least one of the sources offered for the born-in-Panama theory is truncated to leave out the text that actually supports the other side. Under WP:BLP, I think, it is very problematic to leave this article in a state that is not supported by reliable sources and that, in effect, calls McCain a liar. The text might say that although McCain, Congress, and the mainstream sources all say he was born in the Zone, a disputed claim has been made that McCain was born in the Republic; but the current wording--stating this as a fact--is unsupportable under WP:BLP. There has already been at least one recent discussion of this at Talk:John McCain#Birthplace as well as an older one at Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain#Birth certificate image. I don't think that another one is needed before this evident BLP violation is fixed.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Finally someone actually looked at what was happening.Mystylplx (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverted. As clearly explained, the "Panama" claim is based on poor sources, and moreover contradicts the main article for the subject, John McCain. This is clearly a BLP issue, and it should not be re-added at the Natural Born article as fact (it's there now as disputed claim) unless it is agreed at John McCain to have it there as fact. Rd232 talk 21:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, now its my turn. Rd232, you made an serious error in reverting as you did, you chose a side in an editors disagreement and Admins cannot do that, I object to your actions.
    Natural born citizen of the United States is not a biography article, I don't believe BLP applies to it. The sources that show McCain to be born in Colon are not only verifiable, they are iron clad.
    This information is far more important than whatever the John McCain article says, this information is important is enough that the other articles should change their info to fit the facts as they now exist. The fact is John McCain has, on his US Senate web site, ADMITTED his birth was in Colon. That SHOULD be the end of the matter here and on every article about John McCain. Period.
    Here is the link, read McCain's words yourself. [9] — Britcom , — (continues after insertion below.)
    Which says: "'Where and when were you born?' 'I was born August 29, 1936 in Colon, Panama Canal Zone CoCo Solo Submarine Base'." RolandR (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I am offended by Mystylplx repeatedly referring to me with the term "Birther", here and on the article's talk page. He/she is being derogatory and abusive of others.
    Mystylplx has rejected the Wikipedia process of discussion and prefers to insult and badger, and edit war to get his/her way and will not listen to advice and seems intent on ignoring other editors rights to edit and appears to have "camped" on this article and fights off anyone who attempts to change or undo what he/she has written there. When challenged on his/her sources, he/she fires back abuse rather than rationally debating the validity of his/her sources. I have been an editor on this section of this page for a long time and no one else acts like this and no one else wanted Mystylplx's changes to that article. He/she seems to think he/she is God and can bully other editors to get what he/she wants. Such behavior should not be rewarded on Wikipedia. --Britcom 06:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I might also add that the long standing version of the article stated that McCain's birthplace was Colon. It was Mystylplx who suddenly and without discussion or consensus changed it to Coco Solo. Several people reverted Mystylplx's edits and then Rd232 (a supposed admin) came in and reverted the article to Mystylplx's version instead of the long standing version. --Britcom 06:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to correct one point above: WP:BLP applies, not only to every single article in mainspace, it also, for the most part applies to every single part of Wikipedia. As for the edit itself, it seems to me that a source which has been overwhelmingly ruled as falsified (even ruled so in court) automatically fails WP:RS, and any edits based on it automatically fail WP:V. But I will admit I have not read the specific article in question, although the issue itself (about McCain being born outside of the US), was widely reported and shown to be sheer lunacy a few years back. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarifying further: upholding WP:BLP is an important admin responsibility, and that often involves taking a position on content. Such a position is not however definitive in the sense of permanent and unchallengeable; it can be overturned by a sufficiently strong consensus. Rd232 talk 09:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional note: it doesn't matter how long the low-profile Natural born citizen of the United States contradicted the high-profile article John McCain or indeed WP:BLP/WP:RS/other policy. Rd232 talk 09:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is question is not 'low-profile', and is not a fork of the John McCain article. It is a High-priority legal article and says so at the top of the talk page. A biography article, should not trump a legal article. The law is the same for all persons. --Britcom 10:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    400 hits per day compared to 3k hits per day. It doesn't matter if it's a fork, what matters is that content disputes like this should not end up with articles contradicting each other. The place to discuss it would be Talk:John McCain. Rd232 talk 12:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll simply point out that I was not the one who started with the ad hominem attacks, as anyone who reads the talk page can plainly see. I did, however, eventually start to respond in kind and I apologize for that.Mystylplx (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out (now that I am free from Rd232's block) that anyone checking the talk page and the history page will discover that Mystylplx did in fact start off attacking me for rv'ing him/her.
    S/he rewrote much of the McCain section, not only the word Colon, but s/he included edits that are defamatory and libelous of Fred Hollander, accusing him of forgery and falsifying evidence. (Hollander has not been charged with any such crime.)
    I didn't think all those changes had consensus or NPOV so I rv'ed. That's when his/her abuse started on the talk page. I did NOT rv him/her the last couple of times, others DID and this seemed to enrage him/her. So s/he came here to BLPN and proceeded to use uncivil remarks to insult and demean me with the "Birther" epithet (see diff here) and then Rd232 summarily rv'ed the article back to Mysylplx's version, thereby RESTORING the defamatory statement of Fred Hollander, and that article has remained in that state until now. (see diff here) S/he Included the defamatory statement: "Mr. Hollander entered into evidence a fake birth certificate", and then ref'ed his/her accusation with a link to a conspiracy website that makes wild and libelous unsubstantiated claims. If Mystylplx really just wanted to question the validity of the McCain birth certificates link, s/he could have just asked about it on the talk page first, or just deleted the ref note that links to them, but that's not what s/he did, s/he decided to create all of this drama and get me involved with all of you and disrupt Wikipedia.
    So, my few rv's have been roundly denounced and I have been treated like a vandal here, all the while a libelous statement is being protected from change in the article. How is this in line with BLP?
    I have been an editor here for over 4 years, anywhere else that would be worthy of some respect. But not here; So I quit!
    And I am pulling the plug on my foundation's funding for Wikipedia, as well. I would be happier funding some other project where people are more appreciative of the help. --Britcom 08:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right about the "fake certificate" sentence/source - I've removed the sentence, it's not essential and not well enough sourced to justify the claim. Nobody, including you, seems to have noticed that before. The rest doesn't seem worth examining in detail, since you've chosen to leave. Though I note that "entered into evidence a fake birth certificate" is a factual claim and not per se an accusation of forgery or of falsifying evidence. It's problematic because it can be interpreted as suggesting "knowingly entered", even though the sentence doesn't say that. Rd232 talk 12:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All right, I can see I am going to have to spell out the problem here. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN says on his US Government website, AND I QUOTE... "I was born August 29, 1936 in Colon..." Here is the US Government/United States Senate official website link for John McCain that shows this exact quote in answer to the FAQ question: "Where and when were you born?" [http://mccain.senate.gov/ ] WHAT more is there to say? It is time to accept that this is an undeniable fact and change. I know change is hard, but eventually you have to bite the bullet and do it, and that time is now. We have to put the word Colon in the article as McCain's birthplace. --Britcom 09:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are flogging a WP:DEADHORSE and misrepresenting sources. The McCain website says "I was born August 29, 1936 in Colon, Panama Canal Zone CoCo Solo Submarine Base." You specifically quoted this on my user talk page cutting it off after "Colon"! Now I am not just a "supposed admin", I'm an actual admin, and I'm about ready to block you for disruption. Rd232 talk 09:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen friend, I will thank you not to make threats on my talk page, I am not intimidated by admins. The quote is valid and the tail end of the sentence is irrelevant, I stopped at the comma. The tail end of the quote just shows us that McCain doesn't know were Colon is. The Panama Canal Zone treaty stipulated that Colon was not part of the Zone. See here: (Article II of the Convention Between the United States and the Republic of Panama states: "...the cities of Panama and Colon and the harbors adjacent to said cities, which are included within the boundaries of the zone above described, shall not be included within this grant.") Coco Solo is on the other side of the bay from it and the two don't overlap. Colon is on an island enclave of Panamanian territory in the middle of the bay. The island sits in the middle of the former Canal Zone territory. McCain is right, Colon is in the middle of the Panama Canal "geographically", but the City of Colon was not politically part of the Zone, it remained sovereign to Panama. See the Colon City page here: [10] and the map of Colon here: [11] Notice that Coco Solo is to the upper right of the map and Colon is surrounded by the Zone border. So now, what were you telling us about "misrepresenting sources"? Exactly what are you saying is being misrepresented, mister Admin in Mystylplx's pocket. --Britcom 10:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not helping yourself. Any contradiction between "Colon" and "sub base" (which is further discussed at Talk:Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States) is irrelevant to the issue of misrepresenting McCain's own words by dropping "sub base". In any case, per discussion on that talk page and here, the contradiction is one you alone are creating out of thin air: the sub base is apparently now within Colon, so there is no contradiction. Even if there were, he clearly said "sub base", which as you well know is the key legal point. Rd232 talk 12:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are wrong, and you are misrepresenting the source if you drop the second half. McCain makes a very specific statement about where he was born. You falsify it. McCain's usage is normal - note that if you are anal enough, neither Miami Beach nor the University of Miami are in Miami, my Alma Mater, the Technische Universität München, is not in Munich, and London is not a city. Stop this disruption, please. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, my old nemesis Steve, what are you doing here, Steve, this is not a global warming issue? Come to stick the old knife in for getting your bunk-mate William M. Connolley de-admined have you? --Britcom 10:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay Steve, lets see what everyone else thinks. Everyone, Steve votes that we include the entire quote ( 'I was born August 29, 1936 in Colon, Panama Canal Zone CoCo Solo Submarine Base' ) in the article even though it reflects poorly on McCain's geography skills. Anyone agree? --Britcom 10:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And now you misrepresent me (not to mention mangle my name). Stop it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So tell me , how is our old friend Willy doing these days? Will we be hearing from him too? --Britcom 11:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The last revert to this page during this dispute was on 11 November. If it had been more recently, I would have been inclined to fully protect the page. The parties involved in the dispute are strongly recommended to use the talk page to engage in discussion, stop reverting each other, and engage in WP:Dispute resolution. Further disruption will result in blocks and/or full protection of the related page(s). -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am restating here for the record that I have quit Wikipedia, after 4 years of editing, due to the extremely poor handling of the above controversy. --Britcom 08:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The controversy wasn't handled all that badly, except by you. The normally BLP-reliable Off2riorob didn't help by calling this one wrong, but basically, if you want to quit over this and it makes you feel better to blame others, nobody can stop you. Rd232 talk 12:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For further flogging of the dead horse, people may want to go check out: Talk:Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain#Birthplace_again.
    It appears that McCain's own statement about his birthplace, at his official government website, is being kept out of that article at least partly for fear of how nutcases might react. That's mistaken, in my opinion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on discussion at that article talk page, it now appears that the FAQ at McCain's Senate web site is not reliable, so I agree that the statement there about his birthplace should not be cited at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    DAVID DAI JENKINS

    David Jenkins (rugby league) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    DAVID DAI JENKINS DAI JENKINS WAS HIS NAME AT BIRTH NOT DAVID. THE SON OF RICHARD JENKINS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.188.99 (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you talking about David Jenkins (rugby league), or David Jenkins (rugby)? Do you have any sources for this change? Also, TURN OFF YOUR CAPSLOCK! Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcomed the IP user. Semi-protected the BLP page. Not much else to do here, at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System

    Allegations of BLP violations. The article itself appears to be a POVFORK (none of the material is in Werner Erhard, which has multiple tags), and there also appears to be WP:BATTLE issues. The article has above-average sourcing, but it's also an article about a libel lawsuit that did not even result in a court decision. I don't take a position on the BLP issue, but this controversy does appear to need more eyes from uninvolved editors. THF (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    These issues had already been raised at the AfD and dealt with there. Multiple respondents commented at the AfD that the article is appropriately sourced, neutral, notable, not a coatrack, not pov ([12] [13] [14]). -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's objectively true, then you should have no concern about uninvolved editors without off-wiki agendas taking a look. Wikipedia doesn't particularly care about consistency, but right now this AFD is being treated differently than very similar AFDs about similarly structured articles. THF (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The user that started this BLPN thread has a COI related to the other unrelated AFD he referenced himself, per his own self-disclosure, here diff link. -- Cirt (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And what does that personal attack on me have to do with the BLP accusation in this AFD, where I have no conflict of interest? Yes, the articles are apples and oranges: the libel lawsuit article that is about to be deleted actually has a legal opinion associated with it and doesn't repeat the alleged libelous statements, while this one involves a lawsuit that was withdrawn immediately and coatracks claims of incest and a completely unrelated controversy on a completely unrelated website. THF (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the nature of some forms of litigation, particularly libel, that it is equally informative and interesting when someone starts a case but withdraws it (with costs) as when someone fights and wins or loses. (I've already voted Keep by the way so I am not "fresh eyes").Fainites barleyscribs 22:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Filed cases with no Court opinion, if covered sufficiently in RSs, are notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they're not. See WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOT#NEWS. Now, maybe the events related to the court case are notable. But the court case itself is not notable. And a review of this article shows that next to nothing in the article is about the court case, but is rather about events relating to the court case, such as the 60 Minutes piece. THF (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure they are. The same rules apply whether or not there is a court opinion. If they have sufficient coverage in RSs, obviously the "not sufficient coverage" guidelines that you refer to are of no moment.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment This event is clearly notable enough for an article, but the current state of the entry is an atrocious WP:COATRACK. If it is kept it should be stubbed and people who are not closely involved with any POVs surrounding this subject, on either side, should go about writing a NPOV entry about 1/10 of the size.Griswaldo (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think THF may misundersand WP:POVFORK. He says "none of the material is in Werner Erhard". A POV fork occurs when the same content, more or less, is in two articles with different POVs. Instead, this might be considered a "content fork" which is perfectly acceptable. When an article is too long for all relevant content it can some material can be split off into a new article. That's routine.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Beback misunderstands my complaint, since there is much biographical material of Erhard in this article. NB that I just think all this stuff should be in other articles to the extent it complies with BLP. THF (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is too much material that's not directly related to the topic then that can be addressed by editing. We wouldn't say "There's too much biographical info about Roosevelt in World War II, so it must be deleted".   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Marco Rubio

    There has been a lot of activity on the Marco Rubio regarding Rubio's religion. Until recently the article was locked but now that it is unlocked an unregistered user has been making constant edits. I have tried to police the article but the task has become daunting. This is the gist of the dispute. As the cited sources indicate, Marco Rubio identifies himself as Catholic. There is no dispute about that. However, a single news report remarked that he has attended an Evangelical Church for the past six years and that he has made donations to that church. As a result of this report many blogs have begun to question whether Rubio is actually Catholic. While I have made sure this ambiguity is noted in the article, I think the best and most accurate policy is to continue to label him as Catholic, since that is how he identifies himself. In addition there is a great deal of evidence calling him Catholic while there is only one line of a single article that suggests that he has attended a non-Catholic church. While I think in general, Wikipedia should not dispute someone's own religious identification, this should especially be true in this case where there is so little evidence to indicate that Rubio is "Southern Baptist", "Protestant" or a "non-practicing Catholic" as one unregistered user has continually edited. I recommend that the article be once again locked and if necessary the problem-editor be blocked from Wikipedia or at least this article. Thanks.

    Lepanto (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This page has been semi-protected until 15 November. It looks like some users have begun a cleanup process. Please post back here if a longer semi-protection is needed, and/or if some users need to be warned for disruptive behavior. -- Cirt (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ted Kaptchuk

    User:Ben.kavoussi is continually adding BLP violations into Ted Kaptchuk and also adding in original research. I have now left 4 warnings (including a final warning) on Ben's talk page. Basket of Puppies 05:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    An IP (likely sock) has come along for the ride and readding the same vios. Basket of Puppies 05:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After review, I suppressed the edits as they clearly are violations of BLP policy, and protected the page. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular issue appears to now be resolved. :) -- Cirt (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Biography Ibrahim Ben Kargbo

    Please u need to contact him for a precise biography, e.g where he was born, where he grew up, schools attended, date of birth etc, i tried though to do some modifications...but please try to get in touch with him so u can get a rich bio of him ...thanks. 41.205.230.2 (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't do it like that. If this person is actually notable, then this kind of information is available from published, reliable sources and should be extracted from them. The subject of an article is notoriously often not a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I welcomed the above user. I posted notices to relevant WikiProject talkpages to see if anyone is interested in improving this particular article. -- Cirt (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    John W. Flores

    Hola: I have read over the article about this notable Southwestern journalist and author and honored veteran with many citations, and am a fellow writer. I found nothing in the article that was off-base. Everything is factual. But there is a flag at the top citing "multiple issues" with the article. The sources are excellent and easily proven. Any doubt about this guy you can just Google him. He's got quite a few listings.

    RWD 98.230.192.94 (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    But on the talk page for the article you have seemingly identified yourself as a family member of this individual, not a family member of this individual, and a former colleague of this individual. Which is it? Appearing in Google a lot does not in itself prove notability - see WP:GOOGLE and WP:PEOPLE for further information. If you are a professional writer, can't you see how the article could be improved for readability and clarity? It has been explained to you on the talk page for the article that the current issue with the references is that they are not inline citations - so people can't tell which statements in the article are supposed to be supported by which of the references. Fixing that would go a long way towards removing the issues with the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the references given confirm all the information, and some of them seem to be examples of his work rather than actually verifying anyhing. I've raised a specific query about the Pulizer Prize nomination on the talk page. January (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected the article during this BLPN investigation. Might be appropriate to nominate the page for WP:AFD, for a better community assessment of the questioned notability. -- Cirt (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I AFDed it. All those "citation needed" tags in a BLP is definitely not a good thing. Also, is that a phone number in the very first section of the talk page? WP's privacy policies are not my specialty, to say the least, but it seems to me that should be permanently deleted. The Eskimo (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nagesh Kukunoor

    {{db-attack}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.252.70.237 (talk • contribs) November 12, 2010 (UTC)

    I linked to the deletion template instead of transcluding it - this page at least does not need to be deleted. Looking at the linked article now. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that is not an attack page, but some of the statements might violate the biographies of living persons policy. I will do what I can, but you might have better luck asking at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, or just editing the article yourself. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I welcomed the above user. Moved unsourced info from the article's main page to its talk page. Semi-protected the article during this BLPN investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Coles

    In July 2009 an individual posted a "Controversy" section and subhead to Robert Coles' entry. In July 2010 I raised serious concerns about. Those concerns were addressed by several editors (the exchange is chronicled on the entry's discussion page). The editorial process yielded, among other things, removal of the "Controversy" subhead. The individual who created the sub-section back in July 2009 did not take part in the discussion. But he has now returned and re-established the "Controversy" subhead. How do you prevent someone from leap-frogging the editorial process and reclaiming an earlier position? Cooperddc (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed the material. Semi-protected the page. Warned the user. -- Cirt (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bailey Jay

    Some more eyes on this one would be good, I think; given the lack of references, and recent activity on the article. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I added it to my watch list, but won't be able to take a deep look at it until tomorrow, drop me a line if there's something that needs to be looked at urgently. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected, during ongoing BLPN investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. As a point of information, the article is now at AfD as well. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly noted; thanks, both, for your attention on this.  Chzz  ►  18:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sourced information removed by COI editor

    Resolved
     – Publicist blocked, hopefully she will be willing to discuss changes upon her return Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure how to proceed here and would appreciate some input. User:Texasmusicgirl, who has admitted to being George Ducas' publicist, continues to edit his article to remove sourced information. I have pointed her to our COI guidline page and also suggested how she could go about making any proposed changes by obtaining consensus to remove the material, however she simply blanks it out again without discussion. Perhaps if another editor explained why publicists should not be editing their client's article they may stop removing the info and actually discuss the issue? Given the multiple speedy deletion and copyright violation warnings on their talk page, it may not be an easy task. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a Q, where is the DOB cited to? I can see a year but no date. Subject seems to want his article removed from Wiikipedia and you can't blame him for that. He or at least his publicist should ask the foundation, or at least be given the contact details. If the user wont talk perhaps request protection, that may get him talking but it will likely end in tears anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a number of sources listing his birthdate. The reference in the article is behind a paywall, so I can't read it from my location, but it is confirmed elsewhere (such as here) (or here, if the above link doesn't work -- SoV). There may be a legitimate reason to have the info removed, but we're certainly not the only source out there - without the publicist actually coming to the table to discuss the matter, who knows? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, if he won't talk about it he is on a hiding to nothing. Thanks for the link, I am seeing 1966, but still no exact date. The trouble people have (such as this person, I opine..) is there may well be in some obscure place on the www or in some book that reveals there exact DOB and little known birth name, but what wikipedia does is source (obsessively in some situations) the minutiae of a minor notability who released a couple of albums that are actually of little value really and then raise itself to the top of the search engine and publish those obscure details in a single easily accessible location to the whole world...so he was born George Harrison or whatever, its worthless personal detail added just because it can be cited somewhere. His exact DOB is also of no encyclopedic or informational value, really its trivia. Just a couple of personal thoughts as to what may be the cause of the removals. Personally, looking at the last article the publicist edited to, we still have all the real detail, one way to resolve the issue would be to accept the removals ... a bit controversial perhaps but it one option. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not seeing the exact date? Weird. It clearly states "b. August 1, 1966" just under his name, and then again in prose form "Singer-songwriter George Ducas was born on August 1, 1966" in the first paragraph. The name change is also covered in multiple independent sources. Removing it from the article would not accomplish much, and I imagine another editor will eventually come along and add it back in as it is unusual for a biography not to include basic details such as DOB, especially when there are sources for confirmation. I disagree that birthdates and persondata in biography article are trivial, they are specifically listed in "What the opening paragraph should have" at WP:MOSBIO and are a significant way we sort information (via WP:persondata, naming conventions, and categories - e.g. "People born in 1966). --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    in this link I don't get any book content? here it says he was born in 1971, but it doesn't look very reliable..People born in 1966, sheez, does anyone even look at those list? no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So strange, when I click the same link I can see it. It's from All Music Guide to Country (1997) by Michael Erlewine, Page 133. If you Google "George Ducas" and 1966 in Google Books you can likely pull up the page. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, the google book issue was brought up at ANI, we are not supposed to use it as a citation because what is seen is different in every country, I still don't get it with Sarek's addition link. I get, no preview available. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just linked directly to Google books above for convenience, I use the "Book Cite" template for any article citations. The birthdate and corresponding info is also included in "The Billboard Book of Top 40 Country Hits" (2006), "The Virgin encyclopedia of country music" (1998), "International who's who in popular music, Volume 4" (2002), and "The encyclopedia of country music" (1998). Unless the publicist discusses what the particular issues are with Wikipedia including the information that is readily available elsewhere, I can see no reason why it should be removed. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, go for it. I have personally been unable to access his DOB but I happily accept it is out there.Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nancy Bargar

    Resolved
     – Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Bargar--Scott Mac 13:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    First, there is no relevancy for why this person should even have a Wikipedia page. I beg Wikipedia to ask user JMyrleFuller on why he created the page originally, and how it meets Wikipedia's standards for having a biography of a living person.

    If that can be sufficiently proven, then I would then like to raise the fact that this same user, JMyrleFuller, has edited and reinserted text that was already deemed insupportable. I believe Wikipedia has a "three strikes" rule on re-editing text to incorrect versions, yes? If so, that should be grounds to remove his accessibility of even editing this page.

    Moreover, the actual living person of this page does not want, nor did she give, any permission to have this article created. In fact, I can support the claim that this page falls under a libel.

    Please answer my questions, prove to me that this page has merit under Wikipedia's conditions for Biographies of Living Persons, and prove to me how a user, JMyrleFuller, can continually edit the page (i.e., "perennial candidate") when that allegation has been proven to be incorrect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.54.27 (talk • contribs)

    Your first question is about the notability of Bargar. It appears that she received press coverage for her candidacies, and as a former county legislator, there are likely to be a considerable number of media references to her. That would appear to satisfy the criteria at WP:POLITICIAN; I think you'd have trouble getting the article deleted on notability grounds.
    You claim that JMyrleFuller is making "unsupportable" edits, but you haven't provided any evidence of those edits or their supposed lack of supportability. I see no discussion on the article's talk page about that user's edits, nor any discussion on that user's Talk page.
    Wikipedia does not have a "three strikes" rule. There is a guideline for identifying edit-warring called the three revert rule, but that isn't applicable here.
    Wikipedia does not need the permission of the subject of the article to create an article about them. Regarding libel, please identify the statements you believe to be untrue; per Wikipedia's policy on libel, we'd remove any libelous statements that are identified. However, it's highly unlikely that the page would be deleted entirely.
    Can you explain your specific objections to the article? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nominated the article for deletion. Every person running for office is going to get some press coverage, that does not make them notable by WP policy or important by common sense. Borock (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Kyle Baker

    User:Peace is contagious, who claims to know the subject's family, is being abusive and insulting at User talk:Peace is contagious after consistently violating a host of policies /guidelines at Kyle Baker. I've provided lins to policies and guidelines and provided links, have offered to work with him, and put out a call at the Project talk page for other editors to come work on this article together with him. Regardless, he continues to be belligerent, to add many uncited personal claims about a living person, and to willfully denigrate Wikipedia policies about WP:RS and WP:COI. Two examples:

    so what's a 'reliable source' ?? Is that by UR esteemed opinion or Stan Lee's ? or Harvard University President Drew Gilpin ? or Charlie Rose ? or George Bush ? U surely see the 'slippery-slope' nature of that tenet. You do see the 'infinite regress' against dyadic ideals in what ur saying...so if I'm a journalist, I would have to 1st publish something in the NY Times & NOT the National Enquirer b4 I could add that info to WIKI, be it factual or fallacious ? No rule is etched in stone, take a law school class. Do I need PhD, EdD, JD after my name, b4 I may edit wikipedia ?

    and

    here's Cheryl's FB:
    page (Redacted)
    (Redacted)

    Lastly, here is an example of the kinds of edits he keeps putting back in

    2000 saw Kyle's slap-stick, child-like style of humour create a debacle by corporate concern over 'responsible art'. Whilst working on DC's flag-ship of 'Superman' Kyle decided to take a look back at Kal-El's infancy, in "Letitia Lerner, Superman's Babysitter". Kyle applied a Wylie E. Coyote blowing himself up, "CRASH, BAND, BOOM" look @ how a young Kal-El's inquisitive nature, combined with his indestructibility scares the Bejesus outta his unknowing baby-sitter for the night. The issue was printed and the UK editions sent over-seas, but the American issues were destroyed before shipping, when a DC exec feared controversy and litigation over babies and/or children mimicing the 'tragedies' portrayed in the issue: a baby getting shut and 'zapped' in a microwave oven, riding backwards on a run-a-way horse through town, spinning around a ceiling-fan and book-shelf falling on top of him, as the baby-sitter The UK editions were also destroyed, but not before someone in the UK 'rescued' an issue, which then found it's way into Frank Miller's hands. Frank adored the uniquely creative, comical look at the infant Kal-El and the ensuing tale of corporate concern and panic. Mr. Miller nominated the story for a Harvey Award, which it subsequently won. Now realizing their error, DC commissioned an entire graphic novel of off-key and 'what-if' type tales titled 'Bizarro Comics', the cover of which was Matt Groening's interpretation of a slew of DC super-heroes

    I'd appreciate any help. He doesn't want to work with other editors, he's behaving in a bullying, highly uncivil way, he reufuses to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and his edits are both largely uncited and violate WP:NPOV, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:TONE, WP:V, WP:CITE, and probably others. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If I had a block button I would block him for you, he has been given all the help possible, well done for that by the way, and he has not shown he is here to contribute in a collaborative manner to the project. The posting of a living subjects private details (now over sighted) is a block-able offense in itself. I have requested deletion of the picture of Kyle Baker he uploaded as claiming to have permission from the subjects sister for an uploaded (Redacted) is a very very weak claim indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I provided the necessary sources via Youtube videos, after his 1st request @ info I had posted. (...and EVEN offered a phone # to verify the use of the photo !!) I've had no other problems in numerous Wiki edits. Tenabre was 'white-washing' my edits & not line-item, he is passive-aggressively bullying my contributions, by hitting the 'UNDO' button & removing ALL of my edits, surely that is not fair or reasonable. I have NOT been 'given all the help possible' ...he referred me to WIKI rules pages, INSTEAD of merely editing my contributions so as to fit policy. Being 37 & almost a college graduate, I do get the jist of legalities, copyrights & editorializing vs. factual info.

    Maybe I'm not technically informed enuf on how these 'talk boxes' work, so if there's a phone # or living person I may speak w/ @ Wiki, I would gladly amicably resolve any confusion, I'm 37 & the internet was not part of my elementary education, so ur patience is more than appreciated!

    All of his edits are comic book related and he apparently is taking my edit as some sort of 'blasphemy' to his hobby. I humbly apologize for the joke about Tenabre 'living in his parents basement & never having kissed a female human' ...it was out of line & I wish him the best of luck in this life. Thank you for ur time. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace is contagious (talk • contribs) 18:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted the image. F9 seems to eb applicable, and, of not, then I invoke IAR as a breach of the subject's privacy. Peace is contagious (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hours by another admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, support for that, there was no permission as required and if he goes and gets it the picture is available on facebook to upload again. Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bob Lutz (businessman)

    Bob Lutz (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    In the biographical article "Bob Lutz (businessman)" there is a reference in the Career section, "...after needing a bailout from the U.S. Government in 1979 just to survive". For the record, Chrysler did not receive a government bailout during that period. Rather, the government did issue loan guarantees so Chrysler could borrow money from private banks. Chrysler then borrowed money from private banks, worked its way out of its problems and paid back the banks many years early. This myth, which implies that tax payer money was used to bailout Chrysler in 1979 shows up in many subsequent articles but is false. 68.62.99.81 (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the cited source (which is Forbes) says that it did need a bailout just to survive, using exactly that phrase. I suggest you find an alternative but equally reliable source, and then balance what is in the article by citing both sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nazia Iqbal

    Nazia Iqbal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Nazia Iqbal's place of birth is Swat,Paktoonkhwa province of Pakistan. 78.150.175.169 (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Welcomed the IP user. The page is a totally unsourced BLP. Also, now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazia Iqbal. -- Cirt (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Kim Thomson

    I am very bored that I keep having to correct this biography of me! The birthdate is wrong. How many times do I need to tell you? Does Wikipedia not care about accuracy? What source do you claim for this erroneous information? Kim Thomson...comment added by Lynnannebr (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 November 2010

    The Kim Thomson article didn't have a birth date, but then someone added a year with a citation. The citation was removed because it violated Wikipedia policy (the source gets its information from Wikipedia). However, the person who removed the source didn't remove the year. I can see you have, though, so hopefully no one will add a birth date or year without a reliable source. Unfortunately, these kinds of things occur (sometimes more than once), and they just have to be corrected.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcomed the user that posted this report to BLPN. -- Cirt (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Cameron Newton

    There are persistent rumors which have been reported as "alleged". One editor even claims (with what evidence I do not know) that an FBI investigation is ongoing. As yet, the case appears to be rich with allegation and notably short on fact. The allegations if true would be damaging, but even the suggested investigations don't appear to be established as fact. The NCAA simply declines to comment.

    I've reverted a couple of times over the past few days but I think that's enough. I hand this over to the noticeboard to investigate and resolve according to past practice and commonsense. If the rumors are correct, facts will not be in short supply before long. --TS 23:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tony, if a reliable source is reporting that certain rumors exist, then that probably raises issues of notability and recentism. In other words, the existence of an unconfirmed rumor seems inherently less encyclopedic than the existence of a confirmed fact. However, you also seem to have reverted the stuff about the NCAA iinvestigating allegations. It's not a mere rumor that the NCAA is investigating Newton, so why take out that part? This is analagous to a person being on trial; Wikipedia can say he's on trial even though there hasn't yet been a conviction.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rumors, we don't really report rumors, it looks like all smoke and no fire to me and we should not be part of propagating rumors. Better wait for something concrete. Who is reporting it,. is it multiple reliable citations? Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ESPN reports: "The NCAA is investigating allegations surrounding the Newtons in regards to the recruiting process.". That doesn't sound like a rumor to me. It sounds like ESPN has confirmed that there's an ongoing Investigation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I had a look and did notice it was sourced to ESPN and then I watched one of the videos, I was asking is it being picked up and repeated my multiple reliable sources, the ESPN is in effect a primary for the content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ESPN is a pretty well known outfit. Has there been prior discussion at Wikipedia about whether ESPN is primary versus secondary? It looks to me like a typical news report, not a transcript. Incidentally, why not mention at the article talk page that the matter has been brought to this noticeboard? There seem to be several editors who might take an interest in this discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there can be, it doesn't always be done but you are welcome to if you know others will be interested. as far as I know it is not an actual condition of making a report.Off2riorob (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The question is this: if the NCAA really is investigating Newton, and he really is involved in something nasty, then the facts will be reported very soon, and we'll be happy to report them in the interests of accuracy. But meanwhile there are absolutely no grounds to put anything negative into his biography. Everything we have is based on the unhappy and false saying "no smoke without fire." So the question is: why report when we have no facts to report, but we have a good expectation of facts in the future? --TS 00:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's get one thing settled. See "Heisman Front-Runner Is Focus of Investigation", New York Times (2010-11-04).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It actually is not suggesting that the subject of the BLP has any involvement at all or that they have done anything at all wrong, I support waiting to see what is actually happened and if it has anything to do with the subject in any way. Actually they if they are going to investigate anyone it is the Auburn university. Yes, wait and see whet happens and if it is anything to do with him.

    Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    At first sight that looks like investigative journalism of the most superlative kind. However we're not a news source and we do have a policy on BLPs. Can't we wait until the facts are established?

    Maybe some people think we really ought to be the Woodward and Bernstein of encyclopedias. To those people I say: go to your blog and write what you like. We don't do that. --TS 00:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh. "Woodstein" would be a fantastic user name.  :-). Maybe it's already taken.
    Seriously, my view is this: clearly there's an investigation. Clearly the other editors at his bio have not been given a chance to weigh in. I lean toward leaving out the investigation on recentism grounds, but will not favor that until the other editors at his bio have a chance to opine here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay. Meanwhile it looks like so far we're all agreed that we can afford to wait. --TS 00:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the NYT cite Anythinguwant. It actually is not suggesting that the subject of the BLP has any involvement at all or that they have done anything at all wrong, I support waiting to see what is actually happened and if it has anything to do with the subject in any way. Actually they if they are going to investigate anyone it seems to be the Auburn university. Yes, wait and see what happens and if it is anything to do with him.Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, except that the other editors at the article should get a chance to argue otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is plenty of rumor, and there is plenty of news coverage. Anyone who follows college football will tell you that this is the number one story for a week or more--in fact, the big story yesterday was whether he would start or not because of the investigation (that apparently the FBI is getting in on also). But while there are enough sources for us to write that an investigation is underway, we should really ask ourselves if this is our job--right now, in my opinion, it falls under WP:NOTNEWS, and I see no point in flooding the article with reported rumors. I could write you two paragraphs just based on what my paper wrote yesterday, what the local TV stations reported, and what ESPN was talking about, but what's the point? We have no responsibility to report the news, and right now it actually seems likely that the story will go away, if Dad sticks to his guns and his son does too. BTW, he had another fantastic game, as much as it pains me to say it. Roll Tide, Drmies (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pelé

    Resolved
     – No specific WP:BLP issue, issue requires talkpage discussion

    In the article "Pelé" there is erroneous information. In the 1st paragraph it says (verbatim) "He is widely regarded by polls among football experts, former players and fans as the greatest footballer of all time." The following article describes the problem. Basically Pele was chosen by officials as the best player, while Diego Armando Maradona was chosen by a poll performed by FIFA by all the soccer fans in the world as the best player in history. http://www.rediff.com/sports/2000/dec/12fifa.htm - unsigned post by User:Leonardo1981 - Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The assertion that you quote from the article has eight footnotes attached to it. Can you explain why those eight footnoted sources are inadequate or unreliable? The Reuters article that you link to says that the poll lost by Pele was an online poll, which are notoriously inaccurate and subject to manipulation. Indeed, the Reuters article says there have been accusations of manipulation in this case. The Reuters article also suggests that the poll question may have ambiguously referred to the best player of the "decade" instead of the best player of all "decades". So, as of now, the sentence in the Pele article that you're concerned about is okay, but feel free to provide further arguments here. But first you ought to discuss it at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, this is a content dispute, not a BLP-specific issue. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with assessment by Jclemens (talk · contribs). Users can discuss at article talk page, and/or pursue WP:Dispute resolution. -- Cirt (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Raffi Torres

    Resolved
     – Potentially misleading sentence removed.

    Your article on the Personal Life of of Raffi Torres where you stated that he did not attend the showcase Quebec Tornament because parents of other hockey players refused to financially support the team with Torres on it is pure rubbish. As a parent of a hockey player on that time I find this statement very offensive. Raffi was a great player and a great kid but his father Juan was a hot head. During a game prior to the Quebec Tornament Juan did not like how the game was played and went into the dressing room with all the kids in it and started screaming obsenities at the coach with liberal use of the "F" word. The coach challenged his behavior and asked him the apologize to the team and Juan refused to do so which prompted the coach to say if he didn't apologize he was not welcomed at the Quebec Tornament. As a matter of fact we took Raffi's game sweater with us to Quebec hoping that his father would come to his senses and deliver the apology. That did not happen and that is why Raffi didn't play in the tornament. As parents we were never approached to provide financil help and I'm sure we would have done it because Raffi was a polite and amazing kid not just in talent but in personality. I challenge you to print the correction or remove the lie !!!99.247.136.208 (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Suppose we assume that some other parents did threaten to withhold financial support, as the source says. Was it because of racism? Because of local politics? Because Juan used the "F" word? Because Juan was unapologetic to the coach? The source gives no clue; the pertinent sentence in the source is a one-sentence paragraph bereft of any further explanation. So, I agree that the sentence has very little encyclopedic value. It's like saying in a biography that the subject got into a fistfight at the age of 13, without saying with whom or why. This Wikipedia article now says that, "Growing up as an ethnic minority, he was often given a hard time during his young hockey career." This quoted sentence is well-sourced and should not be removed. But the sentence about the tournament in Quebec doesn't seem to add much, and is potentially misleading.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Issue involving questionable material appears to have been addressed. Semi-protected page during BLPN assessment. -- Cirt (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    willem alberts

    Resolved
     – New user welcomed - article updating is a simple editing issue

    ARTICLE REQUIRES UPDATING..HE WAS SELECTED FOR THE SPRINGBOK RUGBY TOUR OF THE UK IN 2010. FIRST CAP VERSUS WALES AS A SUBSTITUTE , SCORED TRY ON DEBUT - unsigned post by 99.237.146.103. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Then go update it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcomed the anon user. -- Cirt (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Zsa Zsa Gabor

    Resolved
     – Medical minutae scaled back

    Re: 71.38.182.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    A user is overloading this brief bio with medical minutia. The material was already tagged and was later moved to the talk page for discussion. The editor restored the material [15] writing "health section needs to stay. PERIOD." Another editor also removed the section and the editor again undid that edit writing "kiss my bloomers! zsa zsas health section STAYS!" There has been no response to a RfC so far, but feel that the excessive medical details may be an invasion of her privacy with undue focus. Gabor is 93 and the medical details go back over the last 8 years only. Because she has been in the news recently, the article has been visited by as many as 22,000 people just a few days ago. Some 2nd opinions would be helpful. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Trimmed out some material per WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Semi-protected the page during ongoing BLPN investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Zsa Zsa is a public figure. To the extent that her personal info is cited to reliable and verifiable sources, there's not much of a privacy issue. That leaves an undue weight issue, which is not a huge BLP concern, but Cirt is correct that the undue detail can usefully be trimmed, per WP:Recentism, WP: NOTNEWS, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I trimmed out some more material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    mikinyar bio graphy

    Resolved
     – New user welcomed and assisted.

    the afghan political history and policy 10:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC) hellio iam afghan policy writer.i want to writ more abouth miskinyar and ariana afghanistan tv.befor to week i talked with miskinyar and told to him i want to cmoplet his biography and and has tv .he give it permission .i wrot has biography and wiki persion now i want to writ in english.he send foto and somweitin,pleas give it permissio to writ about him. afghanpolicy 15november - User:Afghanpolicy27 - link to user page added by Off2riorob.

    I think this is about Nabil Miskinyar - Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Informed editor at his talk page that no permission is needed to create, improve, and/or expand a Wikipedia biography such as Nabil Miskinyar.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Worden High School: Headteachers

    Resolved
     – New user welcomed and spurious information removed.

    The DATES of Headteachers:- Mr. D.R. Tilston was Head from 1989 to 2005

    Mrs. S. Rignall was Head 2005 to 2010

    Thank you D.R. Tilston 95.148.74.23 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The questionable information has been removed, with an explanation at the article talk page.
    I also put a welcome message at the user's talk page. Note that the article said earlier today that Tilston was in charge 1989–2002, and Rignall has been in charge 2002–2010. The message at the article talk page refers to this discussion. I also created a redirect at Worden High School.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected the page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Butch Conde

    The article is poorly sourced and was obviously done by a person who may be a member of the church of this certain Butch Conde. Saying also that the pastor is a "health expert" lacks basis and evidence, and gives doubt to the true occupation of the person.

    Peridan (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC) 16:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that the article has been up for deletion since a few minutes ago. The deletion request says: "I don't see notability established here...and can't find any sources other than some social media-type sites, and promotional websites (and even those are limited). His church's website, and a questionable book (with no ISBN number provided) are currently the only sources."
    I put a note at the AFD page mentioning this BLPN discussion. How about if we put this BLPN discussion on hold while the AFD discussion continues, so that the discussion occurs in one place?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butch Conde = the ongoing AFD discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Saud bin Saqr al Qasimi

    Resolved
     – Description of Minnesota incident abbreviated

    An issue that had been previously deemed a BLP guideline violation has recently returned to this entry. The subject was arrested, but no charges were ever pressed. Active Banana had previously judged the topic to be not exactly wp:npov and wp:undue. As I see it, it is a clear violation of: Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.Lucastar78 (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • - I left the user thats been inserting the disputed content a note and a link to this thread. As the content has previously been rejected on BLP grounds I have also requested the editor not to replace the content without discussion and support from some other editors. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a quick look and imo Lucasstar78 and Active Banana are correct, titillating tabloid story cited to the smoking gun, June 2005 housemaid claimed sexual molestation, no evidence, says was booked on two counts of felony criminal sexual conduct, says he left the country. Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, Sheikh Khalid bin Saqr Al Qasimi is the half-brother of Saud bin Saqr al Qasimi. There was a BLPN discussion about the former (Khalid) in December 2009,[16] and a BLPN discussion about the latter (Saud) in September 2010.[17]Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not apart of some 'smear' campaign. I don't even know this guy and never heard of him before this. I am from Rochester, Minnesota, and this arrest and incident received widespread attention here and all across Minnesota. To say that this is "unsubstantiated and immaterial" is simply not true. The guy is the head of a country. If Obama or Bush had been arrested for rape, do you not think it would be worthy of mention or material / relevant, or should it be covered up? How was the edit not neutral? I used the term "allegedly." And the facts are the facts. The woman said what she said. The suspect told several different stories before finally admitting that he groped or touched her breasts without her permission (which is the very definition of sexual assault - at least in this country). All of this was recorded on tape and the police reports are publically available. So the facts are what they are. Simply trying to erase it and pretending it didn't happen is unacceptable and is a lie.
    Even if the allegations were or are false, simply the fact that he was arrested is notable. All kinds of famous people have been accused of sexual assault, some not even arrested. But that information is noted on their Wikipedia article because it is of note. The guy is the head of a country and a very serious allegation was made against him. What is titillating about it? Other than murder, there is no more serious an allegation than rape. Brittany Cintron (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The material you inserted was excessive, but that doesn't mean the issue can't be mentioned in the article. The guy was not convicted, or even charged. And why use The Smoking Gun as a source? The Smoking Gun is mainly a publisher of primary source documents, and their reliability as a secondary source is not as great.
    This matter was previously considered at BLPN, and the main objection was poor sourcing. But now the Guardian is one of the cited sources, and the Guardian is reliable. The Guardian says, "In 2005 he was arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting a housekeeper in a Minnesota hotel, but no charges were brought.". We could include something similar, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This notion goes back to the original complaint. The Guidelines say: Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Does an unsubstantiated event five years ago rise to the level of importance to be included in an article of this length? For what reason other than to spread titillating claims about people's lives? I think that the biased tone of these initial postings proves a malicious intent and assumes someone was guilty when there was never any legal proceeding. There is no ongoing controversy about this subject, it has no impact on past or present realities.Lucastar78 (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, as far as I know, Wikipedia welcomes editors who are filled with malice, as long as they write top-notch non-malicious articles that comply with all policies here. The sentence from the Guardian does not appear malicious in my opinion, and the article on this person is long enough that including such a sentence would not be undue weight. Wikipedia could --- if it wants to --- flatly prohibit mentioning criminal allegations against people who have not been duly convicted; that might be an excellent policy for Wikipedia to adopt, but until then we have to follow reliable sources. Try this: "In 2005 he was a suspect in an alleged assault in Minnesota, but no charges were brought." This is very brief, a footnote can provide a link to the Guardian for readers who want to learn more. This way, there can be no appearance that we are hiding anything, and yet this person's article will not be filled with smears or unverified details.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - yes a good solution, - In 2005 he was a suspect in an alleged assault in Minnesota, the claims resulted in no charges.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/06/ras-al-khaimah-coup|title=Ras al-Khaimah coup: The main players|publisher=[[The Guardian]]|date=June 6, 2010|accessdate=November 16, 2010}}</ref>
    The article's been edited accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected the page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sheriff Lee Baca

    "Baca ordered criminal probe outside jurisdiction on behalf of political donor" (October 25, 2010) by Robert Faturechi, Los Angeles Times.

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.18.222 (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Cirt welcomed the new user. I added a note at the user talk page requesting clarification. I also mentioned this LA Times article at the article talk page in case they're interested.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP copy and pasted the whole citation to the article, I removed it and left him a note on his talkpage telling him no to do that again and supplied him a link to this thread. Looking at the citation it is laced with editorial opinion and vague comments from so and so, none of it is worthy of inclusion imo, unless something actually develops from it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP keeps doing it. I gave him a final warning.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it seems by his actions he is just a troll, he has been blocked for 48hours by Administrator HelloAnnyong - Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the admin that carried out the block on this IP. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hilary Swank

    Resolved
     – The birthplace has been corrected in the article.

    Someone keeps changing Hilary Swank's birth place incorrectly. They keep putting Lincoln, Nebraska but Swank was born in Washington. Swank lied about her birthplace when filming Boys Don't Cry in order to seem more connected to Brandon, but later explained her fib.---unsigned comment by Greatwhiteshark1234. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've edited the article to reflect ambiguity of the birthplace, and left a comment at the article talk page mentionng BLPN.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected the page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pramila Vasudevan

    Resolved
     – Article has been deleted.

    Pramila Vasudevan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    To whom it may concern,

    To me this biography is obviously self-published and is a waste of server space. The posted alerts speak for themselves.

    From my personal experience the subject is a "legend in her own mind," to say the least. She is a grantsmanship-working public arts funding phenomena in Minneapolis, MN. I don't believe her entry conforms to the biographies of living persons policies, and wish it could be removed on grounds of being misuse of wikipedia.

    Thank you, mostly LOVE your webcyclopedia!:) "will6iam" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will6iam (talk • contribs) 07:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has been deleted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Salted the page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Héctor Melesio Cuén Ojeda

    I have removed some negative, non-neutral, BLP-violating content from Héctor Melesio Cuén Ojeda. Would someone from this noticeboard (especially anyone who is proficient in Spanish) review the sources 1, 2, and 3, and see if the corruption charges are supported by the sources and if such charges should be given a brief mention in the article? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Allegations and calls for an inquiry, no inquiry no charges, something about elections, usual partisan attacks, personally I wouldn't add it unless it develops, seven students asking for a case, alleging he siphoned of or sold some properties belonging to the uni cheap and that he was claiming a salary and doing no work, one issue is the fact that it is a stub and adding it in the way it was written just became an attack page. Jonh humphries, is the mayor of Gasllicia, he is a thief and stole all this and all that, there are no charges and as yet no investigation but hey,its all true. Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone else speak Spanish? I don't. Google has an automatic translator, but it's not so great.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected the page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ileana D'Cruz

    Resolved
     – Vandalism removed, article overhauled, article semi-protected.

    This BLP seems to be mostly unwatched and heavily vandalised. I stumbled across it looking at the other contributions of a vandal when I reverted vandalism elsewhere, and nobody but me seems to be looking at it at the moment; also, whenever I see vandalism there, the version that was vandalised also seems to be incorrect. As far as I can tell, the article is mostly a heap of vandalism at the moment, with other vandals changing the information back and forth between incorrect versions. (For instance, I had to fix this suspicious-looking edit with something that was not a revert at all; of the two references for the statement in question, one didn't match either version, whereas the other didn't reference the statement at all.) Could someone have a look at it and try to figure out what parts of it are actually valid, and which are entirely a pile-up of vandalism? --ais523 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

    I'll look.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected the page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Article overhauled, vandalism removed, additional sources cited.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Gregory David Roberts

    This article can use more eyes. A person claiming to be the subject of the article has starting making changes, and of course aren't aware of our policies and procedures. I left a note on User:ResolutionTheory's talk page on how to proceed, but if a more experienced editor can review and make sure I haven't missed anything that would be great. Akerans (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected the page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Alan_Parsons

    Resolved
     – template vandalism reverted --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone's edited a template so that the opening line of this article accuses Parsons of theft. The change is not in the revisions history, and it's not visible when you attempt to edit the page.

    It appears to have been corrected; I see no such accusation in the lede. Follow-up: Template:Infobox musical artist/tracking was vandalised. The vandalism was reverted and the template is now clean. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Karl Dean

    Questionable information in the introduction. "My name is Karl Dean, and I am from the United Kingdom. I'm a bright, happy and easy-going person with a good sense of humor." These instances need to be removed. ---unsigned comment by 128.231.45.53. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted the nonsense from the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected the page. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Private trial concerning the owner and CEO of Moxon Huddersfield

    Mr Firas Chamsi-Pasha is the owner and CEO of this company. He has been the object of a notable litigation with his housemaid, reported by many 3rd party sources. He finally won the litigation, as reported by many sources. Is it appropriate to mention this in the article on Moxon Huddersfield?   Racconish Tk 19:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This doesn't appear to have anything to do with the company. Is he notable enough for an article himself? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He has been the public face of this company since he acquired it in 1993. Hence my hesitation.   Racconish Tk 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's COATRACK unless Moxon was a defendant. It is unlikely to merit more than a sentence in a Firas Chamsi-Pasha article. THF (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. This helps.   Racconish Tk 21:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed Drewett

    Self promotional and contextually inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.45.114 (talk • contribs)

    Britton Chance

    Britton Chance is listed as dead in his article and on Deaths in 2010, but I don't see anything other than blog notices that are reporting his death. Didn't want to revert, as maybe I'm missing something, but I would have thought that the death of a person who has a lab named after him, and an Olympic gold medal, would get some better coverage... 96.52.5.187 (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed Reilly (karting)

    My name is Ed Reilly and my friends have made a greatly exaggerarted wikipiedia link about me. I want it off! Help! - 222.155.28.191 (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD ongoing, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Reilly (karting). -- Cirt (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Esther Hicks

    Robert Todd Carroll is a notable author who published articles in The Skeptical Inquirer and also published the book Skeptic’s Dictionary. He has written a criticism on the work of Esther Hicks on his website skepdic.com, which I feel is appropriate to be listed as Criticism under Esther Hicks’ external links. It does not take up a disproportionate part of the page, and it is more neutral than many of the external links on other similar pages. Sylvia Browne‘s page, and John Edward‘s page both list critical links from less credible and more slanted sources than the skeptic’s dictionary article. Opinions? Lesley1914 (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)lesley1914[reply]

    Per WP:BLP, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also per WP:BLP, "Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the 'Further reading' or 'External links' sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hector Holthouse

    Resolved
     – two cites added for expiration. Thanks to all. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hector Holthouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Hector Holthouse is not a living person. He died in 1991. Peter Bell (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't find any online sources reporting his death, I assume that if he did indeed die in 1991 then it would be mentioned in ISBN 0646108980 written by a relative in 1992. I think the death needs to be verified from a source like this before the category can be removed. SmartSE (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a cat . . possibly living people, I can't find anything either, perhaps an Aussie editors knows or can find a citeation .. Off2riorob (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you got a citation that reports the death Peter? - I have added possibly living as it is uncited although, Peter seems to be a writer and a historian from that area. Off2riorob (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been puzzling me for some time, because Holthouse obviously stopped writing (or at least publishing) in 1991, but information about him is hard to come by. The blurbs on his books, his publishers' websites and library catalogues never give a date of death for him. However, a recent article on historians who have written about Queensland gave his life span as 1916-1991, which fits everything else that is known about him: Metcalf, Bill, "Histories of Queensland: a Bibliographic Survey", Queensland History Journal 21, No. 3, November 2010, p. 171. I've added the reference to the article. Peter Bell (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The National Library of Australia says the chap expired in 1991.[18]Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tim Patterson

    A user by the name of Borneolobster keeps inserting information on this biographical page on Dr. Tim Patterson, a professor of Earth Sciences at Carleton University, claiming that he is an American, born in Calais, Maine, and gives an incorrect birth year. Dr. Patterson himself has tried to correct this, and I, too, have tried to correct this (I am a student of his), yet Borneolobster claims it is vandalism. This information is nowhere to be seen on Google or any other source outside of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure where Borneolobster gets the information on Dr. Patterson's biographical details. I'd say it's just as easily a case of vandalism, since it is all unsourced. Since I know Dr. Patterson personally, I can vouch that none of it is true. This could all easily be corroborated by contacting Carleton University directly. Since so much of the material on the page is dubious, and since the burden of proof on our end (proving we are who we are) might be daunting, I'd recommend the page be locked from further edit (at least relating to the biographical details), the current biographical details removed, and it strictly being about his scientific publication record until biographics can be sorted. 143.117.143.17 (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed it as its uncited and left Borneo lobster a note with a link to this thread and asked he not replace it again without a WP:RS or discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected during ongoing BLPN investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ari Fleischer

    Resolved
     – content removed as undue, see discussion below

    Although it is an incontrovertible fact that Fleischer told many spectacular lies to the press, and became famous for contradicting reporters quoting him directly - to the point that Slate's Timothy Noah published many accountings of his lying, reference to this notable feature of his career have been removed repeatedly, seemingly with a partisan agenda. Xuancris (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected during ongoing BLPN investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    During his tenure he became notorious for telling spectacular and implausible lies in defense of the invasion of Iraq.

    Off2riorob

    I have heard of the blog "Daily Kos" but have not heard that it is considered a reliable source at Wikipedia. Blogs generally are not reliable sources, unless they are operated by newspapers that have editorial control. Accordingly, I've removed the two blogs (Daily Kos and Think Progress), and used in-text attribution for the Slate column by Timothy Noah, per WP:Weasel. I'm not quite sure what to do about Noah and his Slate column. Law Professor Eugene Volokh rebutted Noah at Volokh's blog,[19] so it seems kind of one-sided to only include the Noah reference in our Wikipedia article. And yet we might be running into trouble by including the Volokh blog, because --- after all --- it's a blog. Maybe the best thing might be to just remove the Noah sentence, inasmuch as Noah has not been cited by other reliable sources. What do you think?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about tiny minorities

    According to WP:BLP, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Since we don't have any indication that any other person or reliable source agrees with the opinion piece by Timothy Noah, does that mean we should remove the mention of Noah's opinion in this BLP?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, given that there were no objections to removing the sentence about Noah, I've done so, with the following edit summary: "Undue weight. Noah is the only RS making this claim. Also see http://volokh.com/2003_05_25_volokh_archive.html#200365236".Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support that removal, the addition was like a school playground chant of liar liar, undue weight to an attacking POV. Of course, notable incidents of controversy can be, and are included in the article in a more encyclopedic style. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Louise Glover - repeated OTRS and on-wiki complaints from the subject

    There are two issues here:

    • Per User talk:Scott MacDonald#Louise Glover, we need what we were citing as sources double-checked. Were the sources reliable, high-quality, and factual reporting rather than sensationalism?
    • On Talk:Louise Glover we need to work out whether and how to include the legal incidents. Clearly, giving them a top-level section heading is a wholly over-emphatic way to present them; even standalone sections of their own at all is probably wrong, since it obscures context. Equally clearly, this is a case where summary style does harm rather than good. Moreover: Is this even what is in the sources at all? The subject asserts that the facts of the matter are more prosaic. Are we again parrotting someone else's sensationalism?

    More eyes are appreciated. Uncle G (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Poorly sourced material

    I need to log off for a couple hours, but I'm hoping an editor or two could pop Nabil Miskinyar on to their watchlist. An IP has been adding unsourced material to the article throughout the day. They are inserting the material between other references, adding [1] to signify references that are not supplied, and making an overall mess of the article. I've directed them to the talk page to discuss what edits they would like to make and even offered to help them with the formatting and english, but I'm just repeatedly reverted without discussion. As far as BLP violations go, this is small potatoes (it's not even the crumbs of said potatoes), but it is a BLP that is being edited disruptively and without regard to guidelines. Any help would be appreciated. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice try Ponyo, there is just no helping some people though. I reverted the edits and left him a template. Seems in good faith but the refusal to discuss is the main issue now. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (Popping in quickly), thanks Rob. I think there are language issues involved; I can't help them if they can't understand me. They are actually edit warring to make the article worse. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected during this ongoing BLPN investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohammed Akbar Jehangir Aurangzeb Shah Jehan Frasier Ravi Teja

    Resolved
     – deleted

    The article is about the actor Ravi Teja but is titled as - "Mohammed Akbar Jehangir Aurangzeb Shah Jehan Frasier Ravi Teja".

    david papaleo

    David Papaleo requests that this information be removed - the entire page. Most of it is not notable, relelvant or well document s as far as his personal life and career - not even his hair color or weight is correct. The timeline of his life in aslo incorrect. The references to his sexuality are sensationalist and slanted. Most of the informatin is demonstrably false, libelous, private and sensitive.Tpapaleo (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Although editors may still comment on your request, one recourse you have is to nominate the article for deletion. You should read the criteria carefully.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that is perhaps one option. Feel free to nominate it if you feel that is correct. Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Suhas Gopinath

    Resolved
     – Pending protected

    Suhas Gopinath has been subject to ongoing low-level vandalism. I believe it should be semi-protected. I made a request on the talk page but got no response, so I thought I would mention it here. I would do it myself, but Suhas is a friend and don't want there to be any conflict of interest concerns.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not an admin, but I'll watchlist it and monitor for vandalism. Yworo (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put the article into pending changes. I have no problem if someone wants to swap that out with semiprotection. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mary-Kay Wilmers

    To be on the safe side I've undone brand-new editor Yuraboosteezee's pair of edits on this page. Since this isn't really my field I thought best to bring it to the attention of people who know what they're doing. Thanks, almost-instinct 10:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Keiko Fujimori

    A well-meaning new editor, non-native English speaker, keeps removing referenced material in an attempt to sanitize the article before the election. I can't get them to desist, can you? Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would not necessarily agree that an editor seeking to sanitize an article is "well-meaning".
    More importantly, the thing that the new editor is seeking to remove is the assertion that the subject plans to pardon her father. In fact, as far as I can tell, the subject has no such plans.
    <ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-01/fujimori-nostalgia-in-peru-fuels-daughter-s-candidacy.html "Fujimori Nostalgia in Peru Fuels Daughter’s Candidacy"], Bloomberg Business Week (2010-07-01): "After previously vowing to pardon her father if elected, she now says she will wait for the Constitutional Court to rule on an appeal before deciding."</ref>
    Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I corrected the info in the article, and included the new footnote described above. But, the editor in question took this footnote out and put in lots of uncited info. So, I reverted with the following edit summary: "Infinitoperu, you can add this info if you include footnotes and do not delete footnotes." I won't revert again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thandie Newton

    In this article Thandie Newton is listed as being married to two people:- In the sidebar:"Spouse Ol Parker (1998–present; 2 children)" In the text:"Newton married American music producer Joshua Earl in 1998" I believe the first of these to be correct, but am unsure, hence the query.

    Regards

    Simply old undetected vandalism from an IP address. I've reverted it. Yworo (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=397816074"