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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:25, 16 February 2013

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.

Warren David

Warren David (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Autobiographical article, created and heavily edited by the subject. Violates NPOV, NOR, and possibly V.

Santonu Kumar Dhar

Santonu Kumar Dhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santonu Kumar Dhar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page should not be in wikipedia. This guy has not contributed anything to have a page of himself here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.0.108.214 (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done The page is up for CSD; this board is intended for notifications of problems with WP:BLP. If the CSD is declined and the notability of the subject is still in question, I suggest PROD or AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been nominated at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 18:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Komarov and others

Komarov is a current NHL player who was born in 1987 in Narva. Here's the problem: Which should be used as Komarov's birth country? The Soviet Union or Estonia? IMHO, this problem covers all people born in countries, which no longer exists. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was born in the Estonian SSR of the Soviet Union. The fact that this is once again a free state is irrelevant to the circumstances at the time of his birth. This comes up all the time with my favorite topic, 19th-century Wisconsin legislators, many of whom were born in Congress Poland and the like. We stipulate where they were born as it was called at the time of their birth, piping the town name as necessary but using the name as spelled at the time; and if the name, country, has changed drastically, we add something like "(now known as Mumbai)" or whatever. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is dubious legality of the SSR, whereas the USSR was widely recognized. And Estonia existed before, (during - in theory) and after. Also, the Estonia article is a much better link than Estonian SSR for the reader. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should use the name of the country was at the time of the birth. For association football players born in the late 80s in the former USSR, I tend to put 'Armenian SSR, Soviet Union' or 'Latvian SSR, Soviet Union' etc. Giant Snowman 17:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia SSR has a dubious legality in international law. Also, we don't need to use SSR in the case of Latvia. There was a Latvia before and after the USSR, and it refers to the same place. The SSR article is about the history of the one republic, whereas the Latvia article is more comprehensive, making it a better choice. I'd rather use townname, Latvia (then USSR) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the country is titled Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic, that is the name we should use. Same with Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic et al. Giant Snowman 17:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it breaks down like this. Use Ukrainian SSR to differentiate itself from the Ukrainian PR, both of which were informally simply 'Ukraine' (and fought each other in civil war); which is subsequently the official name of the independent state. While 'Ukrainian SSR' is more accurate, 'Ukraine' is also acceptable nomenclature - just as 'East Germany' is what we use on articles and common use, and not 'German DR' (Soviets like to ethnicize state names, English likes to territorialize). As long as the pipelink goes to the correct 'era' of the state, then I personally think using the normative name is fine in place of the long form (also, for US states, note we also use the shortened, common use variants of the name).--Львівське (говорити) 20:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox person states: Place of birth: city, administrative region, sovereign state, i.e. the state that held sovereignty over the administrative unit. It can be verified that reliable sources assert that the Soviet Union never acquired sovereignty over the Baltic states. --Nug (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it can't be "verified with reliable sources'. Arguing that the USSR didn't have authority / control over a region it occupied is just silly. Conversely, no state considered 'Estonia' to be a sovereign entity during this period, so as per Template:Infobox, "City, Estonia" cannot apply.--Львівське (говорити) 21:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the Soviet Union held sovereignty over Estonia in that time period. Wikipedia's own article leads with the statement "Sovereignty is the quality of having independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory." It's especially piquant in so far as that none of the several governments-in-exile were ever formally recognized as the legitimate government of Estonia (even de jure), and that Estonia's independence was regained over a year before the last head of the most enduring such group "surrendered his credentials" to the Estonian president. Ravenswing 23:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the US and a large number of nations did, indeed, recognize the exile government of Estonia. I would note your standard would hold that Germany "held sovereignty over" Poland etc. for quite a long period, and Japan "held sovereignty over" Korea for an even longer period that the USSR hald the Baltic states. Collect (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing, Lvivske, I've explained this to you before, perhaps WP:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT, so I will explain it again.

Govt-in-exile played no role in preserving sovereignty (note that both Latvia and Lithuania did not have one), but rather it was the continued regcognition of diplomats who represented the Baltic states. See page 131 of D. W. Greig's book International law published in 1976:

"The United States and Britain have in the past consistently refused to recognise the Soviet seizure of the Baltic States of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania in 1940 and continued to accept the diplomats of those states as accredited representatives of a de jure sovereign state"

For a state to aquire sovereignty over a region requires international de jure recognition, otherwise it remains de facto control, i.e. occupation. There are entire books that discuss this aspect of the Baltic states, such as The Baltic Question During the Cold War by John Hiden of the University of Glasgow:

"This book focuses upon the foreign policy decision-making mechanisms which sustained the western non-recognition of Soviet sovereignty over the Baltic States after 1940."[1]

Subsequent court cases over property rights show that it this non-recognition was beyond the political sphere, it had commercial impact:

"For example, a UK court in a case concerning Estonia did not give legal effect to a nationalization decree of the Estonian SSR. As a result, ships that the Estonian SSR claimed a state corporation owned the UK court held remained in private hands."[2]

There are several ways in which a country can acquire sovereignty, see the article Acquisition of sovereignty for a summary, and the Soviet Union failed in all the applicable methods of via occupation of terra nullius, via conquest or via perscription. See Lauri Mälksoo, Illegal annexation and state continuity[3] on page 164:

"The above analysis leads to the conclusion that the USSR did not acquire legal title to the Baltic states by perscription"

and page 193:

"Since the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states in 1940 lacked any ground in international law, and a significant segment of the international community refused to grat formal approval of Soviet conquest, the ultimate failure of the USSR to acquire a legal title over the Baltic States implies automatically that the regime of occupation as such it was, as a matter of international law, not terminated until the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was resetablished in 1991"

This view is corroborated by other sources:

"States may retain de jure (legal) status even without de facto control of territory, as when most states refused to recognise illegal annexations such as the 1940 Soviet takeover of the Baltic states, or Iraq's 1990 annexation of Kuwait, both reversed in 1991"[4]

There is no distinction made in RS between the illegal annexations of the Baltic states in 1940 or Kuwait in 1990. So in conclusion reliable sources of a scholarly standard do verify that the SOviet Union failed in achieving sovereignty over the Baltic states. --Nug (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Here are 3 maps of the Soviet Union [5], [6] and [7], which clearly show Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as being within the USSR. More maps can be provided. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Perhaps anyone born in Texas, NM, AZ, etc. should be indicated as having been born in Mexico. Illegitimate spoils of war, & all. In other words, stupid dispute. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, the international community, including Mexico, recognise US sovereignty over Texas, NM and AZ. --Nug (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That just shows the depths of the Mexican goverment's lackeyhood, and the extent to which everyone else bows to American hegemony. Might makes right, & all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More realistically, if we were to follow Nug's guidelines for sovereignty and 'reliable sources', then every single Taiwanese bio would have to be changed to China from the current 'City, Taiwan' format. Crazy. All this amounts to is one big POV push, as saying "the West said X is illegal so that's all that matters globally & historically" is about as POVy as one can get.--Львівське (говорити) 14:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not follow. Both Taiwan and PRC both officially support the One-China policy and Taiwan has never declared independence, in essence it is just two governments coexisting within China as a result of a civil war. On the other hand, the USSR and the Baltic states were fully recognised de jure sovereign states, both members of the League of Nations, when one country attempted to grab the other country. BTW, China also withheld recognition of de jure sovereignty of the USSR over the Baltic states (see Lawrence Juda, United States' nonrecognition of the Soviet Union's annexation of the Baltic States: Politics and law, Journal of Baltic Studies, Volume 6, Issue 4 Winter 1975 , pages 272–290), so you claim this is a West only thing is disproved. --Nug (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just no.--Львівське (говорити) 20:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get back to the original topic. We are expected to link to the de facto government under which Komarov was born, because it is the de facto government (in the example case, the ESSR of the CCCP), which controlled the subject's life. I may not recognize the legitimacy of the Soviet occupation of Estonia; but the fact is that Komarov was born into a state ruled by the Estonian SSR, not the Estonian government-in-exile, just as patriots like Padraic Pearse were born in what was then the United Kingdom, though they gave their lives that a free Ireland could be "a nation once again." --Orange Mike | Talk 20:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox person is clear: Place of birth: city, administrative region, sovereign state, i.e. the state that held sovereignty over the administrative unit. It doesn't say anything about de facto government. --Nug (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nug, you've managed to contradict your earlier argument. Kudos. Giant Snowman 21:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How so? --Nug (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nug, you've conflated legitimacy with actual rule. The Soviets were sovereign in that region at that time, whether one deems them legitimate or not: that is to say, they did rule there, whether they were entitled to do so or not. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources show the USSR failed to acquire sovereignty over the Baltic states. You appear to be confusing sovereign title with defacto control. Sovereignty is more than just de facto control, it is defacto control plus legitimacy. From World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction by Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein on page 44:

"There is one further fundamental feature of sovereignty. It is a claim, and claims have little meaning unless they are recognised by others. Others may not respect the claims, but that is in many ways less important than that they recognise them formally. Sovereignty is more than anything else a matter of legitimacy."[8]

Yes, the Soviets had de facto control, but no, they were not sovereign in that region at that time. --Nug (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, that's the whole point. The USSR did not have sovereign control over the territory. Neither did Estonia, so the standard practice is to present the occupied country, not the occupier. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of your two seem to understand what the word 'sovereign' means. Like Orange Mike said, you're confusing legitimacy with actual rule. While some governments considered the Estonian government-in-exile to be the legal rightholders to the territory of Estonia, the USSR held actual administrative rule over it. Estonia in of itself held no sovereignty, hence the decision to declare sovereignty in 1988. As it stands to common sense, they wouldn't have to declare it if they already had it.--Львівське (говорити) 19:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Estonian government-in-exile had nothing to do with it, Latvia and Lithuania did not have one, but legitimacy has everything to do with it. Sovereignty only exists if it is formally recognised by others. From World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction by Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein on page 44: "Sovereignty is more than anything else a matter of legitimacy." --Nug (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty, noun. Oxford Dictionary: "supreme power or authority; the authority of a state to govern itself or another state". Get the difference between control and sovereignty? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And without recognition there is no authority. Estonia became a nation state in 1920 via the principle of self-determination and enshrined in its constitution is the claim that the supreme power (i.e. sovereignty) of the State is held by the people and that was accorded international recognition. The people of Estonia never surrendered their sovereignty to the Soviet Union, it was seized by electoral fraud and unconstitutional acts backed by the threat of force. The international community withheld recognition of the Soviet claim of sovereignty because of the recognised pre-existing claim of sovereignty held by the people of Estonia. Just because the Estonian people could not exercise de facto control through their institutions of state does not mean the sovereignty held by the people was extinguished. --Nug (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was legitimate in the eyes of Soviet citizens in Estonia, duress or not, and that's all that matters. You're trying to skew words and definitions and support it with irrelevant laws & diplomatic stances of outside actors. This is a strawman argument. Supreme power, authority, whatever you want to call it – was in the hands of the USSR. Read Leviathan.--Львівське (говорити) 21:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely when you start relying on 15th century texts to support your argument about a topic of 20th century history, I think the time has come to WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, your collegue User:GoodDay has since dropped his objections, you should do too. --Nug (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts to shout louder than everyone else hasn't convinced a single editor so far, which is telling. That you're not familiar with Hobbes, and don't see it's relation to the understanding of "sovereignty" (a concept you're trying to argue about), perhaps you should step away from this debate until you're more familiar with the material (your point was akin to saying Das Kapital is outdated in a conversation about Marxism). As has been pointed out, you've contradicted yourself – several times – just to 'win' this point of yours. I will step away from this particular incarnation of the argument, however, since it seems to be devolving into another circular, long-winded tirade of e-lawyering.--Львівське (говорити) 22:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as well, because reliable sources show that Hobbes believed that sovereignty is not just about power and force but also about authority, legality and legitimacy. --Nug (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lvivske, your argument sadly displays your ignorance on how the Geneva conventions or the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 see state sovereignty. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least you have a sense of humor lol--Львівське (говорити) 21:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more in agreement with Lvivske, Orange Mike, et al. De facto is more important than de jure here. --GRuban (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So just for speed reading's sake, that's Orange Mike, Lvivske, Alaney2k, GiantSnowman, Ravenswing, Nomoskedasticity, and GRuban for 'Soviet Union', and Nug & Jaan for Estonia.--Львівське (говорити) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So according to GRuban, Fahed Attal was actually born in Qalqilya, Israel, since Israel had de facto control of Qalqilya in 1985. Have WikiProject WP:Palestine been informed of this discussion. I suppose now that anyone born in Stanley, Falkland Islands in April 1982 was actually born in Stanley, Argentina, given Argentina's brief period of de facto governance. --Nug (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was Fahed Attal born in Israel? Did Israel give him Israeli citizenship? Did Israel consider the west bank under its administration and incorporate it into Israel proper? Did other countries recognize the west bank being part of Israel? If not, this is a bad analogy. Don't equate occupation to sovereignty.--Львівське (говорити) 15:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Temporary de facto control is not important here. If we were to follow the line supported by GRuban (″De facto is more important than de jure here″), then anyone born in Stanley, Falkland Islands in April 1982 was actually born in Stanley, Argentina - when implementing policy in a uniform way. But this would simply be ridiculous. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the Falkland Islands were never formally incorporated into Argentina. While occupied, Falklanders weren't citizens of Argentina during the war, nor did Argentines exercise administration of the islands in a non-military capacity.--Львівське (говорити) 15:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like the infobox, my statement was too short to do the topic justice. :-) De jure is important, de facto is important. But de jure at the time was debated. De facto wasn't. Some governments, especially Soviet allies, recognized Soviet occupation, some governments, especially Soviet enemies, didn't. It was a cold war argument, one of many. Your statement "The international community withheld recognition of the Soviet claim of sovereignty" implies there was a unanimous view, which there wasn't. The overwhelming majority of the population, however, did recognize it, whether or not they liked it. Given the limited choices available to us in the infobox, that's what we should go with. Feel free to add a footnote saying that this was occupied, etc. --GRuban (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only five governments actually recognised Soviet sovereignty, of course the Warsaw pact countries did too but they Soviet puppet states after all. Communist China nor Yugoslavia never gave recognition to the Soviet conquest while the majority of countries remained silent, and silence on the issue implies continued prior recognition by all those states that previously recognised the Baltics in the period before the Soviet takeover in 1940, in other words remaining silent is withholding recognition, that is 100+ countries. The claim that "the majority of the population recognised the occupation whether they liked it or not" doesn't stand either, given the armed insurgency that existed in the Baltic states into the mid-1950, and continued unarmed protest after that. To say it was a "cold war argument" hasn't any legs given the scholarly literature that discusses the continuity of the Baltic states was written long after the Cold War ended. These post-Cold War scholars say there was not difference between the Iraqi occupation and Soviet occupation apart from the duration, and we don't say people born in Kuwait 1991 where actually born in Kuwait City, Iraq, given Iraq's non-recognised annexation of Kuwait at that time. --Nug (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You see, this is where original research starts to creep in, once you start assuming things based on this 'silence = implying'. China didn't recognize Estonia until after Russia did, after the USSR collapsed - whereas you are directly stating that China "remained silent and implied continued prior recognition". This simply wasn't the case, just stuff you're making up now. We're talking about a period after the Russian revolution when Estonia became free, before the UN existed, and alleging "hundreds" of countries implied recognition in the UN era in absentia. It's just all made up stuff at this point. You can only state this for countries that abided by European laws and signed treaties in the interwar period, but this doesn't include hundreds of countries. Not all countries in the world had diplomatic relations with Estonia between 1920-1940--Львівське (говорити) 21:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange cavil. Estonia was recognised by the League of Nations - with the Secretary General of the League visiting it in 1937. [9]. It had joined the League of Nations in 1921 - thus was a member for about two decades. It was a member of the UPU (officially named UPU from 1878 - previously "General Postal Union" (see Montgomery Blair) ) as of 1924 - meaning its stamps were recognised by all member nations of the UPU from 1924 on. Which did, indeed, concern "hundreds of countries". And I assure you that I did not make up the UPU. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean't UN, it was a typo. Though the point could be made that their LON membership didn't carry over to the UN, they were exempt for a reason. According to the List of members of the Universal Postal Union, Estonia didn't join until 1992 (fwiw). Also, if accepting mail is used as a diplomatic standard for recognition, then accepting mail posted from the Estonian SSR would also imply recognition (not that this is the case, but it obviously goes both ways) --Львівське (говорити) 22:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Useless argument -- the Estonian SSR DID NOT ISSUE STAMPS. The USSR stamps were recognized internationally as valid for postage because the USSR (the stamp issuer) was a UPU member. And the UPU records specifically give 1924 for the Estonian membership - which I pointed out before and you seem not to have noticed. Read the footnotes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be so flippant. And no footnotes for Estonia exist on the list article, sherlock. Just for your information, the UPU site says '92, not'24.--Львівське (говорити) 01:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltic states joined the UPU in 1920's (see 27 Am. J. Int'l L. 649 (1933) Membership in the Universal Postal Union; Akzin, Benjamin[10]). FWIW the UPU claims the Russian Federation joined in 1875, even though we all know the Russian Federation came into existence in 1991[11], so I would take what they say on their website with caution. --Nug (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nug, correct me if I'm wrong, but the UPU website says that Estonia joined in 1992, "Date of entry into the UPU" - pretty straight forward. With Russia, perhaps they count it as a successor of the Russian Empire; whereas they cancelled Estonia's membership once it joined/annexed/was incorporated into the USSR, and had to give it a new membership in 1992? I know that goes against the 'continuity' narrative but... --Львівське (говорити) 01:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google news for the period 1945 to 1990:

"Riga, Latvia" dozens of pages hit[12]
"Riga, Latvia, USSR" less than one page[13]
"Riga, Latvia, Soviet Union" less than one page[14]
"Riga, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic" no pages[15]
"Riga, Latvian SSR" less than one page[16]
"Riga, Soviet Union" less than one page[17]
"Riga, USSR" one and a half pages of hits[18]

"Riga, Latvia" was the common name for that WP:PLACE during that period. --Nug (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QRpedia

IP trying to IMO coatrack the article, also I think they're at severalRR. I have edited, so won't block or semi, but would ask that someone should - David Gerard (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

adding sourced material is not coatracking. a contributor with close ties to qrpedia insists on removing sourced material that is important to the article. 174.141.213.44 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns rate above multiple reverts to coatrack an article - David Gerard (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted this. Apparently some IPs seem to have an overwhelming dislike of some of the living people involved with QRpedia (as evidenced by the rant just recently removed from here), so semi-protection may turn out to be necessary in the near future. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Gerard, you appear to have suffered an unfortunate GF edit conflict and blanked my comment. No problem, I've restored it for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(restored) Coatrack? If you mean "long garment for covering the arse" then possibly so. This is the shoddy behaviour, coverup and ongoing self-interested coverup of WMUK still continuing. Until there's a bit more openness about what went on, and a few snouts are kept very far away from the trough in the future, then this embarrassment will only continue. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be true, but Wikipedia is not a vehicle for you to right great wrongs regarding whom you think should or should not be allowed to have their snout in the trough. WP:BLP applies whether you like the person or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What issue added to the article (as opposed to the independent report on WMUK) do you think breaches BLP? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think anyone dislikes Victuallers, but wikipedia is not censored, and the assertions are not the end of the world. it's not like he committed a crime or something. jeez. 174.141.213.43 (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"wikipedia is not censored, and the assertions are not the end of the world" ... WP:BLP says otherwise, believe it or not. WP:BLP is not about censorship. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of material contrary to WP:BLP and with a citation which does not support the claim in relation to QRpedia, continues at QRpedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pier Giuseppe Monateri

Pier Giuseppe Monateri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I posted the following comments at the help desk and it was suggested that I bring it here instead:[19]
There has been a significant edit war involving 2.158.15.126 and several other editors at Pier Giuseppe Monateri. I have no involvement, nor do I have any intention of editng the article, but I noticed a comment here at the help desk previously from 2.158.15.126, who admitted to being the article's subject.[20] He also made the same admission in his edit summary on one of his reverts.[21] In both comments, he alluded to defamation. Although I am neutral regarding the dispute, it's clear that the content in question - the entire "Legal problems" section - is extremely contentious. Interestingly, that happens to be the only content in the entire article that is sourced. (I do not know if the sources verify the content because they're all in Italian.) Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the subject even notable? If not, it would seem that the issue causing the edit war is moot and the article should be deleted. I think this matter definitely deserves the attention of an experienced editor/administrator for resolution. Thank you very much. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it again. Seems he is notable in other languages, which is why we have other language wikipedias. Seems like a good article to speedy as no English sources, nor Italian ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A few minutes after I started this thread, another editor removed all the disputed content (the entire section), making it the 15th revert. Therefore, the link I included above to the "Legal problems" section will no longer work (unless another editor adds back the content again, which is very likely based on the history over the past couple days). In any case, this BLP article of over 13,000 bytes currently has zero references. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Canoe, apparently I started typing my update while you were posting your comment because yours wasn't there when I started. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I put a speedy delete tag on it as well as BLP with no sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found WP:NONENG, a section of WP:VERIFY, which addresses the use of Non-English sources. It says that English sources are in fact allowed to be used in the English Wikipedia under certain circumstances and if done properly, but I don't know how that policy applies in this case. However, even if the content is reliably sourced, I think the question that must be answered first is: Is the content even enyclopedic? Just because something is reliably sourced doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Otherwise, every piece of reliably sourced information that's ever existed could be added to the encylopedia. The disputed content seems to be merely allegations, nothing more. No conviction, no trial, not even any charges. In fact, the terms "allegedly" and "appears to have" are used three times. But overriding all of that is the fact that this lengthy article has absolutely no sources, so deletion seems to be the most appropriate course of action. I will leave the resolution of this matter to editors who are far more experienced than me. Thanks for your help, Canoe. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I don't know if any sources can be found in English and whether he is notable to the English speaking world. I don't know if any notabilty in Italy or other countries qualify him for an article here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the BLPPROD as the article was created in March 2009, a year before the BLPPROD process was set up. Please take to Afd if you think it should be deleted. As far as notability is concerned, it knows no geographical boundaries. Even if the only sources that are available are in Italian, and if they can be verified to support notability, then he is notable. We have many perfectly valid articles about painters, actors etc from non-English speaking places. --ukexpat (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I have contested the speedy - professor of law at a major university is a credible indication of the importance or significance of the subject.--ukexpat (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe, although Wikipedia has versions in many diffferent languages, I'm fairly sure that notability has absolutely nothing to do with language or location since the encylopedia is global. Language only has to do with the language the particular version of the enclopedia must be written in - the English Wikipedia must be written in English, the French verison in French, etc. So if Pier Giuseppe Monateri, or any subject, passes notability, then the article can be in every language version of Wikipedia. But it must be written in the applicable language for that version. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct.--ukexpat (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ukexpat, thanks for confirming and for directing me to this page. But I do have a question regarding your claim that simply being a professor at a major univesity is enough to qualify someone for notability. It seems to me that if that were true, then every professor at every major university in the world would qualify for a Wikpedia article. But I've seen many articles for professors at major universities deleted because they did not meet any of the nine notability criteria for academics/professors. Also, in this case, the article has no references at all (other than the three in the disputed "Legal issues" section). So how can someone be notable if there are zero references to prove it? By the way, I see another editor has just added back the disputed content (the "Legal problems" section). And so the edit war continues. Ugh. ;) --76.189.111.199 (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I said. I said that being a prof at a major university is enough to avoid speedy deletion, which is a lower standard. The guidelines for notability are at WP:PROF and they should be the focus of the Afd.--ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarifying! Sorry for misunderstanding what you meant. :) --76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Cousteau and Philippe Cousteau, Jr.

Alexandra Cousteau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Philippe Cousteau, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both articles are unwieldy press releases, and replete with unsourced or inadequately sourced promotional content, the former still bearing traces of its initial autobiographical structure, via Acousteau (talk · contribs), the latter written in part by an account with the irresistible name GoodPRonline (talk · contribs). Clean ups in order, to which I'll contribute, but I'd appreciate more eyes on these. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fabien Cousteau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jean-Michel Cousteau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Francine Cousteau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Philippe Cousteau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Céline Cousteau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Adding further family bios, some of more dubious claim to notability, others unsourced or promotional in tone. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reported the PR account. Leaving Accousteau alone for now since it might be a personal account, but an SPI might be in order. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FreeRange. I'm not concerned re: the individual accounts, who made their contributions long ago and have since been dormant. They're just examples of issues that are pervasive in the family's bios, which include vanity edits and squabbling over the legacy. Perhaps one or two of these can be redirected to Jacques Cousteau--which is itself marred by the same combination of unsourced puffery and family bickering--as notability aside from inherited position looks thin. Otherwise some major whittling is in order. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of these could possibly be consolidated into Cousteau family or something like that, but I'd have to go through them to determine if it's even worth it, notability-wise. At first glance they seem to be puff pieces with little value (swimming pool on his fourth birthday, right) so some PRODs or maybe a mondo AFD might also be in order. Just based on the fact that they might have been written on assignment by a PR firm, if nothing else. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of what I was thinking, and the reason I listed them all here. Perhaps some merit stand alone status, but cumulatively they're a bit of a mess. It would be nice to get a broader consensus re: what ought to stay, what's best redirected, and what can go. Cheers, 99.136.254.88 (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Seddon

As I have flagged up on Talk:John Seddon - the article is somewhat one-sided, and written (or edited) by Charlotte Pell, who works as a publicist for John Seddon, and an anonymous user that has only ever created this page. I am told this is possibly in breach of wikipedia rules re direct interests (my indirect interest is flagged in the talk page), and am flagging this up for wiser people than me to explore! FWIW, the article is not completely unbalanced hagiography, though it could be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wushinbo (talk • contribs) 12:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puffiness seems endemic on such articles. Collect (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Swartz

There is an ongoing dispute about quotations about the dismissal of state charges against Aaron Swartz after the institution of federal charges. One editor is adamant that the quotes are a WP:BLP violation as to Carmen Ortiz. At least three editors (including me) disagree. But we're repeating ourselves and have started shedding more heat than light (myself included.) We could use some fresh eyes. The various contentions are well-explained here and here. David in DC (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the last two items linked above: The former (topic 53) has 2,650 words, some of them pertinent. The latter (topic 55) has 930 words, most of them pertinent.

Topic 54 gives a 70-word summary of what ‘contentious material’ means.

A helpful debate between David in DC and Dervorguilla is found at this edit summary. -- Dervorguilla (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a lull, talk page discussion suggests a new round of wiki-lawyering about settled issues, is about to heat up again. If nuetral BLP-savvy editors would keep an eye out for spillage onto the article page, it would be a helpful. As would prophylactic participation on the talk page. David in DC (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Coombs

Dan Coombs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cjoffe (talk · contribs)
86.184.136.4 (talk · contribs)

Poorly sourced and promotional biography. I've tried several times to remove the gallery blurb, and restored the COI, notability and reference templates multiple times, but the above accounts continue to edit war over these issues, and have provided mostly unacceptable links and sources....don't even try to remove them. I've also attempted discussion and issued warnings at user talk pages and article talk page, to no avail. I'd appreciate additional help with this, so as to alleviate the appearance of edit warring for my part, and to determine whether AfD is reasonable. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm returning her re: the same, the above accounts continuing to load press releases and other non-reliable sources into the article. Help would be appreciated. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Misharin

Please see the latest article history on the addition/removal of material about KrasAir. It's a little hard for me to judge the material because I don't speak Russian and had the benefit of only a machine translation, but the material being added strikes me as WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:COATRACKy. Also, it lacks context because it doesn't really explain why the prosecutor supposedly warned Misharin (I got a bit confused by the translation as to who was warning whom for what). As worded by the editor adding the material, it is not particularly helpful to the reader. I'm going to revert one more time and then let others decide.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the actual story was like this: Misharin was a deputy minister and the chairman of the board of KrasAir. The govt was a major stakeholder, so he had rights and responsibilities. Apparently, Abramovich brothers siphoned the money out of the company, later buying stakes in Malev and Skyexpress. So the govt was screwed badly. That cased reprimands from Gen Proc Office. (And yeah, thousands of people were left in airports sitting on their bags with their children. Who cares.) That led to Misharin being shuffled to less-significant position in the govt and later being sent to rule Sverdlovsk region. But I am trying to contribute two basic facts actually: (1) the company scandalously went bankrupt under his supervision (2) GenProc officially blamed him. Gritzko (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The Russian version has that story[22], mentioning two points: (1) bankruptcy (2)GenProc warning. Accusations of embezzlement are also mentioned. So, my proposal is to have a condensed (2-sentence, not 2-paragpaph) version of that in the English version. Gritzko (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the latest topic at article talk. --ssr (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you absolutely off limits. You were illegally paid to doctor Wikipedia and that is official. Rublyov, you are a freaking suspected criminal! Gritzko (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the latest topic at article talk. --ssr (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another attempt of persistent violator Gritzko, plase act accordingly. He should not directly edit the article that was concluded by numerous mediators (see article talk), there may be a topic-ban or something. Also another personal attack despite warnings at User_talk:Gritzko#February_2013 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive104#Gritzko. Usage of the same arguments that were countered endless times (at article talk). --ssr (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Riordan

Linda Riordan (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

User:Riordanlj, created 2013-02-07, seems to have been removing content from the Linda Riordan article - a UK Member of Parliament as it happens. Content removed is generally critical of the article subject. The most recent edit summary (from this diff) claims "These statements were factually incorrect and I will take further action if you continuebto print". I've left a note on the users page suggesting that they make themselves aware of BLP policies and WP:LEGAL. The criticism is all sourced, although it may be that the reliability of the information in the sources is questionable - wouldn't be the first time this has happened of course. If someone with more experience can have a check on the article it would be handy. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I expected another WP:UNDUE mess like the ones we're used to for politicians but I can't find much fault in the paragraph. The sources are impeccable. If anything it would perhaps be appropriate to re-word a bit to specify that all that stuff she was involved in was part of a greater 'row' that included a great deal many MPs. But I see no BLP violations. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd already edited and added sources and balance I imagine by the time you looked at it - it may be that the user comes back with more objections, we'll see. I've added the number of other MPs involved as suggested - ta v much for that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Good job on the edit. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mitos Magsaysay

article on Mitos Magsaysay is clearly not factual and full of lies. Where did you get your data? clearly it was written to malign me and never even was interviewed by me or no sources cited to back up the so called claims re association with GMA.. better to remove the offending article as it discredits your site.this is my biodata:

Maria Milagros "Mitos" Habana Magsaysay

Born on January 4, 1964 Married to Jesus Vicente "JV" Magsaysay Mother of 6 kids

Graduated from University of the Philippines with a degree of BS Business Administration

Deputy Minority Leader of the House of Representatives 3 terms Voted Most Outstanding Congressman for 5 consecutive years 2004-2009, 2011 Emeritus Hall of Fame Awardee

Known as Congresswoman Libre For the last 9 years, has provided the following everyday: Free Medical and Dental Check Ups Free doctors and dentists Free medicines from babies to senior citizens Free maintenance medicines for diabetes,arthritis,and hypertension to all senior citizens Free tooth extraction Free TB and Primary complex medication good for 9 months Free diagnostic laboratory: urinalysis ,fecalysis, blood chemistry,sugar and cholesterol tests,ECG Free drug test laboratory accredited by LTO

Free scholarships for tertiary education and skills training Free high school assistance to cover PTCA fees Free grade school assistance to cover PTCA fees

Very active and vocal legislator in the HOR especially on bills, issues, and laws that affect the citizenry.

Slogan:

Libreng Pagamutan, para healthy Kayo, Scholarship at Skills Training, para Magka-trabaho Kayo Kay MITOS, Kayo ang UNA!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollyweirdcalifornia (talk • contribs) 20:46, February 10, 2013‎

This article only has one source that backs up the political office and a little about an opposing view. No birthdate, family, early life etc. in the source. Should we just trim it to one sentence or two for now?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have faith that you are indeed Mitos Magsaysay. I trimmed the article back and left you a COI input section on the talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Diamond

Input is needed from BLP experts at an RfC concerning possible BLP violations in the Jared Diamond article. Please post any comments at the RfC, not here, so the discussion is co-located. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

katherine hull

I moved the page. What is policy on referring to her as Hull for earlier milestones, do we change all of those to Hull-Kirk?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Vanderpool

Jennifer Vanderpool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Well, here's a project, and might be worth saving. Trouble is, those who are most conscientiously attempting to improve the article are wounding it lethally; the current version is so bad I've marked it for speedy deletion as spam. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I removed over 10,000 bytes. AfD may be in order to establish RS for notabilty. She has had coverage and awards.

Well done. Much appreciated, 99.136.254.88 (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Resolved

unless it goes to AfD.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Irvin

Lloyd Irvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We seem to have found some consensus in incorporating the following, rather factual sentence:

"In an open letter given on January 22, 2013, Irvin confirmed his arrest, trial, and acquittal of rape in 1990."

What still seems to be in some amount of contention is whether or not the sentence which follows the above remains in accordance with BLP policy:

"Lloyd Irvin's defense was based on his claim of impotence while attempting intercourse with the alleged victim."

In the interest of transparency I should admit I'm in the camp of non-inclusion, which is why I'm asking here. Please and thanks. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a policy on not including material that doesn't relate to their notabilty if they are just a minor BLP? This one: WP:NPF? --Canoe1967 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have two problems with this: First, even just a single line of this is WP:UNDUE compared to the rest of the article. Second, the sources. Are they reliable? The policy is quite clear in all this, there isn't a lot of wiggle room. Just based on the apparent dubiousness of the sources I'd say it needs to be kept off. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points, WP:NPF does seem to be applicable here. I wonder, would that policy render the first sentence (essentially the whole topic) inappropriate as well, given the scope of his notability, or no? My only counter speculation to this would be his status as a martial arts instructor who teaches self-defense against sexual assault. Admittedly however, that's not a major aspect of his martial arts notability. Buddy23Lee (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the whole section should be removed pending consensus. I think WP:NPF would need a very strong consensus and very good RS to add it back. His defence training is a grasp at straws for inclusion. --Canoe1967 (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the notability goes away after that then we take it to AFD. I haven't gone through the entire article history but it's entirely possible that this is one of those "controversy" bios created do document notoriety rather than notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Vilsack

Please check the comment regarding his mother hiding Big Foot in the basement... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:9800:0:4:D227:88FF:FEBD:B56D (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One hit vandal. I removed and tagged the talk page. You can remove unsourced material as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Jordan Dorner

The infobox says Accused perpetrator of 2013 Southern California shootings. If charges have not been filed, it should instead say suspect in 2013 Southern California shootings (I made the same comment on the article's talk page before posting it here). Rybec (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charges have now been filed in Riverside County. [23] --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Moss - categorization

Resolved

– Discussion taking place elsewhere.--ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per sources, Elisabeth Moss self-identifies as an "actor" and that is correctly reflected in the body of the article. However, she is categorised in various "actress" categories. So do we leave it like that, or should the categories reflect how Ms Moss self-identifies?--ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a debate about the categories and not about Moss in particular, so I don't think this is the proper forum for this. We shouldn't treat Moss' article differently as she (according to what's been said on the talk page) doesn't seem to have expressed any particular distaste for the word actress, she just employs what is essentially a synonym at this point. Perhaps this should be brought to an RFC to weigh general opinion regarding the use of these terms in categories. Gamaliel (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not a BLP issue? We are categorising her using a term that she herself doesn't identify with. When we do that with religious or political affiliations, or sexual orientation, it's a BLP issue. On the wider point, I have noticed the creation of a bunch of different "actress" categories recently which have been substituted for the parallel "actor" category/ies on all of the actress articles on my watchlist. Does anyone know if there been consensus reached somewhere that these categories should be created and applied? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That rule doesn't apply to factual categories. If we have a category of "people born in 1960", the subject doesn't have to self-categorize as a person born in 1960 in order for us to add the category.

Furthermore, this looks like an attempt to re-argue Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_101#Actresses_categorization. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of that discussion and I am not attempting to re-argue it. Thanks for the link BTW.--ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to tabling this discussion here since there's already a preexisting discussion on this matter? Gamaliel (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None (assuming you mean "tabling" in the US sense rather than the UK sense!), resolved.--ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Roche (footballer)

I am frankly amazed that this entry has been allowed to remain unchallenged for so long. [comments removed per BLP] Despite mostly playing for teams that no-one has ever heard of, apparently Mr Roche "forced his way into [both of] these squads due to his commanding presence within the Dublin Institute of Technology squad". He also 'apparently' played for 'New York FC' which may sound impressive but is actually the equivalent of a non-league side in the UK and, even if it was a notable club - which it isn't - his playing 'career' is unverified. Please look into this and then delete on the grounds that a) the entry has obviously been almost entirely created by Mr Roche himself and b) he is simply not notable enough in this field to justify inclusion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodseats44 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afd is this way --> WP:AFD.--ukexpat (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He meets WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in a fully-professional league (the USL Pro) - the article needs improving to meet WP:GNG, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I wrote this before the above were posted, so I'll post it anyway.) It looks as though he may come close to meeting WP:NFOOTY. If you feel that he doesn't, or you feel that he meets it but is not notable anyway, I suggest you nominate the article at WP:AFD and a decision on whether to keep the article can be reached. ("a desperate non-entity", and similar comments, are not helpful or appropriate.) In the meantime I've added templates to the article indicating the problems with promotional unsourced comments and lack of references generally. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Andrews (politician)

He was one of many officials named in a newspaper article criticizing the payments these officials got when they left office, and the size of the pensions they could receive. Someone deleted the amount of his pension (which was properly sourced), and I reverted it. Now someone using a different IP address has deleted it again and added a poorly-sourced statement that "he has not drawn down any pension payments to date."

The edit summary here shows why the statement is poorly sourced:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Andrews_%28politician%29&diff=537683291&oldid=537585360

This shows the overall changes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Andrews_%28politician%29&diff=537737571&oldid=537585360

Rybec (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the poorly-sourced statement and added back the amount. Rybec (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Rajoy‎‎

Mariano Rajoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Various ips, and one user keep adding the title Trotona de Pontevedra which seems to mean the Trotter of Ponevedra. This seems to be a reference to his alleged behaviour, however I cannot be certain as I don't speak spanish, or live in spain. I have reverted once. Can anyone confirm this is pejorative.Martin451 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a pejorative gossip nickname referencing rumours about his homosexuality. Apparently unreferenced by serious sources either in Spanish or English. 1, 2. J (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the last IP was eventually blocked immediately after this obviously vandalic edit: 1. J (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done A request has been made to semi-protect the page for BLP violations. The term is certainly pejorative, not to mention we don't allow rumors or innuendo about anyone's sexual orientation. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

online manifesto attributed to Christopher Dorner

An AP story in the Huffington Post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/08/dorner-manifesto_n_2644813.html

talks about the "manifesto police say was written by suspected killer Christopher Dorner," (emphasis added) while the 2013 Southern California shootings article says

In his online manifesto, Dorner [...]

and the Christopher Jordan Dorner article says

Christopher Dorner published a detailed communication [...]

Given that the man's whereabouts are unknown and he may be unable to speak for himself, I feel that a little skepticism would be suitable. I think a fair-minded person would admit to the possibilities that Dorner's online account was hacked, that the account never belonged to him in the first place, or that the police are not telling the truth. Even if true, statements by the police about a suspect are obviously POV. I looked at the sources given in the 2013 Southern California shootings article and none of them express any doubt that this manifesto was written by Dorner. I'm asking that the sort of qualification given by the AP article be included (see Wikipedia:CHERRY-PICK essay). Rybec (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthoughts: because Dorner was a policeman, is suspected of killing police officers, and because the manifesto is critical of a police agency, the statements made by the police should IMO be viewed with particular skepticism. Also there are other ways to publish fake information online besides the ways I mentioned. Rybec (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited one article to 'purported to post' as well as other CYA changes. Feel free to edit further, or re-word to match sources. If anyone reverts then bring it up on the talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing the one page so quickly! I don't have permission to edit 2013_Southern_California_shootings. Right now it says:

In a manifesto posted online,^[1]^[2]^[3] Dorner declared "unconventional and asymmetric warfare" upon the Los Angeles Police Department, their families, and their associates, until the LAPD admitted publically he was fired in retaliation for reporting excessive force.

and if I could edit it, I'd change that to:

A manifesto posted on Facebook^[4],^[1]^[2]^[3] which police say was written by Dorner,^[5] declared "unconventional and asymmetric warfare" upon the Los Angeles Police Department, their families, and their associates, until the LAPD admitted publicly he was fired in retaliation for reporting excessive force.

(I also changed "publically" to "publicly" because it's a more standard spelling).

Rybec (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found another story that says the manifesto was on Facebook, instead of just saying "online." It uses the phraseology "is believed to have posted. I've added it to my edit request above. Rybec (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is with the KABC reference in "cite web" form (intentionally not indented):

A manifesto posted ^[1]^[2]^[3] on Facebook,^[6] which police say was written by Dorner,^[7] declared "unconventional and asymmetric warfare" upon the Los Angeles Police Department, their families, and their associates, until the LAPD admitted publically he was fired in retaliation for reporting excessive force.

I was the one who asked yesterday about saying "accused" if charges hadn't been filed. As you can see, the KABC story says that charges have now been filed. Rybec (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry E. Emerson

Resolved

An new editor that knows the BLP says he is still alive. The source of the obit seems very lame to me. The birthdate they have doesn't match the reliable source. I think it is a common name mix-up is all. The new editor is close to a block and angry at help desk as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The birthdate in the Wikipedia article matches the date in the obituary. However, the birthdate in the article was added recently. This revision from late December doesn't even have the year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_E._Emerson&oldid=530107320

Also the obituary seems quite terse. Could it be a prank? Rybec (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a prank, but two people with the same name. I think an editor that added the lame obit source removed the not so lame source for the birth to make them match. Other editors are now agreeing that we need a pretty strong source or 12 for an obit if friends are this angry that we are wrong. I would think a mainstream newspaper or 12 should do. I had the opposite problem when someone emailed me when John Weaver (artist) passed. My date was reverted for a month before any paper printed it. I phoned his local paper a week after and they still hadn't heard anything. It took close to two months, I think, before they printed an obit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at every revision, but I noticed one where the obituary was cited for his birth year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_E._Emerson&oldid=531533158

also I found

http://militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/recipient.php?recipientid=7481

which says "Home of record: Milford, Pennsylvania" not Arkansas.

and someone on a forum (not RS, I know) said he was alive in 2010 and living in Montana:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_General_Henry_Emerson_gunfighter_alive Rybec (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some mildly bold edits to try to calm the roiling waters. If anyone thinks I've gone too far, I'll take no offense at being partially, or even completely, reverted. I'll think you're wrong, but I'll take no offense. :) David in DC (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did great! It seems the BLP is refusing public interviews so it may be hard to verify the material from the 1968 magazine, but I think the Reverend should be happy now. Apologies may be due on his talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The good Reverend sent us a link to a government .pdf on the General. I pasted it to the talk page as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in an edit summary in the article[24] and in my reply to PrimalHawaii (Rev. Joed Miller) in the thread he started at the help desk, the editing regarding the general's alleged death and date of birth was a travesty. The only sources used to to verify the claims were horrendous. As another editor so wisely pointed out in Emerson's article, "ironclad" proof is necessary if one is going to claim that the subject of a BLP has died. This goes for the date of birth as well. It was extremely irresponsible and incompetent editing. And the most infuriating part is the fact that multiple editors kept adding back the highly contentious content, even though there were zero reliable sources to back it up. It was a perfect example of why Wikipedia has such a lousy reputation among a lot of people. Although he did so in a highly inappropriate manner, the reverend was pleading with everyone to remove the faulty content, but was treated like a criminal. Based on the information he provided, it was abundantly clear that he knows Emerson well, and that he is indeed alive. Also remarkable is the fact that no one, until a few hours ago, even took a few moments to explain to the reverend the appropriate manner and place to express his concerns and provide information, which is why he continued doing it. Obviously, he's new to Wikipedia and had no idea what the appropriate process is. Editors need to use some basic common sense, particulary when editing vital content like this. Besides the bogus sources that were used, it's amazing that no one stopped to consider why, if a highly-decorated three-star general actually died, there were absolutely no reliable sources to support it. Obviously, when a person of Emerson's stature dies, it will most certainly be reported on by numerous reliable, mainstream sources. But instead, some editors inexplicably chose to use some obviously nonsense sources simply and solely because they saw someone with the same name. They could care less that there was no evidence in the sources to show it was this Emerson. This incident is a black eye on Wikipedia. I hope we learn from it. In any case, thank you to the editors who have been working to resolve this mess. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben McLemore

There is a ridiculous Missouri fan changing a lot of the information on this page some of it is foul with foul language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.151.50 (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reported them at WP:AIV. They don't have any Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings, but they may not be needed for a block.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ted_Nugent#Self_admitted_REDACTED

Resolved

– A moot point since the section has been nuked from orbit

So far restricted to talk page, but would like someone else to weight in there, so its not a 1 on 1 "consensus". Editor saying accusations of REDACTED should be included in article. I think such content is clearly not well sourced enough, even to say "so and so has alleged", and beyond that the vast majority of the (poorly sourced) allegation does not strictly qualify as REDACTED. Not sure, but I believe such an accusation even on the talk page may violate BLP? (Does this post right here do so as well?) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we can talk about it without talking about it. Maybe just collapse the section to make it less prominent. I'll chime in about my opinion regarding the sources. Gamaliel (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Abdi

It looks like Prince Abdi is going to survive the AfD, so it needs to be watched as it's frequently the subject of vandalism attacks. RNealK (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Stockman

Could experienced editors please keep an eye on Steve Stockman? This is a high-profile individual at the moment and the article is a mess. There are a huge number of citation needed tags, I've found some cases where sentences are copied or closely paraphrased from cited sources and there are some POV issues. For instance: "A Houston Chronicle article reminds that "Stockman’s two years in Congress were marked by weirdness". Another example: Stockman's opponent was described as: "A native of Coffeyville in southeastern Kansas, and a supporter of U.S. President Barack H. Obama" (the opponent's place of birth is irrelevant and may have been mentioned to imply that he's an outsider to the district, the H. in Obama's name is also conspicuous). Stockman is generating a lot of controversy so this article will need some close attention. GabrielF (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review Raja

User talk:Icykle claims to be the Co-creator of Review Raja, namely Rajeev Kugan. He contacted me via email and wished to make following change, which I reverted earlier, because the source stated otherwise: diff. I don't know, what do. I think it's a case for somebody who knows what to do in this case.--Dravidianhero (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you've described is you doing the right thing. Unsourced claims should be omitted. We follow reliable sources, not what people know. Even if it's an involved person making the claims. The claim in your diff isn't particularly harmful to omit, so until a reliable source is offered, the claim can stay out. JFHJr (㊟) 02:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The problem has been solved by a college source. Case closed!--Dravidianhero (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Aspell

Resolved

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Someone at help desk thinks he warrants an article if anyone is in the mood to create one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Canoe. Yes, I'm the one who asked about this at the help desk.[25] Below is a copy of the comments I posted there:
Can someone please create an article for Tom Aspell? He was born in 1950 and died on February 11, 2013, at age 62, after a two-year battle with lung cancer. He was an NBC News foreign correspondent for 28 years and started in the business in 1970, so it amazes me that he doesn't have an article. If anyone would be kind of enough to start an article, here's the link to the story and video from this evening's broadcast of NBC Nightly News, which verifies all the information I've given. They announced his death just a couple hours ago. Thank you. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This really is the wrong place to ask for new articles.Martin451 (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Martin. I wondered about that when Canoe said he brought it here. I guess he was just trying to help. Anyway, do you feel like creating an article for Aspell? (hint, hint) ;) --76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. It seems he was nice enough to create it for you. I expect you to expand it though. I would like at least 50,000 bytes added and on my desk by morning.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't realize he created the article. What a nice guy. I failed to notice Aspell's name is blue. Haha. Thank you, Martin! --76.189.111.1It akl99 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It all worked out in the end, but for future reference WP:Requested articles is the appropriate venue for such requests.--ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chien-Chi Chang

Chien-Chi Chang is no longer married to Cheryl Lai, who is described as the head of Taiwan's news service.

And he now resides in Austria and New York City.

He just told me that this material was erroneous in his bio and that he doesn't even know who put it up. I am a friend and the writer of Double Happiness. Chien-Chi can be reached through Magnum Photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudiadowling (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the sentence about his 2004 marriage, as it's not supported by any cited source provided. The Magnum Photo page still says he lives in Taipei and New York City, not Austria and New York City, so it's them that will need to update that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Borodin

By request, I have stopped by to ask for some eyes on Andrey Borodin. I've taken a quick look at the article, and it does appear to be biased and not neutral. Could someone take a look over it and see if some cleanup can be done? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don Share

Entry has been maliciously vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scannerpage (talk • contribs) 20:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in this edit. Next time, please feel free to revert such vandalism yourself.--ukexpat (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Monroe

There is a reservation as to whether Meredith Monroe biography is accurate as there is no concrete evidence to support what her birth name is - Meredith Leigh Monroe or Meredith Hoyt Monroe. I believe Wikipedia has removed a lot of information off her page including her birth date simply as no one is sure whether she was born in 1976 or 1969.

Therefore there is a question should Wikipedia still list her as Meredith Leigh Monroe rather than Meredith Hoyt Monroe. I ask this question, as there are a lot of inconsistences within her biography. Whilst known as Meredith Hoyt Monroe from the time frame 1997 – 2004 she was know either to be born in 1977 or 1976. Later from around 2004/5 onward she started to be referred as Meredith Leigh Monroe born 1970, 1969 or 1968. However the timeline of events when Meredith is know, as Leigh is a bit dubious.

The first reports of Meredith lying about her age came from a website The Iconophile who still refers to her as Hoyt and claims High School friends had contact him saying she was born in 1970. On the Wikipedia Talk page again there is a comment made that Meredith gradate High School in 1988. Even though people have made these claims no one has mentioned which High School she attended and there is no record in the public domain of any pictures or yearbook evidence. As many celebrities have there yearbook pictures on various website it seem odd that no one as posted Meredith. Also if it is in the public domain which University she attended why has the High School she attended not been listed?

The second mystery is the University she attend the Millikin University. A University not known for its performing arts but more for its liberal arts and fine arts. Should we follow Meredith Leigh Monroe born in 1969 education and work history she would have graduated High School in 1988, university in 1991 only then to start modelling and acting in 1997. At the age of 28 is seem odd for a woman to then start to model for teenage magazines and play teenage roles. If we start with Meredith early work it shows that her first job was modelling for a teenage magazine, a jumper catalogue and the Nancy Drew books, At All Cost published in Oct 1997, Royal Revenge Dec 1997, Operations Titanic Feb 1998 and Process of Elimination April 1998. Plus doing teenage roles in Norville and Trudy 1997, Dangerous Minds 1997, Hang Time 1997, Sunset Beach 1998, Beyond the Prairie; The True Story of Laura Ingalls Wilder 1999 and Dawson Creek 2000. If we look at time frame it doesn’t really make sense and a little farfetched that someone goes through the education system works outside of the media industry for 6 years only to change career at 28 to play teenager parts. If Kerr Smith age was noticed on Dawson Creek so should have Meredith especially if people were claiming she was the oldest cast member rather than after the show ended.

As there is no reliable source to say if Meredith was born Meredith Hoyt Monroe or Meredith Leigh Monroe how is her biography accurate? Unlike the other cast members on Dawson Creek there is no information on family or High School records within the public domain to verify her birth name or age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay99a (talk • contribs) 21:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reliable source for her full name to the article. As for the rest of your message, I'm really not sure what the point is. There's no longer a birth date listed in the article so I'm not sure why you are disputing it. Without a reliable source, the discussion is moot. Gamaliel (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what or where your reliable source is as it may help to clear up Meredith Monroe date of birth as well. The point I was trying to make was the name change is associated to her change in date of birth and the two time frames.

Born in 1976 when better know as Meredith Hoyt Monroe her life events would have followed, graduated High School in 1994. University in 1997 and began first modelling job possible 1997/6 if started whilst at University or straight after. As it has always been stated that Meredith first model for the Nancy Drew book and did small television commercials in 1997 and then moved into film and soaps later around 1998. Details can be found on her official website.

However when later known a Meredith Leigh Monroe born in 1969 she would have graduated High School in 1988. University in 1991 only then to have waited 6 years to start modelling in 1997 making her aged 28 with no account of what she had done in the 6 years in between University and working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay99a (talk • contribs) 10:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the first ref in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not provide a definitive birth date, so as I said, without a reliable source on this matter this discussion is moot. Gamaliel (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huey Newton article--definition of "recently dead"

Editors Amadscientist and UsetheCommandLine are asserting that Huey Newton (whose 1989 death is confirmed) and Bert Schneider (whose 2011 death is confirmed) are both covered by WP:BLP under the recent clause. Amadscientist asserts that anyone who was born less than 115 years ago, even if confirmed dead, is covered.

This needs to be clarified. I might understand recent to mean 6 months, a year....even two years at the outside. If someone has been dead for 24 years, I do not see how this can be considered "recent."

Please clarify. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

115 years is an oddly specific figure, and longer than even the ridiculously long post-death copyright terms. Is there any policy basis for such a specific time frame? Also could you link to the discussion you've cited? Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, people born more than 115 years ago, but whose death has not been confirmed, may be included in ~~Category:Possibly living people~~Category:Year of death missing. Perhaps that's what those editors were thinking of? Apostle12's viewpoint seems like common sense to me. Rybec (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, BLP should apply to people who may still be alive, but once you are confirmed dead, then insert dead parrot joke here. I'm inclined to agree with Apostle12's viewpoint based on what has been presented here, but I'd like to see where the opposing view is coming from first. Gamaliel (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion appears to be at Talk:Huey_P._Newton. I haven't read it. Rybec (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just skimmed it now. My first impression is that Apostle12 wants to include certain material and is opposed largely by two other editors. The BLP policy claim was one of a number of tactics used to keep this material out of the article. The rest of the dispute aside, the BLP claim of 115 years appears to be incorrect and to be contradicted by the policy linked to by one of the editors making this claim. Gamaliel (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy that was cited is Wikipedia:BDP#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead and it says "anyone born within the last 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death." I would assume there are reliable sources for Huey Newton's death. Rybec (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he is only pining for the fjords. Gamaliel (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit (or the reversion of the multiple edits that were removed) that started the long discussion that has developed over the last week or so.

It appeared to me that the outcome of these talks suggested that both Newton and Schneider were covered by WP:BLP policies. I would note that Amadscientist was one of the WP:DRN volunteers handling the original dispute re:Schneider.

Subsequently, this edit was made by an IP editor. Discussion ensued. I believe I have laid out my concerns adequately already in that discussion, namely, coverage (or not) of Newton by WP:BLP and a related WP:RS concern. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy also explicitly excludes people whose deaths have been confirmed and defines recent by linking to Deaths in 2013, so it would seem that someone who died in 1989 is not covered by this policy or by any reasonable definition of "recent" in policy terms. Gamaliel (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what I am hearing is that Newton is not covered by the "recently dead" provision, which is good to know. Since we're here discussing it already, at what point might it no longer cover Schneider, who is more recently deceased? (generally, it is understood that there might not be any hard and fast rules here.) my understanding now is that Schneider, having passed over a year ago, would no longer be covered as "recently dead"? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at the sources for the claims about a connection between Schneider and Newton. If it is indeed written on salon.com it's gotten wide exposure already. On the other hand, Apostle12 wrote that he thought that a recent death could be "even two years at the outside." If he could hold off on adding it to the articles, it would be more considerate to Schneider's relatives. Rybec (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the claim may have gotten wide exposure on salon.com, the consensus of the DRN discussion seemed to be that salon.com and this article in particular should not be relied on for statements of fact, especially when there are no other sources to corroborate the claim made in that piece. This, i suppose, would be in addition to the "recently dead" provision. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't commenting on whether salon.com is reliable or not, just on the likelihood that the survivors have heard these claims. Rybec (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the "recently deceased" applies for one year after the subject's death. I am not aware of any more strict definition than this. Yworo (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This all makes a lot more sense now. Thanks everyone for the clarification. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the basis is for Yworo's understanding that there is a bright-line one-year definition for recent deaths. Apparently, as a result of that sentence, Apostle changed the policy to add it. I've reverted the change because it is a significant change requiring far more discussion before it's made. Normally, that discussion would be on the policy talk page (as opposed to here), or perhaps at the Pump depending on editors' views.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Brinkley

Someone has been repeatedly writing slanderous material on my Wikipedia page realting to a column I wrote last week. I'm a syndicated columnist. I have removed it 5 or 6 times. But it keeps coming back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.33.130 (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on whether the material is slanderous - please be careful with such language, as it may land you in trouble with Wikipedia's policy on legal threats - but the added/deleted/added material is clearly inappropriate per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. I'm about to request semi-protection of the page, which should sort out the problem in the short term. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the article for a week (for now). The material that was being added gave completely undue attention to a single event and included sources to blogs and what amounted essentially to POV commentary specifically aimed to make the subject look bad. Negative content and criticism can be included in biographies if well sourced, notable, and as long as it is not given undue attention; this was pretty much an example of how not to do it. Interested parties can use the article talk page to discuss and reach consensus as to if and how the criticism should be covered. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am bringing this conversation back up for debate. While I agree that the negative comments should not be there, I believe that there is good reason to include the information about the above mentioned controversy.Chrisvanlang (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing to not ask the pope for his opinion on the subject matter and have proposed to draft up a more neutral assessment of the situation as there are plenty of RS.Chrisvanlang (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were many problems with the original section: POV tone, UNDUE, blog sourcing. Properly weighted and handled it might be included. Gamaliel (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This I all agree with. Should I just go ahead and rewrite the original section? I have all of the appropriate sources and it's not hard to phrase this neutrally. Part of the concern is that several blogs have noticed that this article has been "cleaned up".Chrisvanlang (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where any notable controversy is. He wrote an article and few people disagreed in the blog/feedback section. Was there significant coverage of any controversy? I didn't see any mainstream authority that disagreed with him nor any reports of a controversy. Undue, trivial, RS, POV, etc, still apply until we can report that it is a big controversy that has recieved significant coverage by mainstream media.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisvanlang; what blogs think about Wikipedia articles being fixed to comply with WP:BLP is not a "concern" in any way, shape or form. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisvanlang, we may not source any material, especially opinions, from blog comments. Unless several reliable sources label this a "controversy", it's not, and shouldn't be included in the article. In point of fact, most blog posts are not considered reliable sources. Blog comments are never viewed as reliable sources on Wikipedia. If you continue to pursue this sort of attempt at defamation, you may find yourself blocked from editing WIkipedia altogether. Please have the good sense to desist. Yworo (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Chrisvanlang is advocating using blogs or blog comments as sources in that comment, he or she is just noting that blogs have commented negatively, accurately or not, on Wikipedia's actions in this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he wanted to source the very fact of the existence of a "controversy" to critical blog comments about Brinkley's article, and is most likely the author of the subsequent comments criticizing Wikipedia for removing the unreliably sourced content. Yworo (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should make it very clear that I did not write the original section that we have all agreed to removed, the discussion is whether or not the controversy is a controversy worth mentioning on the article satisfying WP:UNDUE Chrisvanlang (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There clearly is a controversy independent of blog comments, see [26] and [27]. Whether or not it is one that deserves inclusion is another matter. Let's remember WP:AGF please. Gamaliel (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second source you link is itself a blog post and in no way a reliable source. This is a BLP, even the blogs of recognized experts can't be used as sources in articles about living people. Yworo (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources meeting WP:BLP: BBC (3 times) [28][29][30]; Thanh Nien [31]; and the Mercury News above. Debatable: Stanford Daily (student paper) [32]; Huffington Post [33] (more of an editorial). --GRuban (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romenesko is a professional journalist working for the Poynter Institute and as such meets the RS criteria. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I found Brinkley's piece, dated February 1st, at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-01/news/sns-201301291330--tms--amvoicesctnav-c20130129-20130129_1_dog-meat-da-nang-meat-eaters . It still contains the controversial statements. At the bottom it says:

Editor’s note: Tribune Media Services, which distributed this article, issued a follow-up statement on Friday, February 1:
Tribune Media Services (TMS) recently moved an opinion column by Joel Brinkley about his observations from a trip to Vietnam that did not meet our journalistic standards. The column has provoked a highly critical response from readers since its release.
TMS has a rigorous editing process for its content, and in the case of Brinkley’s column that moved Jan. 29, all the required steps did not occur. We regret that this happened, and we will be vigilant in ensuring that our editing process works in the future.

(the same apology is reproduced on jimromenesko.com). Opinion pieces are supposed to cause controversy. I think it's unusual for a newspaper chain to apologize ~~and try to hide~~ for an editorial. This is not trivial. Rybec (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editorial and apology are at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/columnists/sns-201301291330--tms--amvoicesctnav-c20130129-20130129,0,2766282.column as well. Rybec (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse ferret. I can now understand points for inclusion. The main problem is still the sheer size the section would take up in such a small article and thus create a coatrack. If we include a first sentence describing the article and its retraction by the paper, a second one with a notable person disagreeing with it, a third one with Mr.Brinkley's rebuttal, and then a fourth with another notable backing Mr.Brinkley then it would unbalance the article bytewise. This would still be considered undue, not news, coatrack, POV, etc. by many editors. If the article were expanded with more positive material then that may change a few minds.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it really does have to do with the current short length of the article. Were the article significantly longer, covering other articles written by the subject and responses to those articles, then perhaps with reliable sources, this inclusion would be appropriate. Someone wanting to add this would need to also add significant positive content to the article in order to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid undue weight. Yworo (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked at the article before making my earlier remarks. I see the point about its brevity. Rybec (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've lengthened the article from 3581 bytes to 6551 bytes with material that would not be out of place in his CV. I feel that a statement like "a January 2013 piece was widely discussed," with the op-ed itself and the Mercury-News page as references, would present the matter in a neutral way. The Mercury-News page contains both criticism and Brinkley's responses, including the remark that he "has never received so much reaction to one of his pieces," which means nearly the same thing as saying it "was widely discussed." Would adding that sentence still create concerns about undue weight? --Rybec (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence or two wouldn't be out of line, perhaps. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ER no comment on this particular case, but thats not how NPOV or UNDUE work. Just because info is negative does not mean we need to balance it with positive. Likewise length of the article is not part of it. If someone with a short article causes a discussion in lots of reliable sources, positive or negative, we dont have to wait until something opposing it comes to light. It may never do so, the negative/positive event may be the most significant thing that they do in an otherwise barely-notable life. Is it relevant to their notability? Yes, is it covered significantly in reliable sources? Yes, then it may be included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quintin Jardine

Quintin Jardine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Quintin, the subject of the above article, removed unsourced contentious material from the article, which then received possible vandalism.[34] Quintin's edits were undone. Quintin posted about his frustrations here. I then removed the material per WP:BLP.[35] I'm posting here to have the article receive a once over for any other BLP issues and to have it watched for a bit. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a heap of unreferenced info, tagged for improvement, and added to my watchlist. Giant Snowman 12:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also watchlisted. Yworo (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Davidson

I attempted to improve the Jane Davidson article today by adding more reliable sources and making it fit WP:NPOV better. But again a single purpose account has remove the criticisms of the subject, and even the references to its removal from the talk page. An admin has reverted the edits once, but it seems a lot of new users want this article censored! -Politicool (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no sign of you having edited that article at all -- and there's no sign of recent additions there, certainly nothing today or yesterday. Not sure what your concern is... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking at their edit history, the latest on January 30, 2012.--Auric talk 12:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "SPA" appears to be Lstokes71, with this edit.--Auric talk 12:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the person who tried to rebalance the article from being like an WP:Advert that sang the praises of the subject to include the disputed critical content. It was clearly being used for promotional purposes - the subject even edited the article herself using User:JaneBryngwyn, I have put a discussion on the talk page about whether the subject was just notable in politics - she has now retired. With the WP:COI issues this article will just be a protracted edit-war between those who want to puff up the subject's popularity and impact and those who want a more fair and balanced article which is not what the former wants to hear -Politicool (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Singh

This biography was deleted (without discussion) and reposted with slight revision. This biography lacks NPOV, Verifiability (many of the sources are questionable websites which published the subjects press release), Writing style is clearly promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banchasana (talk • contribs) 06:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be a WP:BLP issue. Seems well sourced with sufficient sources to establish notability. Sources do not seem to "questionable websites which published the subjects press release" as claimed. Yworo (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added disputed tags to help clean up the article. Thanks for the feedback. Banchasana (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Rubio's Grandfather

[36] has:

The Associated Press reported that "no other immigration records exist for Garcia from 1962 until he applied for residency four years later" and concluded that he likely remained in the U.S. illegally during the intervening period

Which I strangely interpret to be an accusation of a crime ("illegally") requiring strong sourcing as a contentious claim. The AP statement is clearly speculation only - thus I suggest it does not meet the BLP requirements, The claim clearly affects the grandfather, who is not stated to be dead, as well as Marco Rubio as it is placed in his direct BLP. The article is not about the grandfather otherwise at all. Is the AP surmise sufficient for the insertion of a criminal claim into a BLP? I would note that no source other than the AP surmise has been presented for the accusation of a crime. Collect (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no lack of sources for this, Collect. Here is one that isn't "speculation". I have no doubt you'll find a way to dislike it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AP is a reliable source, and the statement is a clearly attributed. Moreover, "illegal" != "criminal". Looks good to me. I'm less certain about WP:DUE, but given that Rubio has used his Cuban connections politically, it probably passes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! "Illegal" does not mean "criminal" at all? What a strange position for anyone to take! I have no problem with the deportation order - only the specific use of "illegally" which has clear connotations. Contrary to or forbidden by law, esp. criminal law: "illegal drugs" certainly seems to have that connotation in ordinary English - and I find the use of "illegal" to mean "aliens" to be offensive ab initio. Cheers -- but I had thought we were past calling such people "illegal." Collect (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? Maybe you are not familiar with the common interpretation of !=. It means "not equal". It does not mean "has nothing to do with". It's illegal to park your car in a no-parking spot. It's not, usually, a crime. Moreover, we call nobody nothing here. The Associated Press, one of the major news services on the planet, calls the stay of Garcia "likely illegal". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the source - it is surmise by its own statements - as it says it does not "know" if he committed the crime of being in the US illegally. That you seem to think you can lecture me on what "!=" means is pleasantly absurd, by the way. If I said "Gnarph likely committed a crime, but I do not know if he did" I would find that as a statement of "fact" to violate BLP. And that is the single point at issue. The AP declined to make it a claim of fact - therefore it fails WP:BLP as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AP concludes "likely", and so can we. The proposed edit did exactly replicate AP's "likely". If you only want 100% certain things, go become a mathematician. As for "!=", you seemed to interpret my statement as denying all relationship, when, in fact, I only pointed out that the terms do not fully coincide. That said, if I am qualified to talk about anything, the "=" and "!=" operators, both in logic and in many programming languages, are certainly within my area of expertise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget the additional sources (with more available), which leave no doubt. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All very pleasant but if it is relevant to a biographical article, the discussion should continue in its discussion page, and if not, why discuss? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an Immigration section about legislation proposed by Marco Rubio. I can see how the paragraph about the grandfather lends to our understanding of Marco Rubio himself (thinking of WP:NPF).

I notice that the names of Marco Rubio's parents, wife and children are mentioned. Any reason not to strike them per Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_names? --Rybec (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any reason to strike them. They seem to be well sourced and I'm not aware of any statement by Rubio or his relatives that they would prefer the names to be kept private. He names his wife and father in his Senate biography. Sperril (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't name his kids, though, then perhaps we should strike those. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to striking the names of his children. He did name them on his Florida House of Representatives biography, but their names in the article serve no real purpose. The only one I would absolutely object to removing would be that of his father due to media coverage of the circumstances surrounding his immigration from Cuba. Sperril (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spouses typically are named in biographical articles, as are parents, so I suggest that those should be kept. I think it's a bit creepy to name non-notable minor children, but if the names are well sourced, Wikipedia policy permits them to be published. --Orlady (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should respect non-notable people's right to privacy IMO. Unless their names have been widely publicized I believe that the names of children, spouses and parents of BLP subjects can, and should, be left out of BLP's in the spirit of WP:BLPN and WP:NPF and WP:BLPNAME. In the majority of circumstances referring to them simply as wife or child, does not result in a loss a "reader's complete understanding of the subject."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the children's names. --Rybec (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ramon Matia

Paul Matia was NOT succeeded in the Ohio Senate by Lee Fisher. He was actually succeeded by NO ONE. Redistricting (technically called apportionment) eliminated his west side Cuyahoga County district placing half in each of two adjacent Senate districts where the incumbents were mid term. Paul effectively was a man without a district. Lee Fisher was elected to a new district on the east side of Cuyahoga County and no part of either district overlapped. For whatever it is worth I was given part of his district and still had two years to serve on my 4 year term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.219.1 (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Stark

Strange things afoot at Chris Stark - it's been edited about 100 times in the last 2 days by a variety of IPs, mostly adding absurd, unsourced and likely untrue content. Cluebot's gotten some of it, but not all of it is the type of stuff that Cluebot catches - idiotic little things like "...he is an accomplished knitter, producing the worlds largest bed sock. Somewhere along the way someone also added this "Mr Stark is also said to be fuming with the editing of his own Wikipedia page, and is said to be planning legal action." That's probably not a genuine legal threat, but it is indicative that at least one of the vandals seems to be acknowledging that there is some sort of campaign of vandalism going on. Okay, that might be a stretch, but there's certainly enough weirdness at the article recently that I thought it should at least have a few more sets of eyes on it, and possibly a semi-protect. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just mentioning that I did do a massive revert to a clean version of the page, but vandalism has continued.[37] Dawn Bard (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a week. January (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samer Tariq Issawi

The current bio of Samer Tariq Issawi defines the Palestinian political activist Samer Tariq Issawi as a "terrorist", which is a definition clearly in breach of the neutral point of view rule. In fact he was captured by Israel during the Israeli invasion of the West Bank and charged of possession of weapons and forming military groups in Jerusalem. The charges were levied not by a neutral party but by a military enemy, so they cannot be taken as a proof of the prisoner's wrongdoing. More importantly, even these biased charges did not include murder, so the definition of "terrorist" is not only inappropriate but also defamatory in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxillinus (talk • contribs) 16:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you saw the article during a short period of (misspelled) vandalism, which has been reverted. --GRuban (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems that I was reverting at the same time Maxillinus was writing this post. ... discospinster _talk 18:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Milburn

Article claims he was born in both Dorset & Northumberland. Sorry if I am in the wrong place.

^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference myFOXla_2013-02-06 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference ABC.au_2013-02-08 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference LAist_2013-02-07 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/inland_empire&id=8988394
^ The Associated Press (2013-02-08). "Dorner Manifesto: Suspected Gunman Talks Politics, Pop Culture In His 'Last Resort'". Retrieved 2013-02-11.
^ John North, Rob McMillan, Robert Holguin, Leanne Suter, Q McCray, Amy Powell and Melissa MacBride (2013-02-11). "Christopher Dorner search: Criminal charges filed". Retrieved 2013-02-11.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ The Associated Press (2013-02-08). "Dorner Manifesto: Suspected Gunman Talks Politics, Pop Culture In His 'Last Resort'". Retrieved 2013-02-11.

[myFOXla_2013-02-06-1] Cite error: The named reference myFOXla_2013-02-06 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[ABC.au_2013-02-08-2] Cite error: The named reference ABC.au_2013-02-08 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[LAist_2013-02-07-3] Cite error: The named reference LAist_2013-02-07 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[4] ttp://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/inland_empire&id=8988394

[5] The Associated Press (2013-02-08). "Dorner Manifesto: Suspected Gunman Talks Politics, Pop Culture In His 'Last Resort'". Retrieved 2013-02-11.

[6] John North, Rob McMillan, Robert Holguin, Leanne Suter, Q McCray, Amy Powell and Melissa MacBride (2013-02-11). "Christopher Dorner search: Criminal charges filed". Retrieved 2013-02-11.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[7] The Associated Press (2013-02-08). "Dorner Manifesto: Suspected Gunman Talks Politics, Pop Culture In His 'Last Resort'". Retrieved 2013-02-11.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

@@ Line 704: / Line 704: @@
 : I think you saw the article during [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samer_Tariq_Issawi&diff=next&oldid=538405095 a short period of (misspelled) vandalism], which has been reverted. --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 17:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 :: Yeah, it seems that I was reverting at the same time Maxillinus was writing this post. <font color="DarkGray">...</font> [[User:discospinster|<font color="DarkOrange">'''disco'''</font><font color="DarkOliveGreen">'''''spinster'''''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:discospinster|'''<font color="DarkGray">talk</font>''']]</sub> 18:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
+== Oliver Milburn ==
+Article claims he was born in both Dorset & Northumberland.  Sorry if I am in the wrong place.

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