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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:32, 10 June 2011

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Ray Lewis

Section 4 titled Arrest for Murder uses speculative information and a testimony as factual information. References 25 specifically. The section suggest Ray Lewis is guilty and presents him in a negative light. The section should read like this:

Lewis gained infamy through his involvement in a much-publicized tragedy in Atlanta after Super Bowl XXXIV. Lewis, along with Reginald Oakley and Joseph Sweeting, were charged with two counts of murder and four other felony counts in the deaths of Richard Lollar and Jacinth Baker, after a street brawl left two young men dead outside a nightclub. [12][25]

On June 5, a plea bargain was struck, and murder and aggravated assault charges against Lewis were dropped in exchange for his testimony against his companions. He pled guilty to one count of obstruction of justice and was sentenced to a year of probation. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue fined Lewis $250,000 for conduct detrimental to the league, a penalty aimed at the obstruction of justice. [12]

Lewis' testimony didn't help the prosecution in the four-week trial, which ended in acquittals for Oakley and Sweeting. [12]

The following year, Lewis was named Super Bowl XXXV MVP. However, the signature phrase "I'm going to Disney World!" was given instead by quarterback Trent Dilfer.

In 2004, Lewis reached a settlement compensating then four-year-old India Lollar, born months after the death of her father Richard, preempting a scheduled civil proceeding. Lewis also previously reached an undisclosed settlement with Baker's family. [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnsy1627 (talk • contribs)

Lee Rhiannon

There is presently a discussion at Talk:Lee Rhiannon#"Hard-line pro-Moscow communist" regarding the inclusion of content about her alleged involvement with the Communist Party of Australia, and that of her parents. The proposed addition is mainly sourced to blogs and the publications of the Sydney Institute, a conservative thinktank. There has been a slow burning edit war over this content in the past weeks, and I feel the discussion would benefit from the participation of uninvolved editors. -- Lear's Fool _mobile 04:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" involvement? This shows what I am up against. Her mother joined the CPA in 1936, her father in 1940. Her father was editor of the CPA newspaper Tribune. She herself grew up in the CPA and was a member of its successor, the SPA, for at least a decade, as she has said herself. These are not "allegations", they are widely known and incontrovertable facts, fully sourced, yet Greens editors continue to delete them because they find it embarrassing that one of their Senators was a communist. This is nothing but suppression of facts for partisan reasons. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome Lear's Fool's request for additional objective oversight. Chrismaltby (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The large addition that User:Intelligent Mr Toad is desirous to insert is imo totally undue and coatracking lots of stuff about her parents and appears a partisan attempt to assert she is a communist a claim she strongly denies. She has been a green party member for 21 years. Please also remember the article is about her and not her parents. Mr Toads usage of such external blogspots at this http://kurtrudder.blogspot.com/2011/05/greens-and-fundamentalism.html - is also against all wikipedia guidelines and policy.Off2riorob (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Rhiannon is more than capable of lying about her family's communist past in order to shore up votes. Members of the Australian or state Greens should not be allowed to edit her article - the conflict of interest is obvious. Paul Austin (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP is now edit warring to add the material. I think an uninvolved admin may be needed here. -- Lear's Fool _mobile 10:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting editors based on their political affiliation is a VERY bad idea. Wikipedia has never required that editors be free of conflicts of interest, only that they don't let those CoIs prevent them from abiding by policy. If we banned Greens from editing (and were somehow able to implement that), it would present a strong risk of anti-Green bias in the article. If we then restored the balance by banning anti-Greens from editing as well, we'd end up with a very poor-quality article because there'd be nobody left with an interest in or knowledge of the subject. --GenericBob (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My text does not say or imply that Rhiannon is still a communist, and I have said several times that I don't think she is. The text does not say when she ceased to be a communist, because so far as I know she has never made a statement on that question. Her parents' biographies are relevant because of her public statement that they were "not Stalinists", which is plainly false. This therefore goes to the question of her honesty about her past, which has been the subject of considerable public controversy in Australia and no doubt will continue to be. I don't go as far as Paul in saying she is "lying" about this - people frequently come to believe things about their parents which they simultaneously know not to be true. If my parents had publically defended the Moscow Trials and the Hitler-Stalin Pact, I'd be defensive about it too. I reject the view the length of my text on Rhiannon's past is disproportionate or unjustified. She has not yet taken office as a Senator, so most of her political career is in the past. She was a communist for over 30 years - from childhood until some time in the 1980s. She has been an ex-communist for perhaps 25 years. Readers of this article will be looking for a full account of her political past, and I have written one. Greens loyalists are entitled to debate my edits with me and amend any wordings they think are unfair. They are not entitled simply to delete my text and leave no account of Rhiannon's communist past at all. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Intelligent Mr Toad's edits could be much better sourced, but do reflect actual facts. He should drop the "green conspiracy" rhetoric - even if/though true, it's pointless arguing along those lines. User:Chrismaltby seems to be keen to whitewash the article, he should be encouraged to be a bit more objective and exhibit less ownership of the article. --Surturz (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said a few times, the issue is not with including relevant factual material, it's to do with the undue weight and non-neutrality of the proposed additions by Mr Toad. That is not just my admittedly biased view, but one shared by several disinterested moderators. As for "ownership" of the article, I am perfectly willing to share in consensus making about edits. I am happy to recognise that I am not the font of all wisdom on this topic or any other. Chrismaltby (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support most of Mr Toad's material but there are some bits I find problematic. Working off this diff:

"Rhiannon asserts that she was never a (CPA) member" - as far as I can tell from the article and ref attached to that sentence, nobody has ever alleged that she was. This comes across a bit "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" to me - 'assert' has connotations of a debate. If other editors feel the fact needs to be mentioned, IMHO it would work better in the second paragraph as a direct quote: "In 1971 the CPA split over attitudes to the Soviet Union, and particularly the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Rhiannon stated that 'Although I was never a member of the CPA these divisions disturbed me.'" This makes the context clearer.
"However, (Rhiannon's parents) joined the CPA in the 1930s, at a time when it was totally loyal to the Soviet Union and Stalin's leadership of it: they could not have remained in the CPA if they did not share this belief. REF: Stuart Macintyre, the leading historian of the CPA, writes: "From 1930 the Communist Party of Australia adopted an iron discipline... that subordinated it to a nominally international organisation (the Comintern) that was itself subjected to the control of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union under the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin."" - the "they could not have remained..." bit looks like WP:SYNTH to me. It's certainly a plausible interpretation, but people are complicated don't always act in accordance with their beliefs. I'd be happy to leave the rest in, on the assumption that readers are just as competent to interpret those actions as we are.
Citation to Blogspot - not convinced Aarons' blog is notable enough for the mention, but open to argument on this.

--GenericBob (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's been frequently asserted that Rhiannon was a CPA member. I think Henderson said so in one of his pieces. I thought she had been, until I found her assertion that she wasn't. This surprises me, to put it mildly, but since I have no evidence that she was, I have reported her assertion. 2. The question of the state of the CPA and what its members were required to believe in the 1930s and 40s is relevant because of Rhiannon's statement that her parents were "not Stalinists." Anyone who knows the history of the CPA knows that this is a false statement. It was not possible to join the CPA in 1036 or 1940 without being a Stalinist - CPA members were taught their doctrine from Stalin's Foundations of Leninism and their history from the Short Course, which glorifies Stalin's every word. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re. #1 - in that case, I think it would work better with a cited instance of the assertion. I still think it would fit better in the second para of that section but that's an issue of flow, not BLP. #2 - I am not objecting to the inclusion of that reference. I think it's relevant to state that the CPA was totally loyal to the SU and Stalin, for the reasons you give, and the reference is appropriate for that claim. The only part that I'm suggesting be removed from that bit is "they could not have remained in the CPA if they did not share this belief". To me that goes beyond what's in the cited source; it seems a reasonable and highly likely conclusion to draw, but it is nevertheless synthesis. --GenericBob (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it relevant to talk about the alleged stalinism of people who are not the subject of the article? What does it mean to be a "stalinist" in the context of this article? Can you show that Rhiannon supported the Soviet pogroms, or the Nazi non-aggression pact or whatever it may be that she is damned for having implicitly done because her parents were CPA members in the 1930s or 1940s? This is way over into the realms of conspiracy theory not scholarship and no way is it suitable for a BLP... Chrismaltby (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GenericBob, I agree with your points. Chris, it's relevant because she has stated that her parents were "not Stalinists." It's relevant because it reflects on her honesty. If Eric Abetz said "my great-uncle Otto was not a Nazi," that would be a major scandal, because of course he was. There seems to be a double standard for Greens. I haven't said that Rhiannon supported the Great purge or the Hitler-Stalin Pact (although her parents certainly did - Bill Brown joined the CPA in 1940, when the USSR and Nazi Germany were allies!) I've said that she was a member of a party which supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the imposition of martial law in Poland and the persecution of Andrei Sakharov, which is an undeniable fact. Furthermore, I don't damn her because her parents were communists or because she was a communist - as I've noted, I was also a communist in my youth. I criticise her because she continues to make false statements about her parents and her own past. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please put points like this in a blog, not in an article at Wikipedia. When a very reliable and secondary source shows a reason to mention "stalinist" or whatever, then the matter can be considered. With your background it probably looks as if supporters of Rhiannon are trying to whitewash the article, but that's not true (there might be one or two, but cleaning out stuff like "X denied bashing his wife" is standard procedure here). Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what is "my background" exactly? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point discussing that. Please take my comment at face value—it is simply pointing out that Wikipedia operates differently from many sites, and while there are probably a couple of supporters trying to push their position on the article, it really is standard for material like that in question to be removed. The reason is easy to see if you consider how articles on politicians would look if the pro and con sides were given free reign to add whatever tidbits they could find. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate

Resolved

– Reporter User:Mindbunny has been indefinitely blocked for repeated violations of WP:Disruptive editing : WP:POINT,WP:BATTLE

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate

I was initially going to nominate the page for deletion, but 1) the page is protected and can't be nominated for deletion, 2) discussion might be better than deletion anyway. It is relevant here because WP:BLP "applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space...some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks." There doesn't seem to be an ideal forum for discussion, but since BLP does officially appply, I'll try here.

This page is a narrative of a prolonged dispute from years ago. Unfortunately, it is also an attack page, primarily aimed at a now-banned user but also blaming, active editors. It is almost completely unsourced. Information about the identity of editors can't be sourced, because it is off-wiki (mostly from Wikipedia Review AKA "WR") The more inflammatory the accusation, the less likely it is that there's a source The page says:

"The man behind the accounts has been named on Wikipedia Review as a middle-aged British civil servant who stole photographs of attractive women so he could pretend the accounts were run by them...He has a history of impersonating women elsewhere" (unsourced)
"...he claimed to be G______. H_______., 26 years old, who lived either in Hertfordshire or Essex." (unsourced)
"The writing was also either very masculine and pompous, or too feminine, or rather it was what some men might suppose is feminine — simpering, flirtatious, and childish." (attack)
"It was pretty clear that the writer was male, probably an older man, and very likely someone who had issues with women and little experience of close relationships with them." (attack, unsourced)
"Others began to join WR, some of them frankly lunatics, and a couple who seemed violent." (attack, unsourced)

Potential accusations of crimes or liabilities:

"He started the rumour that I was an intelligence agent, which Brandt and Slashdot later picked up on." (potentially an accusation of defamation; unsourced)
"What he or they did is likely to have involved a degree of real-world pursuit (or stalking, depending on how you look at it)" (potentialallegation of a crime, unsourced)
"They held a poll to decide whether the Mossad would kill me or jail me when they found out what I was "up to." They posted that I had faked my own death, and that I was a teenage girl who had murdered her mother." (potential allegation of a crime, unsourced)

I stopped excerpting about half way through (but the attacks, hints of identifying information, and unsourced insinuations with legal implications continue).

The page also contains a section devoted to User:Cla68 [1], who is currently active on Wikipedia: "The WR attacks have carried over onto Wikipedia with User:Cla68's pursuit of me, which has been going on for over a year. Cla is also strongly supported by Lar (who has told people that I am the Wikipedian he most dislikes)." The gist of the section is that Cla68 opposed SlimVirgin in an ArbCom case. That's it. He is included in this narrative alleging death threats and stalking, as an attempt to smear by association. SlimVirgin's comment shows bias: "The diffs Cla produced in his ArbCom evidence against me [6] do not show what he claims they show. But again, who has the time to go through them all," She didn't read them, yet knows they don't show what he claimed... The page contains periodic blamings and sideswipes of other editors, but no other editors get their own section.

The page has been defended on the grounds that it documents abuse, and as such could be useful in preventing recurrence. First, it is just SlimVirgin's narrative. Documenting anything requires sources. Second, most of the abuse it describes is on another Web site (Wikipedia Review). Third, it doesn't document abuse to speculate on someone's dysfunctional relationships with women, to publish identifying information about his name, residence, and age, or to insult him as simpering and pompous. Fourth, some of the accusations could be construed as having legal implications yet are unsourced. It's possible that a much abbreviated version of this page could belong on Wikipedia, if it contained a distillation of information solely needed to prevent a recurrence. As it stands, it isn't related to making content choices and has little value helping us work together. It is mostly a way for SlimVirgin to attack her enemies.

Note, there is an official page for documenting long-term abuse: [2]: why hasn't it been used instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindbunny (talk • contribs) 16:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page is a history page, very useful as a reference. It is not an attack page. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if it is a history page, it should be in a section on long term abuse/special abusers as Poetlister certainly was/is one. And it should not be fully protected. My actual thought is that this page is more of a blog posting summary of events from SV's point of view and is not a good page for inclusion in wikipedia anywhere. It would be better kept either at home, or (if SV wants it public) hosted somewhere else. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how unsourced claims can be "useful as a reference". Ditto for outright viiolations of policy, such as publishing identifying information about an editor--and then insinuating he has "issues with women". Mindbunny (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the page refers to several people by their real names. That would bring it into the BLP orbit. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, this post is troll. Mindbunny has being using his own userspace to comment on living people and been blocked for it. He is also, AFAIK in a dispute with SlimVirgin. So, this is hypocrisy and posturing. On the substance, we do have lost of pages recording past events, and people's opinions of other's editing - so allowing one user to have a "right of reply" in their userspace is no biggy. To compare this with BLP is silly. All the people mentioned on that page voluntarily participated in this project, have commented on other users, and now have only their own conduct being commented upon. So, no big deal. If there is an issue it has to do with user interaction and courtesy not with BLP. Further, I am not aware of either Cla or Lar having complained about the existence of the page, and both are big enough to fight their own battles without Mindbunny's help (Poetlister can burn in hell; we don't need to worry about offending him/her/it). Having said all that, I courtesy blanked some of my own old userspace commentary which touched on Slim Virgin, so she might be open to doing the same, if reasonably requested by those affected. Bottom line: there is no action to take here.--Scott Mac 21:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an attack page, certainly not the Poetlister comments; truth being the rationale - plus the fact that Poetlister is an account name, not a person, and the relationship between Poetlister and the RL identity is verifiable and provable (it may be argued that by not referencing the facts that it is less of a potential source of embarrasment than it may be) as is the determination of his abuses of accounts and the identities of innocent third parties. The antipathy between SlimVirgin and Lar is also a matter of record, and - if Lar was still active - would likely be acknowledged. As for Cla68, I think he is also pragmatic enough to acknowledge that SV has voiced her concerns regarding him in several venues - and so is a matter of record.
Declaration of interest; I am familiar with "Poetlister" and their lies, deceits, and issues - and have been one of those initially fooled - and can vouch for the accuracy of SV's detailing of their activity. I am also aware that it is of concern that the person behind Poetlister continues to try and infiltrate WP - so such a record is useful when checking the activities of a suspicious account. Lastly, me and Slim... We are not friends, but are on better terms now than in the past.
Why is this so important to you that you should continue with this after it did not gain traction at the admin noticeboard? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traction? In the ANI, it was suggested by an admin that I nominate it for deletion. Since I couldn't nominate it for deletion, I tried a different forum, that's all. The ANI closed for reasons that had nothing to with the reasons for objecting to it (an open a request for arbitration, since closed). The page is mostly unsourced and an attack. I am also, frankly, tired of SlimVirgin's attacks, but an editor's motives in complaining about something have nothing to do with the merit of the case. Mindbunny (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is for discussing edits, not editors. Scott Mac, I struck your attacks. If an admin wants to move this to MfD, that's fine. I was unable to do so, because the page is protected. It would be helpful if editors addressed the actual points. The idea that it is not an attack page because it is true is pretty silly, and not something that reflects any policy. Cal68 is on record as objecting to it, asking for it to be moved to WR. The page publishes identifying information about an editor and speculates about his sex life (or lack thereof), and accuses people of things are potentially crimes, and all of that is unsourced. Mindbunny (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not say too much about this, except that Mindbunny seems to be pursuing me in various ways, and I'd appreciate it if it would stop. I haven't read that page for a long time, so I'll undertake to read it soon and tighten bits of it, especially where names of editors are concerned. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarah, I really think that's all that needs done here. Mindbunny - stop pushing, it looks our like patience is wearing thin on several fronts.--Scott Mac 23:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Off-hand criticism of living people in non-article space where Mindbunny opened a threat to propose that disparaging remarks about living people SHOULD be allowed in userspace, and SHOULD NOT be a violation of the BLP policy. The opposition thing he's arguing here. Draw your own conclusions.--Scott Mac 00:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks Sarah"? Who is Sarah? Bielle (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a reference to SlimVirgin. Scott Mac and SlimVirgin must know each other in real life, or at least be friendly. That explains everything. Mindbunny (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who has only been active for two years, I am happy that records of such outrageous misbehavior are preserved in this form. Institutional memory is critical, and we must be certain that the people who misbehaved so horridly, as well as those who might choose to emulate them, are prevented from doing so in the future. As for you, SlimVirgin, I sympathize for the anguish you must have felt back then. Reading this account only deepens my respect for all the work you have done to advance and protect this wonderful project over the years. I thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but when revising the page it would be a good idea to keep BLP in mind when referring to living people by name. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it a while back, and it is eye opening, and extremely useful source of Wikipedia's history. It is a crash course on Wiki-politics for novices. It must be preserved absolutely. I haven't noticed real names; if these are mentioned, they don't need to be there. As for the initiator of this post, he was clearly (a) pursuing the author of the page and (2) making a point. I think this should stop, or be stopped. - BorisG (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly interesting that people keep referring to completely unsourced allegations as "documentary" and "a record", and "useful source of...history." Also, that speculation about someone's emotional dysfunction with women could be considered "useful history." Also, that posting identifying characteristics such as initials of real name, where he lives, who works for, and his age is not, taken together, considered a violation of "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment....". And that some of these allegations carry criminal implications (death threats, real-worldstalking) and are unsourced, yet nobody is conerned about potential defamation. And, of course, that bringing these concerns to a noticeboard immediately causes some editors to attack the editor with the concerns, rather than actually address the topic. Wikipedia has a formal method of tracking long-term abusers of the site. If it is adequate to this task, it should be used. If it is not adequate to the task, the problem should be addressed in a constructie way. Instead, it is being dodged and I am being called an "idiot" by an admin. Mindbunny (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a formal method of tracking long-term abusers of the site. If it is adequate to this task, it should be used. True. But the first step in all of these procedures is to approach the person that appears to be disruptive and ask them to stop this behaviour. That is what I am doing. - BorisG (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I came here for the Santorum controversy. But I saw this one, and it sounds pretty disturbing to me. I have no way to read the article since SlimVirgin, according to the comment, temporarily deleted it. But deleting it at this point makes it hard to analyze under BLP. Since it's been deleted, I can only go by what's being said here, and what's been said here and not rebutted doesn't sound good. I don't care if the user who complains said similar things were okay on another page, this complaint sounds pretty bad on its own merits. Wikipedia does not allow unsourced negative material about people. We do have an exception: "some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks." But the material that is purported to be on that page does make serious real life accusations and does contain personal attacks. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also only have this string to go on. But reach a slightly different conclusion. It seems there is some POINTy attacking going on. I'm not a fan of wikihounding. Bad for morale, as a general matter. As to the specifics, from what I read the only possible issue is if real names are reflected, and in an inappropriate way, which it would appear may not be the case or if it is then SV seems interested in addressing that complaint. I don't see much more to be done here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that BLP doesn't apply when real names aren't used would let us make accusations against basically anyone. We'd just have to point out that we haven't identified the person, and that any external sites that have identified him are not under our control, so it's not our fault that the combination of Wikipedia and the external site allows a negative inference to be made about the person. This would be a huge loophole that would make BLP worthless. Ken Arromdee (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the deleted page may have exhibited the characteristics you mention, plenty of us have read the page and can confirm that it is a very useful record of an extremely worrying part of Wikipedia's history (and I think the only BLP issue was that some early revisions of the page contained the real name of the highly disturbed individual behind all the trouble). I hope SlimVirgin restores the page as her deletion edit summary suggests ("deleting this for now until I have time to copy edit it") because the community needs significant events documented for assistance with future problems. This discussion was started as a POINT and should not be continued unless someone has evidence of a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence of the problem has been given repeatedly, and at every repetition is met with assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, and invocations of WP:POINT that serve to dodge the point. The contentious claims are unsourced. They can't document anything. Deal with the merits of the concern, instead of attacking those who raise it. Mindbunny (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Mindbunny is doing it too, then I would have no problem from making the same complaint about him. I can't see the things he posted either and there doesn't seem to be a good summary of them with enough details. But I really don't care. So the accusation does come from a user who does the same things himself. So what? It's bad when either person does it. And while he may be trying a WP:POINT, I'm certainly not. May I complain about the article starting from scratch and have it be treated as a legitimate BLP complaint? Those excerpts show far more than is necessary for documenting abuse. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point missed by those complaining about the "unsourced" aspect of the essay is that the events are recorded in the history of various pages (from memory, I think there was reference to a couple of other Wikimedia projects where history is also available, and perhaps to some off-wiki forums(?) where the text is likely to persist). There are a few possibilities: (1) SV invented large parts of the text (i.e. it's lies); (2) SV invented small embellishments (i.e. some details are lies); (3) SV made a couple of minor errors (i.e. some text is incorrect); (4) SV accurately recorded events that really did occur. Possibilities (1) and (2) are vanishingly improbable because SV is known to not lie, but also because the events were a huge drama, and SV a very well known figure with lots of people who follow everything she does, particularly when a drama unfolds—I have never heard any claim that there were inaccuracies in the essay (and it certainly is not all made up). Regarding (3) vs. (4): It does not matter if a couple of minor errors were made. The experienced editors who saw the events occur, and who investigated the issues in the following months, would have made a large amount of noise if the essay contained any significant errors. No one can point to any dissent regarding the essay other than claims that it needed more sources (i.e. evidence diffs). Regarding the essay as an "attack" is to totally miss the point: the events described were monumentally disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia, and it is vital that such abuses are recorded for reference as needed in the future (see WP:LTA for more). Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that does change things to some extent. If these are events that happened elsewhere on Wikipedia, that should obviously fall under the "administrative issues" exception.

I'm not convinced, though (given that I can't see the essay itself) that, from the description above, that it only covers events elsewhere on Wikipedia. It sounds as if a lot of it is about off-Wiki events and interpretations of them that may not necessarily have directly affected Wikipedia. Yes, they attacked a Wikipedian, but imagine if every user was allowed to put on their user page "I went to Wikipedia Review and I found that Wikipedian ____ obviously has issues with women. And he's a lunatic." It almost makes you wish for BADSITES.

It also sounds as if the essay involves users other than the banned one. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked Mindbunny (talk · contribs) for repeated WP:POINT. Hopefully this will be the end of their disruptions. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teo Ser Luck

There is defamatory and libelous information found on Talk:Teo Ser Luck. I've tried removing but a user by the name User:La goutte de pluie kept replacing it. User:La goutte de pluie has repeatedly vandalized the Teo Ser Luck page despite being told that self-published blogs as references aren't allowed. He did not update any other information pertaining to the living person, just kept reverting to his edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.246 (talk • contribs)

I think there are editors here that would be interested in looking at this issue but you need to provide us with diffs that specifically illustrate the issue at hand. As for accusations of vandalism, that should be taken to the Wikiquette noticeboard with some very specific diffs to back it up as it is a strong statement to make about another editor.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My aim is to provide a balanced view of the article. I even commented out the disputed section while discussion was in progress; I have invited the user to use the talk pages? I am very receptive to discussion, but I note that Yahoo News is generally a reliable source; correspondingly, writers hired by Yahoo News to write on Singaporean affairs are also reliable, as much as an opinion columnist on the Huffington Post is. If you google "Teo Ser Luck", discussion of his lacklustre rally style are easily found near the top, and are commented by a wide amount of writers. Yahoo News is only one of many sources discussing this issue.

The allegation is not to smear -- indeed, Teo Ser Luck's party often does the smearing -- but rather that if the PAP boasts to be a highly experienced and highly qualified government, why does it have high-ranking officials of such poor calibre? This is not my allegation, it is the Opposition's. Opposition-sympathetic views of a minister should be allowed to be on an article about a prominent politician.

I am very open to discussion! I have repeatedly tried using the talk pages and many avenues of discussion. Deleting talk page comments, and sockpuppetry, as this user has done, is clearly unjustified. It is not my tendency to edit war, but lack of discussion by those who disagree with my edits, when I have invited discussion, is disturbing to me. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quote:

"Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." -- WP:BLPSPS

I believe my source qualifies. Fann Sim is a professional under the full of editorial control of Yahoo News -- a very prominent source. Given Singapore's censorship, this is remarkable. However the user has not even engaged in discussion with me! I would like to know how my concern of censorship and whitewashing -- a very real concern given my country ranks #151 in the world -- is known as smearing. Actually I am inclined to add any relevant information as well. It seems to be the policy of MCYS -- I can support this with diffs, and I have caught Ministry IPs doing it -- to add "official" overly self-promoting, non-NPOV content from government websites and it flies under the radar, and to delete criticism of government ministers, even if they are well-sourced. MCYS agents have gone so far as to delete citations from the The Economist. This is alarming! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate how you have repeatedly smear the party mentioned or any politicians due to your extreme political views. I also do not appreciate how u have repeatedly accuse me of whitewashing when I have been taking efforts to make edits to members from other parties. Looking back at your edits made at Vivian Balakrishnan and Tin Pei Ling's pages , I'll suggest you to stop trolling if you cannot stay civil. Was Teo Ser Luck's rally speech of most importance that you have to keep adding it? Or are you just trying to include the particular youtube link just so to increase views to make you feel better? When President Obama accidentally became the joke of the day during his trip to the UK, was it documented on his wiki page? If trivia news like this need to be updated, I'd suggest you go and count the number of mistakes both opposition and proposition make in their rally speeches and update their pages. Fann Sim is listed as blog author, not journalist for SG yahoo. It remains an unofficial source. It is listed as blog over there for a reason. Or perhaps, you just want to include it just to find some way to 'humiliate' him since the information you are trying to include is so insignificant to be mentioned in any other sources.

I do not see the link with MCYS agents as Teo Ser Luck is now under MIT. I was waiting for you to finish vandalizing before editing his shift to MIT. Now you are still harping about MCYS. You even reverted my edits after I changed everything his new posts just to make it seem he's still with MCYS. Who is the one with the problem here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.242 (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to include the youtube link, I am trying to include a reliably sourced article. I really want to assume good faith, and I am really curious if you have read policy about two things: reliable sources, and Wikipedia:vandalism. Content disputes do not consist of vandalism; furthermore, misleading edit summaries are liable to get you sanctioned in some way or other.

"Or perhaps, you just want to include it just to find some way to 'humiliate' him since the information you are trying to include is so insignificant to be mentioned in any other sources."

Certainly the video is viral and is widely echoed around the internet that it appears at the top of search results and dominates google searches for Teo Ser Luck; secondly the issue is mentioned in a wide plethora of sources; but the Yahoo News link has the highest prestige. Thirdly, in a country with little press freedom, I do not find your argument that a significant event would be covered in more sources. There are many significant events that are not covered by the mainstream press due to well-known political bias. The existence of one reliable source that echo a wide array of views online is sufficient. Note that had a politician in a country with a freer press made such gaffes, it would be all over the news -- see George W Bush. Sarah Palin makes a slip-up an interview and one source covers this -- we include it.

I don't know what you consider "extreme political views". A large bulk of information in the Vivian Balakrishnan article favourable towards him was written by me. My accusation of whitewashing is not unfounded. I have repeatedly caught IPs from Ministry addresses editing articles on Singaporean politicians -- to say this on a talk page is not vandalism. You revert unilaterally and you do not use discussion pages unless your revision is threatened -- this is the only reason why I revert so frequently, is to try to get you to use the talk pages. You never use discussion voluntarily! I can post messages on your myriad sockpuppet pages and you never respond to them. When you accuse me of being incivil, I suggest you read Wikipedia:civility. If I were not an involved editor, I would have blocked you for your behaviour a long time ago. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fann Sim is listed as blog author, not journalist for SG yahoo."

This is a false accusation. Should I unilaterally remove your statement as libel, as you have done? Please read http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/author/fann-sim-/ and tell me that this author does not exhibit a high dose of professionalism in writing for Yahoo and helping it earn revenue (the writer would not be a guest writer, for example) and does not represent Yahoo News (after all, "follow Yahoo! News" is listed at the end of every article). I would appreciate if you would actually address the fact that blogs of reliable news sources are considered authoritative because of strict editorial control. I would appreciate if you actually addressed the appropriate sections of policy head-on. And yet you would remove my talk page comments on Teo Ser Luck simply because you do not agree with them! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is common sense SingaporeScene is a reliable source. Its subtitle is "fit to post" -- i.e. there is editorial control. All articles are written professionally. Articles have no POV disclaimers and are strongly linked with the Yahoo! News brand and even a physical address for the Yahoo branch in Singapore. Fann Sim is listed as a journalist; Jeffrey Oon is the SingaporeScene editor; SingaporeScene was formally called the Yahoo! Singapore Newsroom. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the article to stop the edit war and let this discussion proceed. Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walton & Johnson Show

Over the past several weeks, some entire new sections, that were little more than rambling rants of opinion, and in many cases, essentially defamatory character assassination were posted by an anonymous editor, to the article in question (Walton & Johnson Show).

When the non-encyclopedic opinion was repeatedly deleted by other editors, the anonymous editor (same IP address) put the opinion back with "citations" that were simply links to rants in blogs defaming the hosts of the radio show.

I first became aware of the issue when Walton & Johnson issued a statement ON AIR on today's show that they were considering suing Wikipedia over it's moderators failing to keep the liable against them out of the Wikipedia article about their show. So, I took a look at the article. My awareness of the "history" behind the defamation is simply the result of reviewing the article's recent history. By the time I looked, another editor (not anonymous) had, within minutes before I looked, removed most of the defamatory stuff and had cleaned up the article significantly. (That person probably heard the lawsuit threat on air like I had.)

I added the "Biography/Living" tag to the talk page on the article. I feel this is justified as the hosts of the radio show in question are living persons, speaking on air as themselves, and the article is, therefore, inherently biographical in nature.

These radio hosts are "shock jocks". Their intent is to anger some of their listeners, but I'm sure you'll agree that Wikipedia is not the forum for angry radio show listeners to be venting.

Just before I hit "save" on this report, the article was still free of the defamation, but the anonymous editor is persistent, it may be back by the time a moderator reads this.

Thank you.

Fish Man (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still happening. PLEASE protect this article from anonymous editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fish Man (talk • contribs) 20:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you noticed, Threeafterthree and I have been editing the article and the Talk page about the problems with the article. Things have quieted down, but the article is still a problem because it's now wholly lacking in inline sources. It's also unclear as to whether it's notable, although my guess is it is - I just don't know enough about radio talk shows and notability. I've taken things out and added tags, but I haven't looked for third-party coverage.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, very quickly, for 3rd party coverage but didn't see any. If any folks who "specialize" in radio shows or notability of articles could help us here, it would be appreciated. TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zerifa Wahid

Resolved

– moved to the correct name

THE NAME IS NOT jerifa wahid. it is ZERIFA WAHID. BORN IN ASSAM IN I978. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.145.234 (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report. Moved as per this report and search results. Article requires improvement from someone with understanding/knowledge of Jollywood - Off2riorob (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivica Dačić

The quote given on ths page [1] is factaully incorrect.It is marked for removal.The references cited below do not mention any shooting incident in March 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.184.51 (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as uncited. If it is actually correct, please cite to a WP:RS and replace. note - the user that added it Special:Contributions/Greenredwhiteblue was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked sockmaster User:Porgers - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

joan acocella

Hello I am Joan Acocella.

Someone keeps adding 2 derogatory paragraphs at the end of my Biography. I can see somone keeps deleting the 2 paragraphs. but they keep reappearing. Please Help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanacocella (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joan - I will keep an eye on your biography and will remove the paragraphs if they reappear, since they are unsourced and also rather silly. Keep in mind that Wikipedia doesn't have a policy prohibiting negative information in biographies, so if someone ever writes an article critical of you in in a reliable source mention of it might be included in your biography here - but even then, it would have to be proportional to the rest of what has been written about you, it couldn't dominate your biography here. The paragraphs that had been added there previously definitely did not belong. Kevin (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V. S. Naipaul

Please watchlist. Apparently, this winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature has behaved badly towards lovers and his wife, a fact he admits and reliable sources attest to, but the personal life section should not be overwhelmed by sexual detail. --JN466 22:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

damian bodie

the information regarding damian bodie appearing alongside eliza taylor cotter on winners and loser's is incorrect he appears alongside virginia gay who played ed nursing unit manager gabrielle jaeger on the now defunct australian series all saints! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.54.101 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional misrepresentation of a living person's comments at Freedom for Palestine (song) and contributory copyright infringement

User:Bachcell has twice misrepresented comments made by Glenn Beck at the article Freedom for Palestine (song). This is possibly a 1/rr violation (the I-P topic area is under harsher restrictions due to an arbitration decision) but the bigger worry is the BLP violation. There is also contributory copyright infringement that needs to be removed immediately.

Glenn Beck was critical of the song. He did not promote any aspect of it but tthe lines here and here lead the reader to draw he conclusion that Beck supports the song and certain aspects of it. Salem News (used as a source for an inline citation) was cherry picking the quotes to make a point. We cannot mirror that tone. The lines need to be removed since they violate BLP. I cannot do it since the article is under 1/rr. The editor who included the items also needs to be warned.

The video and transcript can be found here and additional info can be found through The Washington Post.[3]Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a little edit to remove the implication of Beck having said things that he had not said. I do really dislike Wikipedia making people say things that they did not say, and it seems to happen a lot in this topic area. Some more work is needed on this article, much of it is written in something that I don't really recognise as English. Questionable implications can lurk beneath what some people might see as complete nonsense. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tweak. It now does not misrepresent his viewpoint but instead gives prominence to poking fun at him. Do we need mor than one line?Cptnono (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. The original edit was purposely done in a style consistent with pro-song POV to avoid offending that POV. The Salem News piece is obviously either poking fun or deliberately twisting Beck's intent, but is a notable attempt to defend the validity of the song against Beck's disapproval. Similarly, it is notable that the official group posted a Media Matters clip dismissing the attack as "hilarious" which also implies that Media Matters, and its supporters also support the song.Bachcell (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Botha

Resolved

Can a few people watch this article for the next 24 hours? There are rumors that Botha has died, but this news has not yet appeared in a reliable source. Several IP editors have added his death to the article today, which in turn has been cited by others online. Jokestress (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: death now confirmed by reliable South African news source. Jokestress (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Lewis

There's been an interesting exchange on my talk page (User talk:RayAYang) with some IP authors over whether the subject of this article is still alive. They appear well-intentioned, but we've been burned before over such things without sourcing. This is a request for interested editors to look for information to confirm or refute their suggestions, as I imagine the situation may be distressing to the IP editors. I'm currently travelling, so don't have access to much besides basic Google. Ray^Talk 06:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony J. Hall,

Can we have an editor cut this article down to a paragraph or two... he obviously wrote it himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadaman1 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Finders

I'd appreciate it if this article were added to a few more watchlists. It just came off three days of full protection, following problems from multiple new (but autoconfirmed) and IP editors. Some unfortunate content (absurd but with BLP implications) had been quietly added and remained there for way too long. I did a rough overhaul of the article and am crossing my fingers, but I am concerned that some of the problem editors may be poised to spring. Rivertorch (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Wright-Neville

I recently noticed this deletion of referenced material (from The Australian). I restored the material, but re-wrote it to have a more NPOV. This has since been removed twice, and I would like a second opinion given the sensitive nature of the material. — Manti core 10:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Ramdev

I request independent review for BLP issues in this article, as there are numerous claims (with citations) of this highly public figure that are not backed up reliably by said citations. The reliability (for a BLP) of several of the citations are also misrepresented by what appears to be a campaign by his detractors. For instance, this section alleges that "the Union Health Ministry did find animal DNA in the samples, though most newspapers carried reports to the contrary". This is sourced to an op-ed in a partisan newspaper rather than a primary source. Numerous other more reliable sources, such as [4], have been removed from the article. They were present in earlier versions.59.160.210.68 (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plan B (musician)

Plan B (musician) revision 00:01, 6 June 2011 by 86.159.152.205

Also with respect to discussion on the article: the edit by 86.176.164.114 at 21:25 on 16 March 2011

Information with respect to Ben Drew's parents and location of upbringing are being violated. There is proof that such deliberate misinformation is being propagated in the popular press and being used in a possibly defamatory way.

I've reverted the first of the edits you link to, and watchlisted the page. The edits mentioned in the discussion on the talk page, already seem to have been reverted by someone else. It would be useful to find, and add, sources for these disputed pieces of information in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Chenge - missing source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Chenge

Missing reference for the last sentence ("UK's Serious Fraud Office has however confirmed that... have closed the file for investigation."). Also a citation would be better here.

Michael Theoklitos

Resolved

– WP:NPOV version of events restored to article; general copy-edit and BLP cleanup completed. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. A single-purpose account has been removing sourced negative material from this BLP. I've been reverting this on the basis of WP:NOTCENSORED.

The SPA, Citylights111 (talk · contribs), has now posted the following on their user talk:

"Hi there, I am part of Michael Theoklitos's management group and we feel that your summary of the events at Norwich are portraying Michael in a negative light. He does not appreciate them and feels that you have not stated the correct facts regarding both situations especially the Gillingham bus incident. This is not a true reflection of Michael as a professional and an individual, nor is it stating the truth about what actually occurred. If you could please respect our edits it would be much appreciated. Thank you"

A few things:

I'd welcome input from a BLP perspective on whether my reverts have been appropriate, ie if the negative material is adequately sourced (if not, I'm confident of finding other sources)
If my actions have been deemed correct, please could a previously uninvolved admin revert and consider protecting the article
In any case, please could a previously uninvolved admin deal with the COI editor

In the meantime, I'll request RS for Theoklitos' version of events of "the Gillingham bus incident"

Many thanks --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found this source from Australia, where MT claims that ""I rolled up late for a match because I got my wires mixed up," ... "It’s not that I did not turn up but I was half an hour late."" Not sure that differs substantially from what the article says - he inexplicably missed the team bus. --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the SPA shouldn't be censoring the article, and it does appear that they are tending to eliminate items that may be well-sourced but unflattering, the fact is that the reverted version of the article has its own BLP problems. There are substantial problems with tone and statements not verified in the articles. For instance, the claim that he missed the bus is in no way substantiated by the citations. The characterization of his debut as "disastrous" is a WP:NPOV issue. That said, be advised that you're both up against WP:3RR, and to the extent that Citylights is removing NPOV issues in a BLP, they might come out on top in a 3RR case at the moment. Rather than simple reverts, the article needs a good copyedit for tone and accuracy to sources. To avoid 3RR problems, it should probably be another editor that does it. I'll try to have a look later tonight. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably find some sources - this is a good starting point (the Norwich local football paper) - interestingly the first article describes his debut as being in "the disastrous 7-1 home defeat to Colchester United on the opening day of the season...". My gut feeling is that the version Dweller is reverting to isn't that far out of order - the language might use copy editing for sure, but I reckon most of it could be sourced and actually strikes me as a more or less fair representation of Theoklitos' time at Norwich. I'm not sure I'd be so quick to dismiss the clear COI issues that have (apparently) developed in this case. Anyway, I might have some time later in the week to take a look myself. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add, because I don't know whether the ref is in the article just now, the match report from the Pink Un gave him 2/10. No one gets 2/10. Below 5 is an absolute disaster. That report describes his debut as "terrible". I didn't see it myself. Fortunately. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the information about the Gillingham game, but using neutral language. It's well-sourced, so there's no reason for it to be removed. I've also completed a general copy-edit of the article. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derek and the Dominos

The report states that the split between Eric Clapton and Bobby Whitlock was acrimonious.

Neither party's autobiography reports this, and they apparently remained friends - though did not work together again until 2000.

The row that split the band was between Clapton and Jim Gordon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.90.0 (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about Whitlock and Clapton was unsourced, so I have replaced it with a more neutral one. You may wish to insert the information about Clapton and Gordon if you can find a reliable source for it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screen-shot-2011-05-27-at-11.04.09-PM.png

Hi -- this asserts that it is the photo of BLP, who twittered it, while he flatly denies that he twittered it and has not been clear as to whether it is of him ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Screen-shot-2011-05-27-at-11.04.09-PM.png

It is also referenced in the BLP's article in a manner that may not be appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- the BLP has now admitted to it, so that is no longer an issue (though the photo is now of for speedy deletion based on copyvio issues).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Miguel

In 1996, Luis Miguel became the first Latin artist to receive a star in the Hollywood Walk of Fame.[2] -- this is incorrect & record-company hype. Several people preceded him:

Vikki Carr, 1981 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/vikki-carr

Desi Arnaz, 1960 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/desi-arnaz

Celia Cruz, 1987 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/celia-cruz

Xavier Cugat, 1960 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/xavier-cugat

Placido Domingo, 1995 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/pl%C3%A1cido-domingo

Gloria Estefan, 1983 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/gloria-estefan

Julio Iglesias, 1985 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/julio-iglesias

Pedro Infante, 1993 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/pedro-infante

Jose Iturbi, 1960 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/jose-iturbi

Perez Prado, 1960 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/p%C3%A9rez-prado

Tito Puente, 1990 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/tito-puente

Lalo Schifrin, 1988 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/lalo-schifrin

Ritchie Valens, 1990 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/ritchie-valens

Carmen Miranda, 1960 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/carmen-miranda Tclpups (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Tclpups (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Ross (consultant) - "It was also reported ..."

Rick Ross (consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Diff = contentious controversial info about a BLP. Reporting here for further review and analysis. Will defer to outcome of judgment of community about this. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't know a lot about the Ross person , it seems we have an article about the content Jason Scott case - Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Todd

New single-purpose account editor Deaftruth (talk · contribs) has been making numerous changes to Rob Todd recently. Many are puffery about Todd that are distinctively non-neutral, and typically lacking citations. [5] Of those that are cited, the "citations" are typically done disruptively, without care to match the article's citation style... or even <ref> tags, for that matter, and often use unacceptable sources. [6] These edits have frequently left the article a shambles. Some fly completely in the face of the cited source, and seem to be nothing but POV pushing. [7]

Further, Deaftruth has repeatedly removed from the article well-sourced, notable, but possibly embarrassing material, to wit: Todd, whose conservative "family values" stance went so far as to try and bust a condom store for selling edible panties without a food license, admitted in 2000 to having an extramarital affair with the wife of his fellow councilman. This was documented in the Houston Press,[8] which has previously been found to be a reliable source.[9] It was also mentioned in the Houston Chronicle, albeit in an editorial, so I had not included that reference in the article.[10] Deaftruth's edit statements argue that, as the article does not directly quote Todd as admitting to the affair, that the entire statement must be removed. That's not supportable by facts or by policy, and by omitting it, we would violate not only WP:NPOV but the BLP—which says we have to report fairly, including those facts that are well-sourced but potentially embarrassing.

I have tried to communicate with Deaftruth on his talk page [11] but the user has refused to engage in dialogue, whether on user talk pages or the article talk page. The only attempt at communication has been through terse edit comments as part of reverts. While reading these edit comments, I'm struck by how the structure and word choice of them mirror users Democratsunited (talk · contribs) (which may be a previous account, based on timeline and the fact that the name of that account was flagged as inappropriate) and Robertpercytodd (talk · contribs), apparently the subject of the article.

Would an admin please review this page and determine if a block is warranted for this user? I'd also welcome second opinions on the NPOV of this article. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on Deaftruth, but I'm unpersuaded by your reasoning about including these allegations about his personal life. Certainly, our current writeup seems to push at the boundaries of what the sources report as fact. I'll write more at the talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I've explained my reasoning for including the material, and the thoughts that went into the choice to include the material and the way I presented it, over at the talk page. Could you have a look and see if it helps, or if you can show me where our reasoning differs? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuo Hirai

Clever folk keep trying to edit the article to say he killed himself on stage at E3 due to the Sony security breaches. Some of the editors have previous BLP warnings. - BalthCat (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Vote Smart and politician voting records

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Sandy Pasch and Talk:Jennifer Shilling, two Wisconsin politicians, about proper sourcing for a politician's voting record. With discussion also found at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#User:Tdl1060, the concern is about using two separate sources to make a novel conclusion, an apparent violation of WP:SYNTH. Here is the method:

A: A piece of legislation was reported in the news as notable.
B: A politician voted on it as seen in public records.
Therefore C: The politician's vote was notable.

The twist is that the 'B' part of the process involves not public records but Project Vote Smart, a voting records digest that has been used a lot for sourcing politicians' votes, and that is perhaps acceptable for establishing notability of the vote. For instance, this webpage describes a Wisconsin state bill called SB 2: Tax Benefits for Health Savings Accounts, as a "Key Vote", and it says Sandy Pasch voted 'no' on it. Project Vote Smart describes their own rationale for labeling a vote a "Key Vote" at this popup webpage, so apparently there is some oversight, some human selection applied by website volunteers or editors. I place little trust in VoteSmart's opaque in-house process and so I consider the votesmart.org voting records to be a primary source, failing to establish notability even with their "Key Vote" label. I would greatly prefer to see a politician's vote discussed in a news item or expert opinion column—widely read WP:SECONDARY sources which firmly establish notability.

So which is it? Does Project Vote Smart establish notability because they are a secondary source or are they a primary source, little more than a collection site for voting records? Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a secondary source - the primary source is the legislative record itself. Wikipedia articles frequently list "ratings" from various groups which are only marginally different from lists of votes. Collect (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: in this particular case, not every "Key Vote" is being included, which creates a problem with possible undue emphasis on votes which an editor feels will make the subject look particularly good or bad in the eyes of voters (both these people are candidates who may be up for election in a month or so). Listing all the votes, of course, is a WP:NOT#DIRECTORY violation. Also problematic has been the way in which votes are described (for good or ill). What to one partisan is "job creation through tax relief" to another is "payoffs to rich campaign contributors through tax giveaways". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. As one who feels an article is in any way unbalanced can add other votes and opinions, the issue of balance is not a strong objection. Amazingly enough, we often list only a few issues for any politician, and not every single vote, so that is a non-starter. As for description of the votes, as long as the description is reasonably sourced, the same objection has the same remedy. In neither case is BLP a problem. Collect (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Vote Smart probably wouldn't establish the notability of any given vote - but notability only delimits what topics can have articles of their own, not information can be included in an article. Kevin (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Later life and career of Larry Norman‎

The main article on the subject, Larry Norman, has been on the long list for over a year. The concern is that the article is being artificially shortened by extracting entire sections and creating new articles from the material. That was done with Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill although a summary of the material was left in the main article. The problem is, the recent creation of this article has removed all of the material from the article and simply transplanted it into the new article. There is now a discussion to create another article about the musician's early career leaving only biographical material behind. I don't think this is the correct solution. I believe that article contains (the articles contain) too much fan cruft and should simply edited hard to reduce size. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Negri

Here is the revision prior to this report.

The article describes numerous allegations of criminal activity with spotty citations and a general atmosphere of presuming guilt. I'm going to begin making an effort to clean this up and delete anything potentially defamatory and/or uncited suggestions and allegations, but more eyes are needed as I don't have time right this second. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, this does need more work. See for example a quite different perspective, with a reliable source, at Autonomia Operaia. Rd232 ^talk 22:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Colley-Urquhart

Poorly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwa210 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Pieczenik

Steve Pieczenik is in an odd situation. The only thing he is really clearly notable (in WP:N terms) for is his collaboration with Tom Clancy, but almost all of the interest in his Wikipedia article is spurred by his recent involvement with Alex Jones and conspiracy theory stuff. His article was originally essentially makebelieve, but after the first version was totally stripped down, stuff about him has been cobbled together from various sources - meaning that his article is now pretty much cobbled together from single sentence tangential mentions of him from 1980's newspaper articles and similar sources. Very few WP:RSes have ever written more than a couple words about him. As a result, it's suffering from a serious lack of cohesion. Some of the stuff in the article currently clearly doesn't belong (like the fact that he consulted with the RAND corporation on a single paper) and I'm going to edit it a bit in the next couple of days, but I would appreciate if some more BLP-experienced eyes also took a looksee at the article. Kevin (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meagan Broussard

This newly created article consists of one unreferenced sentence, pointing out that she is "involved in the Anthony Weiner Scandal." I put a BLP prod tag on it, because it is unreferenced, but really this has no chance of surviving because it is WP:BLP1E. Should this go straight to AfD, or ?. Thanks, First Light (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was just redirected to the scandal article. Should the redirect go to AfD, or is that sufficient? First Light (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is under discussion at AFD and looks like being kept. As the redirect seems to be a plausible search time I don't any problem with keeping it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I notice that her name finally appears in the article (it wasn't there when I first posted this), so it is much more plausible now. First Light (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Yon

He's complaining on facebook that this entry is libelous. Here is the entire thread on facebook.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some attempts to correct the worst problems with the article, and left a note on the talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How bad was it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not very bad as such things go, but not good. The crux of it is that Yon is quite outspoken and has been involved in disagreements with parts of the U.S. military hierarchy, and in disagreements with popular military blogs. Most of the section about his disagreements with the blogs was sourced to the blogs themselves, i.e. to the other party in the disagreement. There was also some wondrously non-neutral wording of that section, for example not just stating that he'd said negative things about some people, but characterising his opponents as "serving soldiers and their spouses" ... which of course is disingenuous appeal to emotion, because I'm sure a lot of his supporters are serving soldiers or their spouses, too. Plus, some of the speculation about him from his opponents was decidedly derogatory, and the article was repeating that speculation and attributing it to those opponents (the blogs) without citing an intervening secondary source.

And of course the section was not really WP:DUE WEIGHT because his notability is as a war reporter, not as a blogosphere warrior. (Although the blogs controversy has been covered by at least one reliable source.)

Quickly reading over the rest of the article, there was at least one instance of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH being used to imply something negative. There could be more like that still in there; I believe Yon has been asked to mention on the talk page any outstanding concerns about the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we call Carlos the Jackal a terrorist?

At Bruno Breguet I reverted an edit referring to Carlos the Jackal which had changed 'terrorist' to 'political militant' (note I see this as a pov edit among other things). I reverted it saying sources call him a terrorist, but the same editor has restored his edit saying "diots like George Bush use the term--a more academic definition is prudent in an encyclopedia". I notice also that 'Carlos' was called a terrorist until this [12] relatively recent edit when he became a militant. Looking at a Google search for books [13] and one for news [14] I strongly dispute the idea that we should refer to him as a militant of any kind rather than the way the sources refer to him, as a terrorist. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could give relevant weight to both opinions - as long as they are cited. Clearly there are multiple reliables to say that he was considered a terrorist by many - are there and citations that call him a militant? We could also use attribution - who is it that considers him to be a militant? note - I left User:Petey Parrot - a note regarding this thread and requested he come here to make his case. In notice Carlos the Jackal in the lede of his article is referred to as a "Venezuelan militant" but that in the body of that article is the content — "Swiss terrorist Bruno Breguet" - I also note that Carlos the jackal is included in this cat People imprisoned on charges of terrorism - Off2riorob (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we certainly can. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, look to the NYT [15] the international terrorism brand known as Carlos the Jackal, Although the terrorist born Ilich Ramírez Sánchez preaches his own gospel in “Carlos" [16] etc. for recent wording about him. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think something like "referred to as a terrorist" would be weaseling, suggesting he might not be one. Of course supporters of any form of terrorism will normally (but not always) try to claim they aren't terrorists, but I think that's irrelevant. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster and others, please refer to guidelines such as WP:WTA before giving out incorrect advice. We really strive to avoid direct "so-and-so is a terrorist" phrasings in favor of a general description of the person/group followed by who or what has classified them as terrorists, for what reasons, etc... Look at the leads of Hamas, Hezbollah, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda for examples. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not in his article but in an article about an associate, which says "Bruno Breguet was an associate of the left-wing political militant Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, better known as "Carlos the Jackal"." - 'militant' used to read 'terrorist'. The change is I think pov. So are you saying we should say an associate of the convicted murder Ilich etc?. I'll add that for the examples you give, I think the word 'terrorism' or 'terrorist' should appear in the first paragraph, and I'm not convinced they are all good examples. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing in the first paragraph is fine, in the way I stated; none of them do, or should, begin with "So-and-so is a terrorist". In this specific case, though, is a descriptor really needed? Just say "Bruno Breguet was an associate of the Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, aka "Carlos the Jackal". The nickname is sufficiently famous enough to let the reader know what's going on. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTA doesn't put it this way, but I think for accuracy it is best to clearly distinguish the sin from the sinner. The noun "terrorist" makes the sinner the embodiment of the sin, so that he is defined wholly and completely by it. This is inaccurate; even the worst user of terrorist acts is not just a terrorist. So avoid the noun "terrorist" and use the adjective "terrorist" (to describe acts) or "terrorism" (also to describe acts). Rd232 ^talk 14:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Evans (meteorologist)

There is a situation developing at this article. Apparently the subject has been using several accounts to edit the article, including the removal of trivia which has in some cases been reverted. See WT:COI/N#Bill Evans (meteorologist). Hans Adler 14:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well...I tweaked up the global denialist accusation to make it a bit more NPOV- its a bit much to label him as a denialist from a single two line comment in reply to a magazine article. I am minded to remove some of the uncited also but have not done it yet. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop re-inserting this; however, Evans has made other, similar statements in his blog. Further discussion on Talk:Bill Evans (meteorologist)#Global warming position. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Graham

Resolved

– appears to have been a false claim and the IP user was blocked after a similar violation by User:MisterRPGnow at Bill Slavicsek - connected ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bill Slavicsek

I believe content being added is vandalism and a BLP violation, but I'm looking for a second set of eyes before I revert again. Content is being added about a political talk show hosts view on Dungeon & Dragons, and the sources cited don't back it up.[17] The IP so far has ignored taking it to the talk page. Just looking for a confirmation that this should be treated as vandalism and not a valid content dispute.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left User:107.3.67.184 - a note with a link to this thread. Perhaps the user is trying to link to some content in a thread at that webforum but its only linking to the front page - anyways its not a reliable source - a web forum http://nerdtrek.com/nerdtalk is not a WP:RS even if it did have any of the claimed content in it.so the addition is presently uncited and seemingly contentious. I am not sure I would describe it as vandalism, is the user aspparently attempting to improve the wikipedia and add some content ...? Yes could well be the answer. Is it a BLP violation ... well it is contentious uncited content. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it more difficult to believe it's an attempt at a constructive edit, but it may be because I've heard the program. The subject is a conservative political talk host. I suppose theoreticaly he could have an opinion on the quality comparison of various D&D games, but I think it's far more likely that it's 'add nonsense info and laugh' type vandalism.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having not heard it or even heard of the subject I will happily defer to your deeper understanding/judgement in that regard CL. Anyways, the user has been notified and its quite likely he/she won't replace it without discussion again. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does seem to have stopped.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Top

Hi. The article on dutch actor/presenter Ronald Top has a reference to to actress Vivian Leigh. She died in 1967 and is unlikely to have known the entertaining Mr Top. I assume there's another Leigh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.132.238 (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the actress - a writer/producer. The source seems to be www.ronaldtop.com. I cannot find a record of a writer/producer Vivian Leigh. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tammet

A couple of users - or perhaps the same person under a couple of aliases - Bill121212 in particular, persist in adding contentious and poorly-sourced claims into the article in spite of earlier warnings from editor Off2riorob. The user/s ignore all warnings in their advancement of what amounts to a tiny minority conspiracy theory viewpoint.

Wikipedia's rules for biographies of living persons clearly state that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This has been going on, in bouts, for a couple of months at least. Please provide whatever level of editorial warning/protection appropriate to prevent an edit war.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also 12Bill. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the article for three days in an attempt to stop the edit warring. Please proceed along the straight and narrow path of WP:DR. Favonian (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The basic dispute appears to be on the one side that Tammet is a Savant and Bill appears to be wanting to add weight to the claim that Tammet is more of a "memory man" - I have never seen anything reliable to support that position but if Bill wants to present his reliable externals we can look at them and see about adding something? I looked at the sources and thought a bit of undue weight and original 2 plus 2 must equal 4 research was being given to the memory man claims from a few comments Tammet had made about his early life. There seems to be only two people editing the article and one of them appears to know Tammet quite well. The issue has been going back and forward for quite a while now - we should look at adding a small comment about it, that is acceptable to both users to resolve the dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum (neologism) RfC

Uninvolved eyes would be much appreciated at Talk:Santorum (neologism)#Proposal to rename, redirect, and merge content. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Gunderson (artist)

This article is for an unoriginal student painter that is not recognized by anyone but himself and the pompous school he attends. might have made the page himself or by his sidekick. either way, hope to save him the embarrassment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr8585 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been nominated for deletion. Your comments are a bit over the top.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General portals in BLP articles

There's a fairly aggressive IP who believes the Bomer article should have a See also section with the following links and portals: Lists of actors, List of people from Texas, Portal:Biography, Portal:Film, Portal:Television, and Portal:Theatre. Without knowing anything about guidelines or policy, my immediate reaction was the whole thing was screwy - or to put it more formally, unhelpful to the article. So, I removed the section. The IP put it all back in with an edit summary that read: "portals are standard on artticle; take to talk page before removing again. or take up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Contents/Portals)."

With respect to the links (not the portals), they are duplicative of the categories in the articles, which include 20th century actors, 21st century actors, Actors from Texas, American stage actors - and the list of cats goes on. So, what's the point of having pointers to these generic lists?

As for the portals, I looked at WP:Portal, as well as some brief discussions about the use of portals and found nothing illuminating. Certainly, the IP's claim that it's "standard" is totally unsupported. I've seen very few actor articles with these portals.

To me, this is a global issue, which is why I chose to come here rather than bring it up on on the Bomer Talk page. I also don't feel like bringing it up on every different portal Talk page, although I have considered raising it in the Actors and Filmmakers project.

What do others think?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've cross-posted this to the project in the hope of getting some responses.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traveon Rogers

Resolved

– Phantomsteve has deleted the hoax article. Dayewalker (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is filled with misinformation. Traveon Rogers has never achieved what is listed in this article. Rogers is notorious in the track and field world for his self-aggrandizing efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.220.152 (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've DB-Hoax'ed it, none of the references appear to mention him. Google doesn't really turn up anything significant, seems like a high school prank. Dayewalker (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Phantomsteve has now deleted. Thanks to him, we can mark this closed. Dayewalker (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum (neologism)

Problematic Edits with Santorum (neologism) Article, violations of WP:BLP, WP:NEO

We have several editors who are continually reverting changes in the Santorum (neologism) where they are introducing significant bias into this already contentious article. Discussion was requested by one of these editors and I agreed with that suggestion, with BLP being something to strongly err in favor of, however, it seems that the biased editing is going to continue unabated.

This article likens a certain former US Senator to "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". Several editors seem intent on saying this is a sourced article and therefore feel that they can ignore BLP concerns, but many editors including Mr. Wales have expressed severe misgiving with this attitude. A request for rename is in progress, as are several other proposals, and it seems all one can do to keep some degree of balance in the article. Please help. -- Avanu (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification: In any of the multiple versions of the article that I have read, there is nothing that likens the senator to anything frothy. It uses the word "santorum" for that mixture, but never says that the senator himself is. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected [18] until 07:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC) by Fastily. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Rubin

It seems clear that Alan Rubin probably has indeed died but I don't see a verifiable source yet. Two good-faith IP editors are keen to update the article; I've reverted it twice. Is this sensible or should I just accept that the information is probably correct, and just let it go, on the grounds that if not verifiable now it probably will be soon? I'd be grateful for some advice from those more experienced in these matters. Apologies f this enquiry is in the wrong place - please feel free to point me elsewhere if appropriate. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mention here, but that's probably not a RS. Regretably, they don't mention their source. Ravensfire (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A death assertion in an article should be backed up by a reliable source, no matter how "likely" it is that it's true. I agree with Ravensfire that the Blues Brothers website is not sufficiently reliable, particularly for this sort of claim.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If anyone wanted to watchlist the article too, so I felt less like a lone vigilante and more like a normal editor, I'd be very grateful! Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After repeated uncited insertions User:Bongwarrior has WP:Semi-protected the article till tomorrow. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm in little doubt that a citeable source will emerge (I'm watching http://www.trumpetguild.org/news/news.htm for example) but for the moment I'm glad we can try to stick to doing it properly. It's difficult to explain to people who know what they know, of course, but it is clearly the best we can do. Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Worst actress in Hollywood"

So there is a user going around calling actors the "worst actor/actress in Hollywood" based on a magazine article. I can't be bothered to deal with it any further, so I am bringing it to attention on here. The articles in question are Jennifer Love Hewitt, Chuck Norris and Mike Leigh. Nymf _hideliho! 23:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the additions for all three articles (they were putting it in the lede) and the editor has been blocked for 31 hours.[19] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They've also did this to Dennis Dugan. Another editor has moved it out of the lede and into the body which I think is probably fine.[20] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Marshall

Trevor Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am the living person about whom this bio was written. In the past it has been defaced with a Hit_ler photo, and with sexual perversion text, but at this present time it is being altered en-masse, IMO defaced, by editors WLU and/or Ronsword. I have reverted the edits made earlier today, listed the problems on the TALK page, and an Admin has come by suggesting I post the difficulties to this noticeboard, before a reversion war starts.

The specific policy which is being violated is that editors WLU, and/or Ronsword, are adding incorrect factual information to a BLP, and removing relevant factual information, without first discussing the issues on the TALK page, in order to reach an editorial consensus.

The result is that my character and contributions to Science are being demeaned.

I hope somebody can help, because honestly, I have better things to do than answering a flood of emails from people wanting to know what has happened to my Wikipedia Bio.

Sincerely
Trevor Marshall
Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Murdoch University, Western Australia
Director, Autoimmunity Research Foundation, a California 501(c)3 corporation
Trevmar (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that on the Trevor_Marshall:TALK page WLU has now claimed that he is Prof Trevor Marshall, and not me, and has said that a Nature Publishing Group peer-reviewed paper is not reliable, or something like that, along with a number of other claims. More important, he has reverted the bio to his demeaning and factually incorrect edits of earlier today. Would somebody please help get the bio back to the situation it has been in for the past few months. A number of things that earlier editors have written are not completely correct, presumably they can be corrected by consensus, but this WLU is something altogether beyond my comprehension. Trevmar (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that, and I have asked for clarification, as it is rather concerning. Perhaps I am merely misunderstanding his comment.

Trevmar, would you prefer that the Wikipedia article about you merely be deleted, to avoid misleading information being published? I do not claim that this is definitely possible, but it is one alternative that might be possible. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge, thanks for your help. I was speaking at a conference in China last year and one of the audience turned around their laptop proudly, and there was my Wikipedia bio on the display. Wikipedia is an important "go to" source for information about notable individuals. I think that it is valuable for the public to be able to read about my work, even when quite a lot is missing, as has been the case for the last few months. In fast-moving scientific fields IMO there needs to be a more reliable method to update, especially, for example, published papers, rather than rely upon a knowledgeable editor chancing across the bio page. I would not like the bio to be deleted, especially if such a move was precipitated by some form of victimization, as seems to be the case at the moment. The article did survive a deletion attempt on Christmas Day (approx) in 2007. Trevmar (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to require patience. I have explained at Talk:Trevor Marshall that WLU was jokingly pointing out that any editor can claim to be a certain person, and we cannot insert or remove text based on what an editor says (even if it were proven that an editor were the named person, we still cannot base an article on what they say; ask if an explanation is wanted, but that is the situation).

There are two issues: (1) Statements about the person Trevor Marshall, and (2) statements about MP (the "Marshall protocol", a hypothesis regarding a treatment for a disease apparently with an unknown cause). Any problems re (1) should be easy to remedy, but (2) is unlikely to be resolvable (except that extreme statements can be cleaned up). There is a strong resistance to material which seeks to provide an "alternative" to mainstream science or medicine. Generally, that is essential to resist outright nonsense (sungazing) and dubious science (cold fusion).

It's best to focus on one small issue at a time, and I suggest working on (1). It would help if someone took the time to post an example of text in the article that is a problem and briefly explain why. If there is a reliable source to support a correction, that can easily be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the later part of the article about (1), seems to be hijacked for the purpose of making negative statements about (2). Did reliable secondary sources make statements about Marshall's statements about (2)? Yes or no? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I expressed a hope that "someone" would post an example is that I have not yet looked at the article other than to quickly determine the nature of the situation. In short: I don't know. Your new suggest at the article talk is the obvious solution: if secondary sources cover the MP issue, report what they say; if the don't, omit the issue (and either way, editors should not look for contrary evidence themselves, although it would not be satisfactory to use a weak source that may suggest some non-mainstream view has greater status than it has, simply because no good sources have taken the trouble to publish a review). Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WLU does not seem to even be able come to grips with the fact that I hold an academic position in the Faculty of Health Sciences at a recognized university. He wants to call me "an Australian electrical engineer." That is as accurate as saying I am 'a High School Student' - yes, I was a High School Student once, but describing me in that way is totally misleading as to what I do right now. The revision of the bio as of two days ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Marshall&oldid=426070322 , as accumulated by a number of editors over the last four years or so, and before WLU rewrote it into the current mess, is a reasonable description of reality, and a good point from which to start editing. I apologize that I have been sleeping through these last couple of hours of discussion, I am based in California and it is midnight now. Trevmar (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The revision just reverted to by Off2riorob, revision 433471713, is equivalent to the revision I mentioned above. Thanks, Off2riorob Trevmar (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Nowitzki

The description of Dirk Nowitzki as "removed vandalism quotation" which appears at the beginning of the bio could be taken as offensive. If there is any other way to take it, then I am ignorant of the reference.

It was transient vandalism that looks like it was caught and reverted by cluebot within a few seconds of being posted. If you noticed it, you just had really lucky timing. Kevin (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Complaints about the vandalism with direct quotation of the vandalism were made on the talk page for the article, even quite a bit after it was reverted. I have removed all direct quotation of the vandalism from both the talk page and the original complaint here. I am normally loathe to edit others comments, but with four different editors showing up on the article talk page directly quoting vandalism that was up for <10 seconds, I figured something was up and decided refactoring the comments was worth it. Kevin (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 611: / Line 611: @@
 :::The reason I expressed a hope that "someone" would post an example is that I have not yet looked at the article other than to quickly determine the nature of the situation. In short: I don't know. Your new suggest at the article talk is the obvious solution: if secondary sources cover the MP issue, report what they say; if the don't, omit the issue (and either way, editors should not look for contrary evidence themselves, although it would not be satisfactory to use a weak source that may suggest some non-mainstream view has greater status than it has, simply because no good sources have taken the trouble to publish a review). [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 05:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 :WLU does not seem to even be able come to grips with the fact that I hold an academic position in the Faculty of Health Sciences at a recognized university. He wants to call me "an Australian electrical engineer." That is as accurate as saying I am 'a High School Student' - yes, I was a High School Student once, but describing me in that way is totally misleading as to what I do right now. The revision of the bio as of two days ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Marshall&oldid=426070322 , as accumulated by a number of editors over the last four years or so, and before WLU rewrote it into the current mess, is a reasonable description of reality, and a good point from which to start editing. I apologize that I have been sleeping through these last couple of hours of discussion, I am based in California and it is midnight now. [[User:Trevmar|Trevmar]] ([[User talk:Trevmar|talk]]) 07:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
+::The revision just reverted to by Off2riorob, revision 433471713, is equivalent to the revision I mentioned above. Thanks, Off2riorob [[User:Trevmar|Trevmar]] ([[User talk:Trevmar|talk]]) 07:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 == Dirk Nowitzki ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards