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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:54, 4 July 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)

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.

Aelita Andre

Hello, I'm writing here because I want to clarify a few things regarding a recent series of edits made on an article that I wrote and am maintaining, Aelita Andre. Earlier today, User:Cramyourspam made four successive edits to the article, the end result of which was:

(1) The addition of critical information about the article's subject sourced only by a private blog.

(2) The addition of an autobiography tag justified with a statement that I, the article's author, "seem" close to the subject because there isn't really anything negative about her in the article. I contested this on the article's talk page, because it isn't true and because nearly every sentence of the article is followed by 1 to 3 inline citations from reliable sources, so the accusation was sort of ridiculous.

Because this user made four uninterrupted edits in a row, I undid them with four uninterrupted edits in a row. I'm afraid now that someone might see this as more than 3 edits in a 24-hour period, but this was actually a single edit in 4 parts (since the other user did not edit between my 4 edits). Additionally, these edits were done in order to remove contentious material in a BLP. Curiously, this user's page explicitly states that edits to the user's personal talk page are not welcome. Because I wanted to draw the user's attention to the article's talk page so we could have a discussion, I simply reverted the next edit that he (or she) made with an edit summary stating "Cramyourspam, I undid this only to let you know I want to talk about this on the Talk Page since you don't want messages on your page." If anyone here is interested in the full chronology of events and in everything that was said on the article's talk page, please take a look. I hope for two things from you:

(1) I'd like some form of confirmation that the situation is understood in case anyone sees, at a quick glance, that I made the three uninterrupted reverts in a row, and in case that person doesn't notice that these are all really a single change undone in the same consecutive steps in which they were created in the first place. Moreover, I want to point out immediately that the motivation behind the edits was to remove contentious, poorly sourced information in a BLP. I strongly encourage anyone interested to view this page in detail.

(2) Although an uninvolved rollbacker chanced upon the page, reverted it to its original state (what it was before Cramyourspam's first edit), and helped to resolve the issue by now, I would like some feedback on how I handled the situation so I can improve my response in similar situations in the future. Of course, if you don't have time to do that, I understand.

Thank you for your time, Armadillopteryx^talk 02:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3rr has an explicit statement in it somewhere to the effect that consecutive reverts are all counted as one - you won't have any problems there. The other user's talk page looks pretty weird - it's not something I've seen on a talk page before and seems pretty strongly contrary to the spirit of collaboration. I'm going to notify them that there is an ongoing noticeboard discussion about them - which would normally be polite but will probably be interpreted as rude in this situation but seems a good thing to do anyway. Kevin (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. I'll check this page regularly to see when more information is added. Thank you! Armadillopteryx^talk 02:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did well. (Incidentally, any statement on a user talk page that comments in general aren't welcome may be freely ignored. After all, "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user".) -- Hoary (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cramyourspam here. on the article discussion page, arm'x asked for real research. it was already in the article i used originally ("Reports of Art World Acclaim For 4-Year Old Artist Dupe Global Media" http://grumpyvisualartist.blogspot.com/2010/12/blog-post_9002.html ) which you deleted --the article on that art writer's blog. from that article (and i'll just copy the art writer's references):

[blockquote] Wikipedia sums it up well: "A vanity gallery is an art gallery that charges artists fees to exhibit their work and makes most of its money from artists rather than from sales to the public." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_gallery ) According to an article by artist/gallerist/critic Lenny Campello: because a vanity gallery rents out its walls, "the main driver in having a show at a vanity gallery is not necessarily the quality of the artwork, but the artist's ability to pay the gallery to host his/her artwork." ( http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/vanity-galleries/ ) Campello continues, critics and curators ignore such venues "much like book critics ignore most self-published writers, who use 'vanity publishers'." ( http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/vanity-galleries/ )

Lest they incur bad publicity, vanity galleries don't generally admit to being pay-to-play venues, but enough information appears on Agora's website to connect the dots. From Agora's submissions page: "Please note that Agora Gallery charges an annual fee for its representation and promotion services." ( http://www.agora-gallery.com/artistinfo/postal_submissions.aspx ) From Agora's FAQ page: "If I am accepted what is the cost of the annual promotion and representation.... We offer a few options starting from $2950."( http://www.agora-gallery.com/artistinfo/faqs.aspx ) For a solo exhibit, "Please email sales@agora-gallery.com for more information" --note the telltale email address: sales. ( http://www.agora-gallery.com/gallery2/ ).

To split hairs, Agora doesn't officially require fee payment to exhibit, but instead does require purchase of promotional services. No such purchase: no exhibit. It is therefore pay-to-play --just paying for required "promotion" rather than for exhibition. There is little real difference.[/blockquote]

so there's some research. you can see that the gallery's own website explains the requirement for exhibitors to pay promotions fees to be allowed a show; wp and others explain that pay-to-play venues are vanity galleries. if you're going to argue that the gallery's own website doesn't count, you should step out of the loop and leave the article to less biased-looking writers. Cramyourspam (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already described at Aelita Andre as being a vanity gallery, so I'm unsure as to what the point of your post was. I don't mean that sarcastically - please clarify what you meant/what action you were trying to bring about. Kevin (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted this on the article's talk page, but it appears the same reply is relevant here: I don't know why Cramyourspam keeps insisting on using that private blog as a source in anything on Wikipedia, much less a BLP. It's not a reliable source now and will never be, so I would like to understand why there has been so much insistence on blog use here. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Cramyourspam's post here is copied and pasted from the article talk page, I'm also going to copy and paste the second half of my response here:

Listen, I'm a patient person, but I don't take kindly to your repeated personal attacks accusing me of bias, being close to the subject, etc. I would mind less than most people if you actually justified any of what you've said about me, but so far your only arguments have been variants of the fact that the article doesn't include the fact that it's a vanity gallery (which it now does, by the way) or say many negative things. Well, at best, that's a weak argument for NPOV, but nowhere in there is it justified to attack me as a source close to the subject or as a biased writer. Moreover, even your NPOV ideas can't go anywhere because until a reliable news sources publishes a critical story about the subject, we can't put in anything more negative than the fact that the Agora is a vanity gallery. We can't go into criticism of her without explicit sources of the criticism. Please read WP:BLP. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

( ... However, this is secondary to what Kevin noted above, which is that the Agora Gallery is already introduced as a vanity gallery in the article, with the citation being from the gallery's website, as it has been since 01:07 on 17 June.) Armadillopteryx^talk 23:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mohamed faarax aidid

somalia has never had a president since mohamed siad barre (1991) - ali mahdi mohamed was a self-declared one but for a short period of time between january and june 1991. Please remove mohamed faarax aidid and hussein mohamed faarax aidid from somalian presidents' list. There is no somalia central state since 1991. Merci

family kocovic

AS I REMEMBER as a child about my fathers side of the family, Kocovic, my grandparents Savo and Milijana have roots in Monte Negro, now I am not completely sure how long ago was that family Kocovic migrated, however they settled in Ribnica, near Kraljevo. Savo and Milijana had Cedomir, Dragomir, Milijana (Mica), Dusan (my father) and three other kids. My grandfather Savo is killed during WW-II on his doorstep by chetniks, while his two sons where killed in Banjica, concentration camp, during WW-II. Their property has been confiscated by Yugoslavian goverment in 1945. and they are left with small block of land. All of Kocovic family has been fighting against fashist regime, some of them has perished but some of them like Milijana, Dusan, Cedomir and Dragomir survived WW-II. Kocovic Dragomir (nearly blind) and Kocovic Dusan have had carear in Yugoslav army, long time retired before civil war on Balkans erupted.

Clifford Vaughs

Clifford Vaughs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In 1969, Clifford Vaughs and Lew Irwin were awarded by the Associated Press California, "Best Documentary" for "Berkely Third World or Third Reich". Special award for "The Most Creative Presentation of the News" for "Credibility Gap". Vaughs and Irwin formed VIP (Vaughs/Irwin Productions) and produced the shows at KRLA radio, Pasadena California. "Credibility Gap" went into syndication.

J. Patrick Capps

I am the subject of this article, and while I am flattered someone thinks enough of me to create a wikipedia page, I am concerned it might detract from my work. I will request that my page be deleted as soon as possible.J. Patrick Capps Monday, June 20, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.33.174 (talk • contribs)

Ernesto J. Cordero

1) In the level of PERSONAL LIFE it appears that he dropped out the Ph. D. in Economics. This is false, his current status is all but dissertation (ABD)

2) Controversy: His net earnings are not 200,000 pesos. The correct info is 145, 000 pesos. ^[1]

3)Controversy: This is the transcript with the exact words in page 8. ^[2]

Jose Antonio Vargas

Article subject revealed in an article that he was an "undocumented immigrant", his phrasing. An IP editor has repeatedly tried to recast this term, and have included BLP violations in edit summaries. Subject has not been charged with a crime in this regard, much less convicted. Another editor added a category that is similarly problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is a difference in the USA but it seems a bit of a fine point, perhaps unworthy of dispute over. Some papers are simply reporting illegal immigrant - MSBN for example - Pulitzer-winning journalist admits he's illegal immigrant - and civilliberty.com prefer Undocumented - Illegal Immigrants or Undocumented Immigrants? - I myself would suggest that as BLP requests us to write conservatively in regard to living people I would lean towards the less attacking terminology but its an emotive issue as you can see from the edit summaries. Off2riorob (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed a LGBT category since the subject's sexual orientation isn't coverd in the current version. (That went over like a lead balloon) Maybe add it going forward if that is worked into the article in an approriate way. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT id has been taken care of by adding text and reinstating cats - thanks for bringing it to our attention. Tvoz/talk 23:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

← I agree with Rob here - BLP policy does indeed favor using less attacking, NPOV terminology, and "undocumented" is clearly less POV than "illegal". There are 2 IPs who seem to be single-purpose accounts editing with an agenda - see the edit summaries for these edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Tvoz/talk 23:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Undocumented immigrant" is a legal state that doesn't exits in the United States, only in completely open immigration/no extradition countries such as Argentina. The term in the US is "illegal immigrant"...this is used by the US government and it's legal system. As for edit warring, I suggest that you don't start a call for an end to edits after reverting the article to your POV. That's an action in bad faith on Wikipedia. 173.15.206.101 (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the presented externals above there clearly is an option for both expressions. Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There's nothing wrong with the term "undocumented immigrant". It's often used in legal decisions as a descriptor. In any event, what requires that it be a correct legal term (or, as you put it, "legal state")? The term is used because it is supported by the source. Your belief that "illegal immigrant" is less POV is simply your opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if he is charged and convicted with something illegal then we can go with the illegal phraseology, until then the cited and less attacking expression seems to sit better within WP:BLP guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's Wikipedias place to redefine terms (now an illegal immigrant is only someone who is "charged and convicted..."?) or to create/support new euphemisms. It smacks of original research. As for the statement that the article supports the use of the term...the article you are using to support that was written by the subject. Slight conflict of interest. The numerous other articles on the subject by independent journalists who refer to him as an "illegal immigrant" were removed as sources from the article during editing because they didn't support "undocumented immigrant". If I opened someone's head with a drill saw and then wrote an article about it describing myself as an "undocumented brain surgeon", would you go with that as the descriptor?173.15.206.101 (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an RfC at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#RfC: undocumented immigrant or illegal immigrant. Cunard (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Bbb23, I see you removed nationality and ethnicity from his info box? This stuff is pretty standard fare. Could that be added back maybe after all the other "issues" settle down. I didn't want to revert you since its not a big deal. Anyways, cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those two parameters should only be included if they add or clarify something. In Vargas's case, the infobox says he was born in the Philippines, so there's no need to say he's Filipino, either by nationality or by ethnicity.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those two parameters should only be included if they add or clarify something is that from a MOS or guideline? It seems that those are included on alot of BLPs, not saying its right or wrong, just noting. They do seem to be relevant but maybe what do others think? Anyways, thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a guideline out there on this issue I haven't seen (there are so many :-) ). But as far as I'm concerned, it's just editorial judgment and common sense. It would be like saying in the body of the article, "Vargas was born in the Phillipines and is Filipino. He's also ethnically Filipino." As for the everyone-else-does-it argument, I never find that compelling - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Arnaiz Villena

Akerbeltz,Dumu Eduba,Kwamikagami and Trigaranus are spoiling Antonio Arnaiz-Villena biography with their opinions as pointed out bu User:Zero .They were apparent linguists that later become interested only just on the false legal accusations that rised against Arnaiz-Villena after publishing a forbidden(!) genetics paper on Palestinians.This is now in the page.They do not let clarify what WP asks for update or references.Symbio04 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symbio4 has no idea what he is doing on Wikipedia. He simply can't edit. I have no idea what his interest is in this article, which has a very checkered history in terms of content and editors, and I don't feel like going backwards to look at all the controversies, including sockpuppet investigations, etc., but Symbio4 appears to be a single purpose account, and although for a while the article was quiet, he's come back with a vengeance and won't listen to reason. At present, regardless of any other editors he accuses of whatever, he is the problem. And I've run out of reversions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23,my friend,if you threaten somebody who is trying to arrange a BLP (which is full of subjective opinions and plain lies), it would be preferable you quit WP. Where is it stated that A-V blamed on a Jewish lobby? Corrupted Spanish newspapers,gossips…? When attack started against A-V.Human Immunology Editor,Nicole Succiu-Foca said in 2002 that many pro-Jewish people had asker her A-V dismissal. I insist if you are not prepared to study a WP topic in deep,please do not touch it.Iberomesornix (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It only gets worse. Now we have another editor adding a quote from Villena complaining that he was the victim of the "Jewish lobby". Of course, the quote is miserably out of context, but that doesn't seem to matter. The cited source is contextual, but the quote is a separate add-on to the sourced article that was Villena's response to a different incident.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Arnaiz puppets has written here many miserable accussations (did you now that according to him I am a secret agent in a conspiracy against him?). He has written here in the WIkipedia that there is a conspiracy of editors working for the Secret Services against him. He has added many unsourced claims even in the article, and, for instance, he asked to delete Prof. De Hoz references accusing him of libel (here, but not in the Court), as he asked to delete any reference which criticised his linguistic fringe theories. For once, there is an accusation of his that it is really sourced and that is EXACTLY in the context of the reason he claimed when accused in an interview in a newspaper for which he had written (it is what HE said when answered on the accusations against him). The quote puts exactly the question in its place, providing Arnaiz's point of view. To disregard this, only because not favourable, would be an editorial intervention. (Besides this, the theory, tall story, that he is a victim of a political conspiration is something that he is repeating here once and again ad nauseam) Dumu Eduba (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've bowed out from editing the article for the moment (although not because of Iberomesornix's absurd comments). I'm awaiting the outcome of the SPI investigation before doing anything else. It would still help, though, if other editors would take an interest in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the SP investigation and precedents of this case (with more on the same) do not forget the "deeds" of user Arnaiz1 who claimed to be Arnaiz, was blocked as puppet and had the same writing ticks in the signing tag: [10], [11]. Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iberomesornix now blocked as a sockpuppet. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Nyiramasuhuko

Her article lacks a date of birth, and there's no right-hand sidebar of vital statistics as all other biographic articles seem to have. Given that an international court has just convicted her, surely her approximate age has been stated *somewhere* ?

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena issue #2

This is a completely different issue from the one regarding this article already raised above, so I am listing it separately to avoid confusing the two. The subject of this page has published idiosyncratic theories about the Basque language. After (not very objectively) stating the theories, several people insist on adding this:

This thesis flatly contradicts basic Egyptological, Sumerian, Semitic, Indo-European, and Mesoamerican scholarship. Phoenician, Akkadian/Babylonian, Ugaritic, and Eblaite, for example, are transparently Semitic languages, and Arnaiz-Villena excludes the rest of the Semitic languages from his family; Egyptian and Berber along with Semitic have been demonstrated to be Afro-Asiatic, and generations of linguists have been unable to find a connection between Berber and Basque or Afro-Asiatic and Basque; and Hittite is widely acclaimed as a key in the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, which Arnaiz-Villena acknowledges is completely unrelated to Basque.

It is a strong opinion that the subject's theory is bunk, in the voice of the article, with no citation. I tried to calmly explain on the talk page that opinions have to be sourced, and that negative opinions about living people really really have to be sourced. But all I'm getting is argument like that the opinion is "uncontroversial among linguists". Can someone please explain the rules to these people? Zero^talk 10:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should explain better which points you think to be unduly unsourced, because after reading Trigaranus comment it seems that all are obvious things, but maybe I missunderstood.

As I see it, it is af if someone (call him Mr. X) writes that sun orbits around Earth and Mars around the Moon (yes,as absurd as that) and ask to provide references to stating that Mr. X's theories are absurd. A reference for the Earth orbiting the Sun, another for the Sun is a star, etc.... Do you think a reference would be necessary?

You can search the wikipedia, in the articles of any of these languages if there is any controversy on whether Phoenician is a Semitic language, on whether Champollion deciphered Egyptian hyeroglyphs, whether Hittite is an Indo-European language, whether Hammburabi's monolite is a legal corpus....

If hypothetical Mr. X wrote that "Romeo and Julieta" is not a play, but a mistical text in Basque on the cult to the Great Mother, would be necessary a reference? Because this is the level of absurdity we are talking of.Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very big error in your analogy. Almost everyone on Earth knows that Mars doesn't orbit the Moon, but it would be a big surprise if even 1 in 10,000 people know anything at all about the origins of Basque. People who come to this article and see a claim about it are entitled to ask "who says?". If it is all so obvious and well-known, it should be a piece of cake to source it! But that is not the reason I brought it to this page, rather than to WP:NORN. It is not permitted for editors to insert their own unsourced opinions into articles, especially negative opinions about living people. Why is that so hard to understand? Zero^talk 14:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point of view, is that everybody can use Wikipedia itself for such obvious questions. You can add internal links on Semitic and Indo-European.

No, that is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have any evidentiary authority of its own but only reports what "reliable sources" say. Of course we can link one Wikipedia article to another, but we cannot use one Wikipedia article as a source for another, see WP:V#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it. Zero^talk 03:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are right. In any case, I think my idea is not exactly that, but that in these cases is not a use of Wikipedia as "source", but as a reference for further details if needed (always from the viewpoint that in linguistics it is something very obvious) were bibliographyh and details are included. But I suppose it is rather a subjective difference, so, no problem. Dumu Eduba (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW you can see here another one of the puppets Iberomesornix, and see their "constructive" style.

A personal observation.Why users which are Arnaiz-Villena (or, at best, persons very very very close to him) are allowed not only to edit his own biography, but also once and again to make edit warrings and to launch personal attacks, insults and even criminal accusations that even had to be deleted from the page history?. Quousque tandem...? It is illogical to ask to carry out ALL the rules? He is taken advantage of tolerance, and that only causes more problems and wastes of time. Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paleolithic cave wall signs contradict much of the linguists dogma and even dates of Americas peopling.Should you “linguists”(lawyers)try to defamate and destroy Genevieve von Petzinger? [12]Iberomesornix (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Zero: In that case, in order for that statement (the 'flatly contradicts') to find your approval, we need to add a reference for every language family mentioned therein? I really want you to be aware of the fact that AAV's linguistic theories are not theories but rather absurd fancies perfectly oblivious and actively hostile to evidence and academic refutation. A linguistic theory undoubtedly deserves to be weighed against the available evidence (which often supports it), and an article that does not give it due credit would be incomplete; but these are ramblings covered in superficially respectable coating, by a man who is as proficient in linguistics as the linguists who oppose him are in genetics. It is bogus, irrespective of it coming from a living person, and although it claims to be, it is not linguistics. Therefore I really do suggest what I have suggested on the article's talk page: to link to one academic page presenting what debate on language families there actually is in scholarly debate, and to leave it at that. Trigaranus (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trigaranus,have you ever read any of the A-V books?They are full of references.Transcription texts are taken from somebody else. You are against A-V without any objective justification,even telling lies about legal affaires.Are not you just a dedicated linguist?.Your opinion togethet with those of Dumu Eduba,Akerbeltz and Kwamikagami should not be allowed into this WP:BLPIberomesornix (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ibe, I have. And let us make a pact right here and now: I am not gonna meddle in genetics and try to convince you that DNA is actually made of microscopic strands of candyfloss, and you are not gonna try and tell me that the jolly word-matching you or AAV do on the side is linguistics. I am sorry, but it's been read, it's been measured, and it's been found a pile of utter rot and a good old waste of everybody's time. I would not put it that harshly if you weren't so obstinately claiming that it has any linguistic value whatsoever. (And for the love of language and anyone reading your comments, please hit the space bar right after you've pressed the comma or period keys.) This is not about the very slim chance that any reputable linguist might be convinced to throw 150 years of diachronic linguistics on the trash because AAV noticed the magic of homophonic or vaguely assonant syllables across language groups, but about Zero's request that we ought to quote the academic literature to label every single sausage in a factory entirely dedicated to the production and distribution of baloney. Trigaranus (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can make pacts .I do not mind your keen persecution.What is SPI?

Trigaranus,you have forgotten the work of John Bengtson,the late Sergei Anatolyevich Starostin and Merritt Ruhlen.All of them relate Basque language with Dene Caucasian languages including Basque[[13]].I will add the proper information these week.However,this is not a matter of a BLP ,thus I will put most of the staff in one or two lines:those supporters and those who are against.In addition,most of what A A-V has proposed had already been proposed before without such a detail,i.e.: [14].This is because I do not believe that you are against A-V because his Basque language work,but because another unknown matter,particularly after your sudden twist to defamate A-V with spurious legal matters. A-V is respected by all geneticians.He has written many papers (more than 320)on it and you focus his BLP on just 2 papers.Scientific reviewers and A-V geneticists fellows have accepted all his work ,except Palestinian paper and Greek paper in WP (both of them were peer reviewed,also).We must emphasize that the main results of both papers have been repeated by other laboratories (as specified on the Greek one in WP,but not with Palestinian one).I will have to summarize this also and put Mike Hammer and other results in Palestinians.(COPY)Symbio04 (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have some attention from uninvolved administrators please? Zero^talk 01:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trigaranus,A-V methodology is explained here in short[15].Usually,linguists vary methodologies according to each case and they are not critizised(by linguits).I have been asked to request if you could send me one of your references in linguistics for doing a criticism,as an exercise.Symbio04 (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much easier. Here is the link to the Long Rangers web and the MOther Tongue journal HERE, where linguists as Starostin or Bengtson (who you have mentioned as your collegues) have a prominent role. Would you be so nice as to quote a link on this pages and journals were your alleged linguistic researches are quoted as something serious? Otherwise the conclusion is obvious: even the Long Rangers consider your "researches" useless.

BTW the scientific level of your usko methodology is just the same that to sequence DNA using a ouija, you now A....T.....G...C (and then claiming that there is a conspiracy because the ouija method is cheaper and the industry wanst to keep its money....., and that geneticist are no scintific people, but closed to new methods). Is it now crystal clear which are your merits?

But of course you already know all this, I guess you are filling the wikipedia with complains only to say to your friends and customers "you see, I am a great scientific, like Copernicus, like Darwin, but there is a conspiracy of evil people.. look the wikipedia how am I libeled.... and my complains". You fill the pages with complains as an smokescreen, to make the discussion glibberish and hard to read. So you can say that there are no scientific criticism but personal attacks. Just a mockery. Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Paulson

About a year ago someone created a redirect for the article Paulson & Co to the BLP John Paulson. [16] This seems inappropriate to me. If others agree and will advise me on how to undue the redirect, I will re-create the Paulson & Co article and remove info about the company that is currently in the BLP. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Paulson & Co (no period) does not exist as an article, whereas Paulson & Co. (with period) is the redirect. If the latter is the appropriate title for the article about the company, just edit that page to remove the redirect code (the #REDIRECT [[John Paulson#Hedge fund]] stuff) and create the article there. – ukexpat (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ukexpat, I'll do that and give you a shout if I get stuck. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Thomson (footballer)

Mr Thomson is a Scottish footballer who was recently placed on the sex offenders register after some questionable online conversations with underage girls. My question is, is there too much about it in the article? Specifically, should it be mentioned in the lede? Thanks. doomgaze (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it from the lead as I think it is rather undue weight. However, the section discussing it seems to me to be justified, given the wide coverage and the impact on his career and on the club. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it belongs in the lead. It's one of the most significant events in his career. WP:LEAD says the lead should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". Christopher Connor (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's fair comment - a common rule of thumb on lead sections is that they should contain one sentence for each major section of the article itself. And the sentence in this case was quite conservatively worded. However, I fear that including it in the lead because of it being "one of the most significant events in his career" is actually recentism. The reliable sources that have been cited, point out that he has not been fired from his club precisely because the club may want to recoup their investment by selling him on to whichever other club wouldn't have problems with taking him; and that the real value is decided by what he does "on the grass" (however nauseating that thought may be). I don't know much about football, but maybe this is just a hiatus of a few weeks in his career; equally it could be the end of his career. I don't think the lead should characterise him as (footballer+sex offender), rather than (footballer)+(sex offender section later in bio) until some of the recentism wears off.

Incidentally, BBC News mentioned more problems for him, on their front page, today/yesterday.

Doomgaze may well be able to be the deciding vote on this :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Street

Article seems to have been written by subject, and reads as an advertisement. It contains much more information than would seem to be necessary when compared to other articles about similar persons, and does not seem to achieve the general notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosaley (talk • contribs) 21:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The writing is way too casual, but it would be helpful if you would (1) explain what detail is unnecessary and (2) why you haven't raised these issues on the Street Talk page rather than here as I see no real BLP issues. It also seems odd that your very first edit as a registered user is to post this message here. Any reason for that? I have done some copy edits, some small removals, etc. The article needs more work to be encyclopedic, but it's fairly well-sourced and I don't see a notability issue, although I haven't gone through and checked all the sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little work on it, in particular removing all the in-line external links, per WP:EL. – ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subrata roy

Regarding removal content "2G spectrum..." in Article "Subrata Roy"

Since the concerned matter is sub-judice, i.e. pending before court of law, any vexatious or biased comment or accusation causing damage to the image and reputation of an individual in lieu of any court verdict against the said individual, amounts to a criminal offence of Defamation under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. All persons who draft, publish, or aid and assist in drafting or publishing any such defamatory content are liable to be prosecuted in the court of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.103.104 (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question was recently semi-protected (at my request) following repeated blanking of sourced content by this and other IP addresses. The IP address has been asked to discuss the disputed material on the talk page of the article, and has not done so (even now).

Instead, the IP address has posted a legal notice identical to the above, to the user talk pages of six editors including myself, plus the talk page of an IP address. Although this is slightly vague as legal threats go, the widespread distribution of it seems calculated to have a chilling effect on editing. Please would a passing admin deal with this IP address per WP:NLT. (A similar request has been made at ANI here).

Comments about the appropriateness of the disputed section are also welcome. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a legal thret to me, ask an admin to block. Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tnxman307 has blocked the IP address for a week. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since i have contributed majorly on this article hence want to bring to the notice of eminent editor a line from policies related to BLP, it quotes - " Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist,..........and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2011

Chen Jue

I found it via wp:LIVINGDEAD on plwiki and I found death date, no ref, external links (even letters are unreadable for me "没有找到相关内容，您也许对下面内容感兴趣"), BLP notice and talkpage and death date. No google data but is is ulikely that she is alive (born in 1903). What should I do? Bulwersator (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed invalid interwiki, but still - what to do? Bulwersator (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Antonelli

Johnny Antonelli's skills DID NOT suddenly diminsh leading to his retirement. I spoke to him on 6/23/11, and this is what he stated: Mr. Antonelli retired at 32 years old because he grew tired of the traveling. He was offered a contract by the expansion New York Mets but turned it down. He simply did not want to travel anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maphfa (talk • contribs) 11:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about his retirement and another sentence in the article, both of which were negative, have been removed as unsourced. What Antonelli told you is also supported by a third-party source, so I've added it. The article is still largely unsourced (it's been tagged since July 2010), but I left in non-controversial material for the moment. It would be great if you could find some sources for what's in the article. Otherwise, unfortunately, unsourced parts will probably be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kugler

Sean Kugler attended DeSales Catholic High School and graduated in 1984. The school is located in Lockport, NY and not in Geneva, NY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.222.130 (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Raitt

I'm not well-informed about Canadian politics, but my preliminary impression after reading the article is that is seems to place undue weight on several controversies that reflect negatively on Lisa Raitt. Cullen328 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Witulski

Florian Witulski has made no significant or original contribution to his field. He is purely an inexperienced citizen journalist desperate for attention. His biography should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.33.129 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your personal opinion. I see an in-depth profile on CNN's website, and other references are available, so perhaps he is notable after all. Cullen328 (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cave

The entry on Andy Cave is a piece that - IMHO - is a summing up all the positive and good about this climber (must be said, he's a person of some name). The history shows it's been built up by only very few editors, and especially User:Elaine bull solely focus on this article. It's a [self-]promotional article in essence and as I cant find the correct template [which I'm always having troubles with], I'd like to know whether insertion of the following one; {{vfd-sp}} would be correct, or whether you'd suggest another template. [And does one stuff that on the page or on the talk page?] Qwrk (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cave is notable. Threeafterthree has done a good job trimming the puffery. The article could be expanded - reliable sources are readily available. I've got it on my watchlist and will try to chip in when I've got time. Cullen328 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sayuki

DAJF is constantly reediting the profile of Fiona Graham - Sayuki - to write in that she is no longer working, and other things that are unfounded. As a living person, this affects her career and is unwarranted. Other editors have cited from newspaper and valid sources that she is, in fact, working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.22.90.82 (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change to the article for at least three reasons. First, you need to learn how to cite and edit. The formatting you introduced in the article was awful. Second, you need to take this content dispute to the article's Talk page. Third, as far as I can tell, the source you want to include about what Graham said in response is in the article without your edits. Now, there are other changes you're making that, frankly, I can't follow because of the way you word, format, and cite them. But the central issue, as you frame it, has been addressed. If it hasn't been addressed to your satisfaction, then take it to the Talk page and discuss it with the other editors rather than edit-war about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stonefield (band)

There is a minor dispute at the above article. The article at present gives the hometown of the band, a very small town in Australia. This is independently and reliably sourced and has been publically released on several occasions (see [17] and [18]). In my opinion, the information is reliably sourced, encyclopedic in nature and non-controversial. Rowie235 (talk · contribs) has removed the name of the town on several occasions, citing his/her (good faith) concern that it is an invasion of privacy and may put members of the band at risk, considering their age (the youngest is 12) and the size of the town. See here for more detail on his/her concerns. The advice/mediation of a third party would be useful. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their claim of "illegal to post information" seems very unlikely to be accurate. However, their concerns are understandable, given the place is so small - more a village than a town really. Would the article really lose much by just saying they are "...from a small town in rural Victoria"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It would have been better to have the discussion you're having with Rowie235 on the Talk page of the article rather than on your and Rowie's Talk pages. That said, I don't see any legitimate basis for withholding the hometown of the band if it's published in reliable sources. Rowie appears to have a conflict as a "personal friend of the band members". Also, even Rowie doesn't say the band members don't want the information on Wikipedia. He says only that he talked to them about it. I also don't get his contention that it would be "illegal" to post such information. In any event, I favor inclusion of the information. If one of the band members wants to complain directly about privacy issues (although it's kind of hard to believe they would so so), they can do so themselves rather than through a conduit.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It would have been better to have the discussion you're having with Rowie235 on the Talk page of the article" Agree entirely and having the discussion spread over two talk pages and here does not help either. Next time, I will apply a bit of forethought. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the time taken to discuss this matter. I will contact the band and ask them to resolve it either through their own means or through my account (they don't have a wiki account).--Rowie235 (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cat is out of the bag, if it was a problem for them then they would not have given the information to news.com.au or would have asked them to redact the information after it was posted, Wikipedia is not censored and as this information is widely published in reliable sources, there seems no reason to excluded it from the article. It does not matter what the band want to appear here, they have no right of veto. Mtking (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an uninvolved party (I put the town in in the first place with a good reliable source and repeatedly put it back when it was being removed without explaination) but I still think it belongs. It has been widely reported, including by major reputable news organisation who don't like getting in trouble by illegally publishing information about minors. Wikipedia articles should be based on what is published in independent reliable sources, not based on the preferred version of parties connected with the subject. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when we remove published information out of respect for a subject's privacy. See WP:BLPPRIVACY. The problem I have here is that the article subjects are not even the ones directly complaining. We often have to take a person at their word when they say they are the subject of an article, but here we have an editor who is saying he is in touch with the subjects. When he says they don't have a wiki account, my response is so what. They can post here even as an IP if they wish, or they can easily create an account, to the extent it matters. Frankly, I just don't get it, and I don't think Rowie has established sufficient justification for non-inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rowie235, please ask the families or representatives of the persons concerned (assuming the persons concerned are minors), to contact the Wikimedia Foundation volunteers through the email link at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#How to complain to the Wikimedia Foundation, if they still have concerns. They should mention that the subject was discussed at the "Biographes of Living Persons Noticeboard", and explain what their concerns are.

Personally, I am still very sympathetic to the stated concerns, given the age of some of the band members, the level of hype, and the size of the community, but that is the best way to take things forward from here I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I'm not particularly sympathetic because they are a "commercial" band, not just a group of young people. However, if they directly complain to Wikimedia and ask that the town name be removed, I would be in favor of honoring the request because it's a small request and the town name is really not necessary to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Include hometown. The information doesn't fall under WP:BLPPRIVACY or any other portion of WP:BLP. And given the abundant sources for the information—the bulk of which are reliable sources that appear to have received the information directly from the band—it seems impossible to conclude that they want the information to be private unless they (and not some random individual who claims to know them) specifically request it to be. ^Bongo_matic 14:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

appasami

Mr. G. Appasami was born in Pondicherry, India in 1980. He received his Master of Science degree in Mathematics, Master of Computer Applications degree and Master of Technology degree in Computer Science and Engineering from Pondicherry University, Pondicherry, India. He received his Master of Philosophy in Computer Science from Alagappa University, Karaikudi, India.Currently he is faculty in Dr. Pauls Engineering College, Villupuram and affiliated to Anna University of Technology Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. He is a life member of Indian Society for Technical Education, Computer Society of India, International Association of Computer Science and Information Technology (Singapore) and International Association of Engineers. He has published more papers in national/international journals and conference proceedings. His Area of interests includes Network Security, image processing and web technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.102.195.186 (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good for him. May I ask what is the point of posting that here? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pasquale conte

much of the information in your article with regard to pasquale conte are unsubstantiated allegations and defamatory. I believe most of the information that is incorrect has been placed by his younger brother who his is bitter towards. pasquale conte jr. you may contact me to clarify anything you wish at [removed email] Other websites with erroneous information are not considered to be valid sources. passing along information you know to be untrue does not validate it in any way . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.11.61 (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources seem to be New York Times articles. Are they being misused in any way? You have to be very specific. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be more critical! Is a "free website" at http://members.fortunecity.com/ a reliable source for a BLP saying that a currently living person was part of a "crew" that was "heavily involved in heroin trafficking"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - trimmed slightly. More eyes welcome. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right of course but it sounded like he meant a lot more than that. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but the article is a disaster zone. Basically if someone has been guilty of xyz and has therefore appeared in the New York Times (a lot), then we should not be assuming they are somehow therefore also guilty of abc and def etc, if it can be slipped into the article quietly while the NYT refs are still around.

(Of course, we might also assume that ghi and jkl have also happened, but that's not the point.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I shouldn't respond if I'm this lazy eh? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

joseph banzhaf III

The Joe Banzhaf III article, absurdly, ends in 1981. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.202.95 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you mean John F. Banzhaf III, which doesn't "end" in 1981, anyway. Maybe you could give us just a bit more information as to what you think the problem is.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The John F. Banzhaf III article neglected his contributions to cooperative game theory and fair-representation jurisprudence in the USA: I added a quick survey by cannibalizing other articles. It also lacked assessments for even the law project. It discusses events well after 1981.

Unfortunately, it has a lot of criticism of Banzhaf with detailed quotations from corporate sponsored "libertarian" critics. However, there are no balancing positive comments. (I was surprised that my friends in public interest law had heard of this game theorist, and then they told me that he was one of the foremost legal architects against second-hand smoking in the USA! This article calls for expansion! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Banzhaf III

A second opinion is needed of the article, following my copy-editing. (I have asked also for help at WikiProject Law.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rhys Meyers

I was hoping some other editors could look at the last paragraph of this article regarding recent events. Three sources are cited but when you follow the sources, they use very vague language like "suspected" or it was the opinion of those present.... Plus the sources are not very high quality to begin with. It seems like the report of a rumor. Is it sufficient for BLP? Bluebonnet460 (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted a huge wad of less-than-relevant information from the later parts of the article.. although whether I've dealt with your concerns, is unclear. As well as that, the "Career" section needs some close examination as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the "suspected" suicide attempt stuff at the very end.Bluebonnet460 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that paragraph, too, is only superficially "well-sourced", and needs more work. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Witherspoon (actor)

Very poorly written and no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.249.31 (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has some references, called footnotes in this article. It also has a number of external links, some of which may be suitable as references. You are free to edit the article to improve the writing style. The subject seems notable, and I didn't see BLP violations in a quick review. Cullen328 (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Hoser

Hello. The above article, while reasonably well referenced, appears to have a less-than-neutral tone to it. The general theme is negative and as such I think it could use some other eyes on it to ensure neutrality. All help appreciated. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Gregg

Firstly would question his notability for Wikipedia inclusion. Secondly article seems to be self-promotional, particularly regarding his current company. Suggest deletion. regards, jwdd27

Regarding notability, looking at the article's sources, he seems to meet WP:BASIC, he was involved in several high profile cases and the Telegraph says "lauded as one of the country's finest detectives". The article doesn't seem promotional to me. It just follows what the sources say e.g. "a major crime adviser to a leading forensic service provider company". Sean.hoyland - talk 18:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Forrest

In his Bio, Steve Forrest was killed by Matt Dillon twice....once as "Mannon" and once again n the Gunsmoke movie, again as Mannon.

But, he was also killed one other time, 3 times in total, in "The Brothers". He Played the part of Cord Wrecken, shot by Matt Dillin in the Long Branch as he threatened Miss Kitty.

Bud Weisbrod — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.156.232.166 (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add that information, as long as you cite a reference to a reliable source that verifies the claim. Cullen328 (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cherney and Wikileaks

Another editor wants the following information in this (already controversial) article:

Several leaked US diplomatic cables from the US Embassy in Sofia, Bulgaria, mention Cherney. One describes him as a "notorious Russian crime figure" as well as a "Russian mobster". Continuing, it suggests that Cherney has "maintained influence over a number of companies by transferring ownership to Batkov" including PFC Levski Sofia and the Standardt newspaper. A second cable on the influence of Bulgarian organised crime in the cournty's football teams claims that Todor Batkov,the President of PFC Levski Sofia is "the proxy and front-man for the infamous Russian-Israeli businessman Michael Cherney". A third cable reports that Cherney "was expelled from Bulgaria in 2000 on the grounds of threatening national security".

In my view, the cables are either primary or secondary sources (depending on your point of view) and they lack context, including who exactly is making the accusations and why. I tried to keep the information out of the article, but the editor claims that other articles use these cables. See our Talk discussion here.

If these sources are not reliable for this purpose (my view), then we have clear BLP violations. I'd like other editors to take a look at this.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Halstead

It has a weird history, which I can't completely follow. Putting aside a mistaken speedy delete, it was nominated for deletion in 2006 and deleted. It was recreated sometime later and then nominated for deletion in 2010 and kept (for some reason, at least the way I do it, the 2010 discussion doesn't show up in the public logs for the page). I was going to nominate it now for deletion until somehow I saw the 2010 keep, and I don't see that enough has changed since then that the result would be different. Of course, other editors might agree with me, but I doubt the odds are in my favor.

I think it's a really silly article about a a lightweight con man who attracted media attention only because of failed attempts to start airlines that, uh, never got off the ground. Along the way, he engaged in chicanery, but even there, he didn't do enough to warrant criminal prosecution. All in all it's a non-story that, for reasons that are unfathomable to me, the British press enjoyed reporting about. He's not really notable for much of anything. Plus, the same editor who created the Halstead article created the Varsity Express article, one of the failed ventures. Long story short (I know, too late), I don't feel like spending time working on an article that I don't think belongs here in the first instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea to refer to this living person as a "con-man" on any page in Wikipedia unless there's a reliable source to back it up. In any case, if the British press publish articles about him, and that constitutes "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" then he is notable. There's no concept of "really notable". If you think the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia then nominate it for deletion, and make the argument there. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor_Robertson_(politician)

An IP posted an RfC at Talk:Gregor_Robertson_(politician)#RFC:_negative_slant.3F regarding possible BLP issues in article Gregor_Robertson_(politician). (I'm not the RfC creator: I'm just cross-posting here to get more publicity). --Noleander (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiva Wijesinha

The article on Rajiva Wijesinha has been maliciously edited on 6/24/2011. In the second paragraph first line the word president has been replaced with "dictator". In para 5 line 1 the word "transvestite" has been inserted to describe Rajiva. These are obviously libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.152.248 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the unsourced negative edits. You can remove this type of edit yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Casselman

I am William Gordon Casselman. ^{[details removed]}

Upon discovering a biographical Wiki item about myself and my works,that contained faulty entries, incomplete publication lists, various mistakes, I corrected them, only to have all the errors re-inserted.

The first report suggested strongly that I was either dead or no longer writing. That is deleterious to my career. That is one of the three requiasites to launch libel.

As the Wiki entry was called a biography of Bill Casselman, I added a publicly attested short biography from my website and from the author copy of all my third-party published books. But some arrogant editor, without so much as emailing me, has removed all the information I added, plus RE-INSERTED his or her mistakes. One of the things I did was merely put in the date of publication of all my books. Those dates were removed.

The utter snotty no-knowingness of the editor who first wrote and then removed all my corrections simply takes my breath away. I would ask you to insert all the edits I painstakingly inserted into a faulty biographical sketch that strongly hinted I was sitting somewhere drooling in a padded Alzheimer's chair, when in fact I am busy correcting my 15th book for American publication.

Therefore what your bizarre Wiki rules suggest is that some editor who has never contacted me knows more about my life than I do!!!

Out-fucking-rageous.

Please put my corrections back into the Wiki piece.

Bill Casselman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.163.48 (talk • contribs)

The main issue here is that as the subject of the article, you would have a conflict of interest. The second problem is of course that we have no way of knowing that you are who you say you are. Any can write in here and claim to be William Casselman. How would we know? I didn't go over the exchange (or lack of exchange) you've had with other editors, so I don't know if they handled this well. The best thing for you to do (and I'll assume you are William Casselman here), is to discuss the issue on the article talk page. Let other editors know what changes you would like, what corrections need to be made. It always helps to include details about published items about you so things can be verfified. Basic biographical information can be gleaned from the published author profiles in your books but because of copyright restrictions we can't publish those biographical blurbs in their entirety. I'm assuming the copyright for that would be held by your publisher. It's better to list what corrections need to be made and where that info is published. Then an editor with no connection to you can make those changes. I realize this seems overly bureaucratic and can be frustrating but do understand that when we all edit anonymously, even if we claim to be someone, no one can know for sure. If ever there is an issue that needs to be addressed, the article talk page is the best place to do it. If there is something in the article that is seriously libelous, I can assure you that anyone is free to remove it without prejudice. Just remove it and explain in the edit summary that what was written is libelous and unsourced. Unsourced biographical information on living people is serious and violates WP:BLP. freshacconci talktalk 14:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, legal threats are prohibited on Wikipedia. Your "launch libel" comment above is such a threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would question whether this person is notable. Are there any sources which make him so? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Flotilla II

A little while ago I scanned through our Freedom Flotilla II article, where I chanced upon the follow -

The flotilla is represented by a coalition of 22 NGOs and coordinated by Amin Abu Rashid, who Dutch media and Israeli Minister Yuli Edelstein accused of being a senior Hamas operative

The following two articles were given as references.

JPost Telegraaf

The issue is, the JPost cites the Telegraaf as the source of its information, while the Telegraaf cites an unnamed "intelligence source". So basically the information is coming from some nameless, faceless spokesperson for the Israeli government.

Thinking this was clearly inappropriate, I deleted it, only to have my revision undone by User:Epeefleche, who insists that since Telegraaf and JPost are WP:RS, the material is actually "well sourced".

I think it should be relatively obvious to anyone who examines the sources that keeping the material as is makes WP a mouthpiece for some unknown "intelligence source", which is pretty clearly not good practice.

On another note, following my edit and Epee's undo, Epeefleche actually started a Amin Abu Rashid page. Epee has a rather long history of tendentious editing on Israel-Palestine articles. Anyone feel that Epee's creative manipulation of sources might rise to the level of arbitration? NickCT (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems extremely premature to claim arbitration issues, more like discussion issues. Lets have a look at the sources and if they are weak then improve and attribution. I think? Hamas is an illegal organization and we should not be asserting someone is a member just by some weak accusation. (disclaimer - I have not looked at the content in question yet) note - I looked at Amin Abu Rashid and removed the opinionated claims of being in a terrorist organization. All of which go straight back to Israeli intelligence. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's relevant discussion on the talk page for this article, as Rob noticed. ( link/snapshot ) – OhioStandard (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find NickCT's above aspersion and personal attack on me to be uncivil. I would ask that he retract it. I've never been sanctioned for tendentious editing in the I-P area. He has. For him to seek to intimidate other editor's in this fashion, with untrue defamatory aspersions, is uncalled for, and on the wrong line of wp:civil. I would have hoped that after his block for an inappropriate personal attack in this area, he would have desisted from such behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the substance is involved, Nick mis-represents it. Included in the referencing (he mis-states the number of references as well) is a quote to an Israeli Minister. That is even apparent from the text of what Nick quoted. And yet, Nick mis-represent this, writing that it is attributed only to a "faceless spokesperson for the Israeli government". That's clearly not the case. As far as Hamas being "terrorist", I don't believe that that was an assertion in either article; nor does it appear to be a settled matter -- for example, the United Nations and nations such as Russia, Turkey, and Switzerland do not classify it as a terrorist organization.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

adding child abusers to LGBT people categories

Resolved

– reported account blocked as a block evading account by User:Dougweller and all the accounts edits were reverted

Sword of St. Michael (talk · contribs) has added a number of catholic priests and others who committed child abuse to categories such as Category:LGBT people from Australia and Category:LGBT people from Ireland. While these individuals abused boys, I don't see anything in the articles to indicate that they identified as homosexual. This seems like an attempt to use wikipedia to make a point. The user has been doing something similar by labeling certain sources he doesn't like as Jewish[19]. GabrielF (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that old chestnut, we clearly don't do that, although I can see where the user is coming from it is undue weight to an uncited opinion of bias, if such a claim of bias is cited and well known/reported in reliable externals (which I don't think this is but if sources are provided I would consider it) there could be a case made for some kind of inclusion at some point in an article but not blindly in a leading way like that. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the adding of sexual criminals to a cat, that is also not something we do here as I have seen. A person committing a rape can go into the rapist cat but a person committing a gay rape doesn't belong in the LGBT cats as they would require self identification with that group as per WP:BLPCAT - or whichever that guideline is. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not only do they have to self-identify as being gay, but their sexual orientation has to be related to their notability. Otherwise, it violates WP:BLPCAT. I think it's virtually impossible to argue that the sexual orientation of an abuser of same-sex children is related to his notability. If that were so, then the sexual orientation of heterosexual child molesters would be related to their notability. The categories should be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think almost all the acconts edits have already been reverted. Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note - this User:Sword of St. Michael account also appears to be making the same edits as this currently blocked one month IP address 90.212.77.171 - perhaps a word with the blocking admin. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. I sent the blocking admin a note. GabrielF (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very good catch. Quack quack. Blocked indefinitely. He clearly doesn't like Jews either. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Off2riorob and Dougweller. Looks like there are a few account edits that haven't been reverted. One is to John Chrysostom diff - I don't know enough about the topic to evaluate this edit. The other is to Nathan Bedford Forrest [20]. In this case he replaces "a reign of terrorism" with "an extra-parliamentary campaign" when referring to the Ku Klux Klan. Terrorism is a very loaded word, but I think its more apt to describe the Klan than "extra-parliamentary opposition", which reads like whitewashing history to me. GabrielF (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note GabrielF - as the user clearly has NPOV issues and was evading an editing restriction and should not have been editing at the time and the edits are questionable in regards to their beneficialness I have reverted those articles to the position they were in prior to the users contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard-Henri Lévy

Recently, the subject Bernard-Henri Lévy has been under attack in the MSM and on blogs because he has stood by his friend, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Somebody in a major blog is citing this article and suggesting BHL is a fraud.

I find a great part of this article is biased and downright nasty. The subsection, "criticism" quotes two author and puts in quotation marks a quite negative statement. Although the book is not referenced, a quick search of Amazon reveals that the English translation is not available, at least in the USA. I have not checked the UK.

Since I am a newcomer to WIKI editing and not an expert in this field, can an experienced editor review this article? I have neither the chops nor the facility to do this on my own.

I do not know the subject and have no financial or personal interest thereon. PietrH (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Bernard-Henri_Lévy#Criticisms - I trimmed the long term uncited and made a couple of small writes for weight, seems a bit less undue now. I also have no financial or personal interest thereon (I just wanted to say that) Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review: Lewinsky (neologism)

I deleted an article that appears to violate WP:BLP and blocked the editor who created it, an account created today with only this one article as edits. Please weigh in here. Dreadstar ☥ 23:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the article name to the heading. Will Beback talk 23:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Darbar

Person is posting material based on articles that cite rumors and anonymous sources. I removed once and has been re-added. I do not want to start an edit war. [21]] also on [22] ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 03:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed sections of the article that seemed to be based on rumors and gossip. It seems that there is press attention in India about attempts to manipulate this article. Any editor knowledgeable about reliable sources in Bollywood should take a look and help out. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this article in The Times of India to see how this BLP issue on Wikipedia is being discussed by a major newspaper. Cullen328 (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zvonko Bušić

An editor identified only by IP address (66.151.103.8) recently appeared and violated the BLP policy in several ways, by adding false and libelous statements. See the talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zvonko_Bu%C5%A1i%C4%87 The editor has very deep POV issues and should not in my opinion be editing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowberryhagan (talk • contribs) 15:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the IP's changes to the lead based on BLP. However, that really doesn't resolve the problems with the article, which reads like a rant. When discussing the subject's background, the section header is "Terrorist's background". In the Hijacking section, the word terrorist or terrorists is mentioned so many times I lost count. The only cite for the section is the appellate opinion (which I have to look at to see if it supports the hyperbole). In a later section there is the following amazing sentence: "Freeing this Croatian terrorist from a life sentence and shipping him to his homeland caused the disgust of relatives of the city cop he murdered more than 30 years ago." This article is a disaster.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made substantial revisions to the article and commented on the Talk page. I've already reverted one IP's attempt to undo my changes. There seem to be two IP camps, one pro-Busic and one anti-Busic. Both are causing problems. More experienced editors watching would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had a look earlier and the article clearly required a wikification, well done - adding to my watchlist now. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This group is involved in disqualifying the existed edits and throwing false accusations. On the article talk page I've provided clear proofs that all my edits are strictly supported by the US Court documents, reliable references about terrorism and articles coming from the mainstream media. This way I've provided clear and lawful qualification of this act of air piracy and bombing as terrorism. The above accusations and support to them is some kind of canvassing.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary American court documents ... what do the secondary reliable reports say? Please see WP:BLPPRIMARY - lookinf at the article there are a lot of primary PDF's and a court docket - the only one I can see that is in English and secondary independent and wiki reliable is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/nyregion/19parole.html - and it refers to Croatian independence fighters and you seem to be moving the focus towards terrorist - - Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there will be reliable sources that will use the word "terrorist", but that doesn't mean we can repeat it as a label of a BLP. This particular person is notable for having hijacked the plane. He was convicted of hijacking (air piracy). He was NOT convicted of being a terrorist. Even if the term is used carelessly in the mainstream media, we can't use it - it goes too far. Some people are going to think of him as a terrorist, and others are going to think of him as a political revolutionary fighting for a cause. We can't label him as either.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- There are many of them: mainstream media: Time, New York Times, textbooks about terrorism. Did you read any of thle at all? Far from enough for you to defend nonsense. As a criminal and terrorist, Busic was expelled from the US, no matter which way you are interpreting Wikipedia rules. One of the Wikipedia pillars is the Fifth pillar. Please, learn about it as bit more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.31.183 (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Judge says in the article, During sentencing, the trial judge, John Bartels, stated on the record that he did not consider Bušić "a terrorist or a criminal" and that although his methods were wrong - Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Frankly, I don't care how many mainstream media reports you come up using the adjective "terrorist". The only way it could possibly be relevant is if the article discussed the differing points of view as to who Busic was, what he stood for, etc. Certainly a Pandora's box, but not unheard of on Wikipedia. But that is still quite different from labeling him a terrorist.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, you, Off2riorob, are supporting forgeries. Show us the document containing the quoted text! Moreover, the three other judges are clear: terrorism is terrorism. The US law is clear: this is an example of heinous terrorism.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Bbb23: You do not read the Court document, you do not care about the mainstream media, Pope John Paul VI who publicly codemned this heinous act of terrorism, you do not know anything about scholars point of view about this case, but you still know more than I do. Who are you sir/madam?--71.191.31.183 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ferial haffajee biography wiki incl facebook wiki profile

Hello I am trying to make a change to the biography of Ferial Haffajee. I have already amended her wikipedia profile but can't seem to edit her facebook wiki profile. It describes her as 'non-white' which she objects to. I need to change the 'non-white' to Black. How do I do this so that it changes all wiki linked profiles of her, not just the wikipedia one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saritaranchod (talk • contribs) 06:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Orr/Jazz drummer

In the mid- 1950'sI was Road Manager for the Malcolm Mitchell Orchestra and the band's drummer,Bill Eyden,found the touring not to his taste and on discussing with the band about a re-placment they were unanimous in recommending Bobby Orr. I managed to contact Bobby by phone at an ice rink in Scotland where he was playing drums in the local band amd on offering the position with us, he accepted with no hesitation and a great deal of excitement. This was his big chance to establish himself as a truly proficient musician at the highest level of the music world in those wonderful far off days. He took the chance with 'two great hands' and on the sad demise of the Mitchell band, Bobby had made enough impression around the business to begin his very successful career. A delightful chap was Bobby Orr and I retain many fond memories of that time of my life. Regards Ken Cramer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.152.80 (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Malik

Shahid Malik (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch is suffering from a long standing dispute by multiple parties and really needs a look though from neutral parties. Brandon (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Graham

The Larry Graham article states that Graham converting Prince to Jehova's Witness narrowed his world view and ruined his career... the following sentence: "Larry Graham introduced Prince to his brand of religion and Prince has never been the same since. In fact, the music he has released signals the end of a career that had had so much potential. Larry Graham should no longer be a member of the New Power Generation," is clearly opinion and is not backed up by references.

[1] ttp://portaltransparencia.gob.mx/pot/remuneracionMensual/consultarPuesto.do?method=showEdit&idPuesto=CFGA001&_idDependencia=6

[2] ttp://www.hacienda.gob.mx/SALAPRENSA/sala_prensa_estenograficas/eca_20110221_conf_pib.pdf

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 557: / Line 557: @@
 {{al|Shahid Malik}} is suffering from a long standing dispute by multiple parties and really needs a look though from neutral parties. [[User:Brandon|Brandon]] ([[User talk:Brandon|talk]]) 09:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
+== Larry Graham ==
+The Larry Graham article states that Graham converting Prince to Jehova's Witness narrowed his world view and ruined his career... the following sentence: "Larry Graham introduced Prince to his brand of religion and Prince has never been the same since. In fact, the music he has released signals the end of a career that had had so much potential. Larry Graham should no longer be a member of the New Power Generation," is clearly opinion and is not backed up by references.

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