Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JamshidAwal (talk | contribs) at 21:49, 11 January 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:




    Former religion

    Resolved
     – for now, the result of the AFD was no consensus . Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Should people be categorized by their former membership in a religion? This topic is being discussed on Talk:List of Unification Church members. I don't so much object to the article, but on the other hand I don't think the issue is so cut and dried as some people are claiming. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a good deal of examples that this is acceptable and appropriate on this project:

    Cheers, Cirt (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope special care is used in listing someone as a "former Muslim." (If the person is living that is.) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously I have worked on some of these lists myself, especially "former Christians." I am not saying they are totally bad but there seems to be a lot of agenda pushing going on with them. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For instance where is the evidence that George Harrison was ever a believer in Christianity? Or Malcolm X? I have read his autobiography and don't recall any Christian belief mentioned. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. I didn't know there was so much interest in the topic. Some of the lists seemed kind of mean-spirtited, like "See, my religion is better than yours. See how many people left yours to join mine."Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree these lists are awful, imo of no value at all. A haven for editors with an agenda, delete. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you nominate them for deletion please let me know. For fairness I think it would be better to wait till after Christmas. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As Groucho Marx pointed out, there is no such thing as a "former Jew". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes it seems that is the case, no escape. Deletion is something perhaps to look at after the festivities. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The specific anecdote is this, from An Evening With Groucho: "I knew a fellow named Otto Kahn, who was a very rich man, and he gave a lot of money to the Metropolitan Opera House at one time. And his close friend was Marshall P. Wilder, who was a hunchback. And they were walking down Fifth Avenue, and they came to a synagogue, and Kahn turned to Wilder and he said 'Marshall, you know I used to be a Jew.' Marshall said 'Really? I used to be a hunchback.'" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews. Now we will see what happens. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute over birth year on Foxy Brown (rapper)

    An ongoing dispute is occuring in the article about Foxy Brown (rapper) over sourcing her birth year. Right now it's cited as 1979 based on allmusic. An Entertainment Weekly article from March 2001 lists her age as 21 at the time, supporting a September 1979 birthday. However, another user argues that it really should be 1978 based on a police report from 2007 and a song where she claims to be born in 1978.

    WP:WELLKNOWN says not to use public records, in this case a police report that The Smoking Gun reprinted on its website. Which is the more reliable source here? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have seen the smoking gun said to be ok, and if the song from her supports that, why not go with that claim, imo. I have seen were there are two claims that if hotly disputed, both have been there, but this seems a bit silly. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    She was born in 1978, you just have to get over it. Even if you aren't supposed to use public record as a source, for whatever reason, it still makes her birth year as a fact. If allmusic reports her birth year is 1990, would you put that? Didn't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.108.159 (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Article appears to have stabilized, one date is in the infobox and a note referring to the disputed date has been included. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomas McDermott, Jr.

    Resolved
     – Goofy01 (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Snakemeets012 keeps adding contentious and politically slanted stories to the above biography. As noted on his/her usertalk page, this isn't the only time or page that has been edited incorrectly by this member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.158.44 (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not Snakemeets anymore, rather established editors are adding that information. I'm watching the article closely. 5:40 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, established editors...That content is coatracking and totally excessive, adding them is nothing more than a political attack. Off2riorob (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur Payson

    Resolved
     – deleted, undisputed expired prod. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can anybody find any reliable sources on Arthur Payson? I can't find any, and I'm beginning to wonder about his notability. A BLP without reliable sources is by default problematic. Woogee (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Feel free to AfD. No coverage in reliable, secondary sources. 5:40 (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a search template and had a look, he is a real person but not notable imo, I have prodded the article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jim Leavitt

    Someone else may want to keep an eye on this page. Leavitt allegedly assaulted a player, but the allegations were found to be false, so I'm under the assumption that the incident doesn't belong in the page. An IP (and associated new editor) are adding the blurb, but I have kept it out thus far. Little Mookie (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've started a discussion on the talk page about this one, while the incident was later recanted at least partially by the player, the allegations made national news and were quite notable. Leavitt is notable on a national level because of the incident, and searches for him are up because of the incident with Mike Leach. By my way of thinking, the best way to handle this as per BLP is not to delete the matter as gossip, but to show the highly notable allegations, and also the later denial by the player. I've updated the page with the initial allegations, and the rebuttal by the player. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good move, looks well written and cited to me. Off2riorob (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if it's someone being funny, but a legal threat has been added to the talk page. Little Mookie (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Crotchety Old Man (talk · contribs). Jim Leavitt's Attorney (talk · contribs) is also a sp of Crotchety.  5:40  15:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The material has now been added to University of South Florida by Chubbybubbles (talk · contribs). Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Leavitt has now been fired and news reports cite the alleged misconduct as the grounds for the firing.[1][2] So it's no longer a case of just deleting the material, but rather making sure that it is properly sourced and that the text accurately reflects the reliable sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Cassandra, there has been some kind of parting of the ways but that comment was clearly excessive, have a look at the discussion at the Leavitt talkpage and see that comment that is in the article there, the Leavitt article is currently locked, as for if a comment is warranted at the University of South Florida article, personally I doubt it, the new user is probably adding it there because he can't add it at the Leavitt article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jenny Shimizu / Jenny Lynn Shimizu

    Resolved
     – newly created article redirected. Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I was dismayed to note that a recent article at Jenny Lynn Shimizu seems to duplicate the subject but not the content of Jenny Shimizu, a well-referenced article that has existed since 2006. Unfortunately from my point of view, the new article also appears to contain excellent citations and material which adds depth to the smaller amount found in the earlier article. Ordinarily I'd just turn the new one into a redirect to the existing one, but I can't help feeling that that's not the right thing to do; this really needs someone to go through both and selectively merge the two, I think. I know very little about the subject matter and would not be the right person to do that selective merge, I think; it needs an awareness of the topics that I don't have. I've asked for assistance from a colleague knowledgeable in the matters of LGBT topics but want to ensure that this situation gets attention so that we don't maintain two articles for very long. Comments and assistance would be appreciated. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    One section starts...Featured Art and Publications...Likewise, her image is exhibited in museums and books all over the world. Exhibits include....bla bla. ...really? All over the world.. Off2riorob (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "new" article matches up in conspicuous places to text her publicists tried to add to the original article last summer. I'd treat the whole thing as spam until shown otherwise -- the referencing doesn't hold up well under close examination -- and have redirected the new article to the original. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sister Vincenza

    Resolved
     – article went for AFD and survived. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sister Vincenza is sourced, but I'd appreciate someone running an eye over it. ϢereSpielChequers 10:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    She is not even mentioned on the Pope article, it is a conspiracy theory, she is not notable for a bio and if there is any notability it is for this one event, or rather a conspiracy which isn't even really an event. Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, she wouldn't be mentioned in his bio, since the conspiracy theories are rather fringey; but she is mentioned in the article on those theories. Still, she's not independently notable, so the article should be deleted and merged into the conspiracy theory article. -- Zsero (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, thanks Zsero, Pope_John Paul I conspiracy theories a small mention, I was going to prod it but then I discovered the article was created by an editor I have a degree of contact with so I have left him a note asking him about it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually you can find her in several books, and newspapers from her time. She is connected to one event for notability, but I considered her somewhat like Monica Lewinski. The pope is insanely famous and so is the president. Both ladies played a part in a famous man's life and therefore achieved notability by association. [[3]] is a google news search, and the remaining references to her have been within printed books. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And if she'd had a widely-publicised affair with the pope, which led to a crisis in his papacy that occupied the headlines for years, she'd be notable. But no matter how famous the US president is, a White House janitor is not notable even if he gossips to reporters about what he's seen there. -- Zsero (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a simple google search with her name plus pope will show she has widespread coverage...For thirty years now.....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have updated some of the sources too. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Popular opinion is against me. I think it should be included, as such I would've removed any prods on the page. I have therefore taken the liberty of Nominating to AFD with a Keep vote to avoid useless procedure. Please fell free to review the changes and comment [[4]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Arielle Dombasle

    Arielle Dombasle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A user (IP) is trying to push through his alleged findings about Dombasle's birthdate and birthplace that contradict the actress's own web site and many other sources. According to the pictures of documents (?) he has published on his own blog, she's five years older (born 1953) than she admits (born 1958). The French and German articles have already been blocked due to his repeated and undiscerning actions. --Sitacuisses (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have found in my life that this is commonplace to say you are younger than you really are, I have at times done it myself. Are there any strong citation of any kind? Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Her own web site confirms 1958. No matter if it's true or not, it's the official version which can't simply be deleted from the article. There are various web sites that say 1958, there are also some web sites that say 1953, but I haven't seen a source as strong as the official site. The documents allegedely copied and hosted on his own blog by that french guy certainly don't qualify as evidence here. --Sitacuisses (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't mention 1953 was a possibility ? We have three dates now... Ill have another look at the citations. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Three dates? 1958 (official), 1953 and ...? --Sitacuisses (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, I thought I saw a third one, this is the citation the other editor wants to include, I did find a couple more around the Internet supporting the 53 date, all the 58 claims appear to originate from the subject, would that be correct? It appears that way to me. Why not add in the lede that this date is disputed and add the 53 date and the citation or citations that support that date. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Another solution I have seen is to create an Age dispute section with the details of both claims. Off2riorob (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless a secondary source reports on the dispute WP should not mention it. Who cares anyway? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people seem to care, the position seems to be that there are weak citations for the birth date and they are different, what to do? We don't have to report a dispute but we can say birth of date reported as 53 by this website and 58 by this website. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't really know where either of these dates originate, all we know is that 58 is official and 53 is not. I can't judge the value of that citation myself, but it has been disputed by the French experts at her french discussion page. The discussions there about her birth date started in 2005 and there was obviously no citation presented that could convince the French admins to add the '53 date.
    To me just another movie database is not a valuable source, since I know that the biographical data of these databases often is copied from other doubtful sources without much care. Ten of these databases are just as worthless as a single one of them. What we need to include the '53 date in the article is a high quality citation.--Sitacuisses (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All we have for the 58 birthdate is her publication, the 53 citation is as strong as the other, they are both weak imo, I see no reason why not to incude both as a solution to the dispute, this solution seems to be quite acceptable here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that mean that any random citation is as good as the official info? --Sitacuisses (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sitacuisses, Wikipedia doesn't recognize "official" sources, only more or less reliable ones. A person's own website, which is a self-published source, is generally admissible as a reliable source for what that person says about him/herself, but if other reliable sources dispute that information, then all of them need to be included. Crum375 (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for not finding the correct wording; English is not my first language. Wikipedia at least does recognize official links (WP:ELOFFICIAL), and we're talking about information found on an official web site. I'd call this is an official source. The real question is then: Do you really think that any random internet database is as reliable as what the person says about him/herself? Or have you found a source for the 1953 date that is known to be more reliable than a random internet database? --Sitacuisses (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we allow a person's or organization's website to tell us about themselves, as long as the information is not contradicted by other reliable sources. I found this source, but I don't consider it very good, esp. since its date math seems to be off (says she was 18 in 1976, yet born in 1953). Since her parents moved to Mexico when she was one month old, her mother died when she was 11, and her father remarried then, there may be some news articles from that era which add information, but I would stick with her official site until a reliable source is found disputing it. Crum375 (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a citation for April 27, 1957. [5] There doea seem to be differing dates, I had a good look at her picture and have made a personal opinion.. I will have a look round for more citations. Heres one for April 27, 1953 [6] Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This one which looks quite strong says that she was 11 when her mother died and that she was born on April 27 1953 . Off2riorob (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a date of birth there? Crum375 (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes April 27th 1953, have a look its her whole childhood history in some interview, nice read. Off2riorob (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that's not very convincing. Filmreference.com is exactly what I call just another random movie database that doesn't get the numbers right. 1957 simply looks like a typo. Monsieur-biographie.com is a copy of an obsolete version of the French Wikipedia article – forget it. Where did you find a birth date in the ariellenyc.com PDF? The search function finds neither "53" nor "58". BTW, ariellenyc.com is a web site set up for Dombasle's concert in New York City. That's hardly an independent source, either. --Sitacuisses (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The sun report clearly says that she was 11 when her mother died, there clearly is a dispute as regards her birth date and imo it needs mentioning in the article, there are citations supporting the 1953 date independant of her assertions that she was born in 1958, perhaps not in the lede but certainely in the body of the article, later I will write a sentence about the differing dates. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Chris Moneymaker

    There is discussion that starts here and continues until the bottom of the talk page, including a RfC, concerning the addition of text refering to anonymous critics to the Chris Moneymaker article. The issues invole BLP, WP:WEASEL, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Since discussion is underway there, I assume that it where the issue should be discussed rather than on this page. 2005 (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't look like there is much of a BLP issue there, it just looks like a load of talk? Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's primarily a BLP issue. Is it appropriate to say "some people say John sucks", or "some people say John is an incompetent physician", or "some people say John is a pervert", etc. Can dubiously reliable articles that state anonymous "some people say" derogatory things about a person be used as sources to state those deragoatory statements in a BLP? 2005 (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Excessive not notable partisan critisism should not be given undue weight in an article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)

    • The article has been referenced using unreliable secondary sources, including those by Ilan Stavans. The following link concerns the reliability of Stavans:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/13/books/be-both-outsider-insider-czar-latino-literature-culture-finds-himself-under.html Stavans attacked Mr. Rodriguez for having supposedly usurped Salomon Isacovici's book Man of Ashes in his book ' The Inveterate Dreamer: Essays and Conversations on Jewish Culture'. Not only are his accusations distorted, but also blatantly false. For example, Stavans claims Mr. Rodriguez was an ex-jesuit priest, but he does not say where he got such information. Considering the NYT article, Stavans is highly unreliable and should not be sourced on this page. Su Di and Cynthia Ozick are just as unreliable.

    • Since I started the article, and now it is filled with libelous information with the sole purpose of denigrating the author, I either suggest the secondary sources be eliminated or the page deleted. After all, the page itself is a stub and has little information. It might be best just to delete it altogether.

    Salomon Isacovici

    • In addition, the page on Salomon Isacovici uses the same unreliable sources to discredit Juan Manuel Rodriguez. There is primary source evidence of copyright contracts which is not being allowed due to Wikipedia's policy of only using secondary sources. Nevertheless, discrediting the primary source information and relying on evidence like that of Stavans is ludicrous! Once again, I suggest that the sources be reconsidered and that either the page be deemed controversial and deleted or allow the usage of the primary source copyright material. As it is currently, there is a lot of erroneous material.
    • These two sources are worrisome, as both confuse the existing controversy and harm Mr. Rodriguez by discrediting his authorship of the book 'Man of Ashes' and by sourcing unreliable books that purposefully tarnish the reputation of the author. I can't think of a worse thing for wikipedia to do, than allow disreputable sources and propagate lies that make an author look bad.

    If you have any questions, please contact me. 137.22.122.201 (talk)Hoolio9690 —Preceding undated comment added 05:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    Note that issues regarding this matter have been discussed at ANI,[7][8], at the AFD for Rodriguez Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) and at the editor's talkpage User talk:Hoolio9690. Hoolio9690 fairly reasonably objects to the negative portrayal and lack of balance in the article about hi, and I personally agree that it would be best for the article to be deleted, given his request and marginal notability, though that is not the way the AFD is tending. On the other hand, his claims that all the academic sources, including two published by University Presses [9][10][11] are unreliable is unlikely to be accepted; the books are in fact also supported by mainstream newspaper articles that are mostly available only through Factiva etc.
    I understand that Rodriguez strongly believes that he is 'right' about who wrote Man of Ashes and whether it is a memoir/autobiography, but we are required here to follow the reliable sources about this, and cannot include his original research and advocacy about this external dispute. Note that in fact neither article not comes down one way or the other about these issues, simply reporting who said/did what using the available reliable sources. --Slp1 (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Motty Perry

    • Motty Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is an image of this guy's kids on the page. Subject is conscientious objector, and image of children could be a threat. // Abductive (reasoning) 09:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed the pic as BLP not notable children protection and without consensus to include it should not be replaced. I have added a COI template as the article appears to be self written and the major contributor was also the picture unloader. Off2riorob (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've requested deletion of the image on commons. Exxolon (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrei Pleşu

    Andrei Pleşu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ever since yesterday, the article is being attacked by an account and what is transparently its IP (the latter of which appears to be almost single-purpose). Their edits and repeated reverts add exceptionally poorly sourced and highly dubious material to the article - presenting fringe opinions as facts, sourcing the claims with an attack page published on a blog, adding a faux reference (there is nothing in the link that would validate the text) and one journalists' opinion in a controversial newspaper (incidentally, a guy who has a legal dispute with Pleşu, and whose article, the very one cited here, presents his side of the story as "fact"). All of this to "back up" the following: "Pleşu relations with Ceauşecu's communist regime are controversial.[3], [4] As a "persecuted" academic he was allowed to benefit twice from Humboldt fellowships during a period when most Romanian academics could not even dream to travel in the West. Political controversy continued after 1990s too. Pleşu's mocking attitude towards Piaţa Universităţii movement was widely criticised.[5]" This manages to be misleading, weasel-worded, non-encyclopedic, guilt by association and partly nonsensical. The two accounts appear to be determined to continue, despite the fact that I've repeatedly pointed them to the applicable polices and warned them that they risk getting blocked. Please intervene. Dahn (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Arístides Mejía

    Resolved
     – discussion now on talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Arístides Mejía (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Ever since a couple of weeks I have been locked in an editorial debate over the content of this article with the same IP over and over. It started when he put contentious information without a source and I took it off, and when I asked for help the IP finally put a couple of references. The sensitive information is about an arrest warrant, and I wrote the follow up to it since it seems that the warrant was for political reasons, yet the other editor took it off with only a meager explanation in the discussion page and without really putting forth a reason for the change. Could anybody weigh in on this please? Brumere18 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I like your version with the rebuttal , I have left the other editor a note about this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I think your help was very important in starting to work towards a consensus. Like I said in the discussion page, I feel the article can still be improved further but I won't act before we can agree in the discussion page. 13:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Brumere18 (talk)
    Cool, I am also in the discussion there, this thread can imo be closed, as the issue is now under discussion on the talkpage of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ken Wilber

    Ken Wilber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - contentious material is added repeatedly, see [12], [13] and Talk:Ken_Wilber#Hanegraaff and Talk:Ken_Wilber#Reception.2FGrof. -- BernhardMeyer (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There are several other authors who have made similar statements about WIlber who is a controversial figure. They seem within the normal given and take that surrounds anyone in WIlber's position and form a part of balanced view. I can't see any issue and in this case the negative comment follows a paean of praise from the same author. --Snowded TALK 19:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, the additions, considering the size of the article don't appear to be excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree also. I see the Grof comment as an easy case: It is in the Reception section, describing the mixed opinions of a notable person in a relevant field. The Hanegraaff comment may be slightly more complicated: If there is good reason (from reliable sources) to think that the "New Age" description applies to Wilber at one stage of his thinking but not at another, then the material may need more qualification. But that would be grounds for rewording, not for simply cutting the description. --RL0919 (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Darwin contains poorly resourced information

    A biography of a living person, Mike Darwin, contains poorly resourced information.

    The statement, "Although his only formal training was as a dialysis technician, he is a self-taught expert in the field of cerebral ischemia,[2]" with the citation as follows:

    ^ a b c d e f Best, Ben (2008). "A History of Cryonics". The Immortalist. Cryonics Institute. http://www.cryonics.org/immortalist/november08/History.pdf. Retrieved 2009-08-24.

    I do not believe the general medical community would accept Mr. Darwin as an expert in cerebral ischemia, given he lacks any medical or allied health credentials beyond his work as a dialysis tech. That this statement comes from a biased source is the foundation for my concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theala Sildorian (talk • contribs) 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It does appear imo to be a bit fluffy, it is in need some independant citations and an editor that has a bit of medical experience. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the world record part until a citation is given. Sounds like fluff. Cablespy (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    michael jackson

    HI I AM INTERESTED IN FIXING SOME OF THE MICHAEL JACKSON PAGES I HAVE SOME IDEAS BUT THE INVINCIBLE ALBUM PAGE IS EDIT-PROTECTED, WHAT CAN I DO ----OZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.114 (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You may use the template {{editprotected}} on the article's talk page to request an edit, or you may register for an account so that you can eventually edit semi-protected pages like this one.--otherlleft 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    David Littman (historian)

    David Littman (historian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Repeated addition of information from blog.unreliable sources. -- Avi (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, first, some people raise objections to this (french) article, which is from a pro-israeli blog but nevertheless documents and illustrates the following fact: that Littman was awarded at the highest level by the Mossad. My opinion is that the link can be used for this purpose. If not, I'll try to find a scholarly cover of the subject. Second, the references inside the article that qualify this guy as an "historian", are not serious and blogggesque-like (a la NRO...). TwoHorned (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, that is a blog and although you are welcome to ask at the WP:RSN , better to find as you say a more reliable citation to support this content, is a British citizen and Mossad agent ("sayan" -or volunteer- involved in the Operation Mural ..which appears to be very controversial claims as regards a living person, please do not reinsert it without a consensus here or at the reliable source noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Article still appears to me to be receiving some controversial additions and could use some knowledgeable eyes having a look there. Off2riorob (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shlomo Sawilowsky

    The tone of the article Shlomo Sawilowsky concerns me, as being very point of view and (not just positive but) euphorically positive. It needs to be re-written in a more neutral tone.

    The article lists a series of "fallacies" exposed by Sawilowsky, many of which require substantial qualification, imho; could labeling the results of living persons as "fallacies" counter Wikipedia policy regarding living persons?

    Forgive my ignornace (and sloth) if this concern should be raised elsewhere. Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Lily Safra

    Ths page appears to be repeatedly edited (by a single editor: 81-200-176-13) to remove information that might be considered inconvenient to the subject of the article. Not long ago, the mere existence of her third husband was edited out (though I have re-inserted that reference and -- for now -- it seems to be sticking). The presently-active disagreement relates to the article's coverage of a dispute between Mrs. Safra and Lady Colin Campbell over a novel written by Lady Campbell (Empress Bianca). The article discusses in some detail that fact that, following representations from Mrs Safra's lawyers, the novel's UK publishers issued an apology to Mrs. Safra and withdrew the book from publication. My efforts to add to the section the (well-sourced) information that a revised version of the novel was subsequently published in the US (and is still available) have been repeatedly deleted by User 81.200.176.13, with the statement that the information is "not relevant". I have posted an invitation to seek a negotiated resolution on both the other editor's own page and on the discussion page for the article in question, but have received no response from User 81.200.176.13. 18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Nandt1 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You have got to be kidding me. The only reference for this stuff is "www.amazon.com". Thanks for bringing this to our attention -- I have now removed both of the sections related to this issue. They can be readded when someone produces proper sources for them -- do have a look at WP:RS and WP:BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not kidding. But let me try to sure we are all clear about the specific point for which Amazon was used as evidence. The factual point that I sought to establish with my edit was whether the book in question was published on such-and-such a date and whether it is currently available. A listing on Amazon surely provides any reasonable person with precisely this evidence. As to the rest of the story, that was as I found it. Nandt1 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you've not only edited out the reference to the book -- which was at the center of the dispute -- but also the entire section dealing with all her husband's death as well, which as far as I know was not currently being disputed...?Nandt1 (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's correct -- there's no place for unsourced negative material like that. There would be no problem with including it if it can be referenced with proper sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ummm, having just said that, I now see that, after a "properly sourced" account of the husband's death was subsequently added to the article, you deleted that too! This time around, you said that it was too much detail on the husband!! I think you may be missing the point that, for 99 percent of readers, it is the husband's prominence, and his very bizarre death, that make Lily Safra newsworthy at all, rather than the many paragraphs of her charitable gifts and awards that you have left alone! This is a ridiculous article and has now been made even sillier. I give up on it. Maybe someone else can now give it a try. Nandt1 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note: A copy of this exchange has been posted on the discussion page for the article on Lily Safra. Nandt1 (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be a sadness. Stick with it. You are right in saying that her husband's death made her newsworthy. Also she has recently featured in the news regarding a deposit on a house she has not sold. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    for 99 percent of readers, it is the husband's prominence...that make Lily Safra newsworthy at all - [citation needed]. This is an article on her, not her husband or his murder which we have an article for. Definitely I see no justification to include superflorous stuff like where her husband divided his time before his death Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    my biography

    Jon J Muth

    Hi,

    I am new to Wikipedia, so apologies if I am making untenable requests.

    A friend tried to make some alterations to my bio which included newer info about my work and found it was removed a little later.

    So I am putting my toe in the water and asking that one specific inaccuracy be changed. If that works, we will see what else can be negotiated.

    In the biography section it states that I was born "John Jay Muth." This is not true. My name at birth was "John J Muth." The "J" has no period, like "Harry S Truman." As I was told, Mr Truman was finally browbeaten, by copy editors in the government, to use a period after the "S".

    I have the birth certificate if that is necessary.

    Is this a change that can be safely made to my biography?

    Yours in accuracy,

    Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondrian5 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Mr. Muth, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for taking the time to contribute. I believe that the changes you are requesting are not controversial and I would have already made them, but I am unclear on Wikipedia policy on punctuation in names (if there even is one), so I am waiting for the experts to chime in before I do anything. If you have any further concerns about your bio, you found the right place to discuss them. Again, thank you for your contribution.Jarhed (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Jarhed, Thanks for the welcome and the attention to my request. best wishes,
    Jon (Mondrian7 (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    Mr. Muth, please let's continue this discussion on the talk page for your bio: Talk:Jon J. Muth.Jarhed (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Move requested on bio talk page.Jarhed (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah Palin-Branchflower report

    This section on the Palin bio has been the subject of considerable discussion over the last year. However, the conclusion of the incident was that Palin committed no wrondoing. Therefore, I believe that all of the charges against her during this incident should be removed from her bio in accordance wih BLP policy. If necessary, the information could be moved to a separate article.Jarhed (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It was discussed before -- and IMHO clearly is overweighted in the BLP (heck, a lot is overweighted in it). Where charges were without reasonable foundation, they should be removed. Where some doubt reasonably exists, kept. Treated succinctly in any event. Collect (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert A. Schwartz

    This is a hell of a lot of stuff for a not-remarkably-notable dermatologist. Reads like a faculty bio, not an encyclopedic bio. Niremetal (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It does appear a bit excessive, but there is nothing desperately troublesome. I have tagged it in the hope of attracting a medical expert that could wikify it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Gaines (pastor)

    The article on Pastor Steve Gaines has a section called "Handling of Minister Misconduct". I believe that this section had been given undo weight due to some libelous material and third-party criticisms that are not to be considered encyclopedic material. There is a reference from a radio personality, Michael Reagan, making comparisons to a huge scandal that is completely unnecessary to point out. Third party criticisms have no place in an encyclopedia and this is a very biased point of view. We want to strive to have a very neutral article about a living person. Along with Reagan's comments, James Dobson, a local newspaper reporter, has comments in this article that are meerly opinions that are given undue weight. Is this considered vandalism and can third-party criticisms be deleted when there is a biased tone? Thanks so much! HappyMemphisNative (talk) 10:53, 5 January, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    I see criticism from the president of Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in the Associated Baptist Press: [14], reports of dissension in the ABP [15] and the Baptist Press: [16] & [17] as well as the Memphis Commercial Appeal. Is that what you are talking about? Jezhotwells (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. There is also a sentence after that from Michael Reagan about the Roman Catholic sex scandal. The criticisms from the local newspaper reporter (Dobson) and the conservative radio host (Reagan) were what I thought had no place in an encyclopedia. The one from the President of the Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary does have relevance, possibly. Thanks for the quick response.HappyMemphisNative (talk) comment added 17:34, 5 January 2010
    It appears the Reagan is a notable national talk show host so his comments on the incident and the ABP and AP reports of the affair are notable enough to mention, I would have thought. Alongside Gaines own explantion and the church commission report. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it fair to say that the James Dobson comment should be taken out since he is not a notable source on the matter? In this situation, should we get comments from the Pastor himself and the church to even out the point of view? Thanks!HappyMemphisNative (talk) comment added 17:51, 5 January 2010

    Dropping out

    Resolved
     – I will add references where available and remove any remaining unsourced names. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 16:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm concerned about the laundry list of supposed "drop-outs" contained in the article Dropping out. There isn't a single reference provided for any of the individuals noted within the article to substantiate the claim. Should the list be deleted with a hidden message to only add individuals that can be verified via a reliable source? Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You could go for removal as an uncited BLP issue, if someone wants to replace them the names are in the history and they can add the name back with a citation, another option is just to tag the section and wait a couple of days and see if anyone adds any citations if not then remove. Or...if your not busy and have the inclination, do some searching and add some citations. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tend to agree that they should have a reliable source that not only sources that they dropped out, but also supports the claim that they are a notable example of someone who dropped out. –xenotalk 20:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advice. I will start going through the list and add citations where available. Once complete I will cull the names that can't be sourced. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 16:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph Farah

    Hi I'm having trouble finding where to put this so I guess I'll put it here. The Joseph Farah Page has been the subject of much debate (judging by the talk section) and a lot of vandalism (source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120926, screenshots included). I propose that the page be locked to editing as other contentious pages have been (i.e. Barrack Obama etc.). If I'm proposing this in the wrong area please tell me so I can fix that.Wikiiscool123 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is semi protected and unconfirmed editors are not able to edit the article and there are some very experienced editors involved there so the article is well protected, without a specific complaint it looks fine. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay thanks so much I didn't see the semi-protected part of it on the talk page and I just know that he is trying to come up with some grounds for a lawsuit so I wanted to try and help Wikipedia avoid that problem. Closed as far as I'm concerned. Wikiiscool123 (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Marshall Sylver

    The subject of this bio is a Las Vegas stage hypnotist with a history of criminal fraud and other legal troubles. If it weren't for his entertainment career I'd suggest deleting it outright but he seems to be notable enough and I do think a neutral article is possible. However the subject himself appears to have edited the article and there's a banned user with a vendetta against him so the article has swung between non-neutral versions. After I stubbed the article a sock of the banned user added well-sourced material that was entirely negative. I've moved that to the talk page pending a more balanced treatment. I'm asking for more eyes to watch the page and, if anyone is interested, some active editing on this bio.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Philip Bloom

    Resolved
     – AfD closed as SNOW keep. Relevant input has been unanimous that the person is notable. All normal content cautions apply, of course. Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Activist4HumanRGHT5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a probable sock of Bricks10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), claims here this article is defamatory and was created as an attack page. --RrburkeekrubrR 15:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As part of the complaint is that Bloom's activities are not of interest, there seems little harm in putting the page up for deletion on this basis and having the normal discussion on notability. Though some of the sources may need re-visiting, articles such as this one in the NY Times give the article credibility and there is support for most of the facts quoted. As for the rest of the request, it seems to verge on WP:NLT without reasonable justification if the facts are available to the public in newspapers.—Ash (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As the article was later put up for PROD, I have now put the article up for full deletion. Please discuss any opinions on deletion on the AFD discussion linked from the article itself.—Ash (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Iris Robinson

    Iris Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Born again Christian, and Northern Ireland MP. Just over half the text in this article is a controversy section, most of which is devoted to her views on homosexuality. It has recently come to light that last year she had an extramarital affair. This really needs some eyes. Martin451 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree I tried to de pov this article but gave up, talk about undue weight. BigDunc 20:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had a little look and it does at first glance appear to be unbalanced to these comments. Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed unbalanced... but most of the things that are listed appear to be reliably sourced. Does UNDUE require us to curtail coverage of the firestorms she's unleashed by her public comments, even if that's most of what she's been noted for? FWIW, I took out a bit of partisan language, but there's going to need to be carefully thought out surgery on what's there. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Her comments on sexuality were very controversial and resulted in a significant amount of media coverage. With that in mind it does not seem that the text we have is undue weight. Rather the onus is on contributors to beef up the section dealing with her parliamentary and political career. 81.155.240.216 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Care must be taken with her bio despite her political views in light of her mental health issues and attempted suicide.Cathar11 (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be very hard to balance out the amount of text given to her views by beefing up other sections, but I think the views are given too much weight in the article. However given the amount of press coverage and more recent news, it definitely belongs in her article. Martin451 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Its been trimmed a bit, undue weight imo in this case was represented by basically going on excessively about the comments, adding multiple peoples comments about her comments and adding multiple opinionated citations from opposing organizations, it looks a bit better, all the citations are still there but imo there are excessive citations than are needed to support the comments. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of her comments could be trimmed down too. She is not that an important person.Borock (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this article is acceptable as it stands. Yes, it does go into some detail about Mrs Robinson's views on homosexuality, but that is by far the most notable thing about her - it's what she's best known for, and whenever she's in the news, it's mentioned. We do need to be careful to respect BLP policy with this article given the recent admissions that she had an extramarital affair and attempted suicide, but I think the attention given to her anti-homosexuality comments is proportionate and appropriate. Robofish (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The weight towards the homophobia is a result of Iris Robinson herself and the surrounding notability. The article is simple reflecting this. IMO it is wrong to take a hatchet to the article simple becuase the article looks unbalanced. If she does something notable in her political career then add it to the article. Vexorg (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What is this, Wikiquote? A lot of the unbalance can be solved relatively painlessly by reducing the redundancy of the overquoting, and removing the pull quotes, which are inappropriate. Also, the names of her children are not necessary. Rd232 talk 17:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I also support the removal of the excessive quotes as they are presently presented in the article. The editor Vexorg is basically reverting back to the original position from whence the discussion began, this reverting is also replacing the childrens names that were removed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This suggestion that Vexorg states here of it is all cited if its unbalanced add something nice about her to balance the content it a poor positiion to take, the fact is these details are being over reported and over cited whether or not there is any other content to add that is about something else. There also seems to be a lot of what I would call non neutral citations like Pink and Stonewall, these organizations clearly have a not neutral stance as regards homophobia. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User Vexorg has again reverted back to the original position, is it worth it I ask myself. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing wrong with citing Pink News / Stonewall etc, if it's notable ("Bigot of the Year" probably is). But what's up with vague, weaselly stuff like "Robinson was described as "Iris, Wicked Witch Of The North"?" Described by who? The whole thing could be boiled down to one longish paragraph with no loss of substantive content. We do the reader no service being so repetitious. Rd232 talk 18:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally don't think you will get a very neutrally commented article if you excessively use citations that as in this case are totally opinionated about the issue. I totally agree with you about the rest, although bigot of the year awarded from stonewall is imo not very notable, the whole thing as vexorg has reverted back to is repetitive and poorly written. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The bigot of the year award is notable enough. I haven't reverted completely back btw. I restored some sections because I could see those editing the article with a large hatchet were getting carried away. I'm an inclusionist and while a long rambling article isn't good neither is a huge hatchet job. Much stuff was being edited just for the sake of it. Vexorg (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How about this version of mine? Can still lose detail on the petitions I think, as I said on the article talk page. Remember it's a bio of a person, not an article on the controversy - that should influence the level of detail. Rd232 talk 22:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree - the section on sexuality comments was a bit too long. I've cut a bit more which seemed a bit peripheral while retaining the key points. Now that there is more to say on the financial issue and resignation, this section on sexuality is looking more of a reasonable length, where previously it stood out a bit. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Paul Neil

    Christopher Paul Neil

    Somebody keeps adding a picture to this article claiming that its the convicted child abuser Christopher Paul Neil. I'm reluctant to assume good faith in this matter because there was an incident in 2007 when a troll tried to put up a picture of their friend (not Christopher) in the article as a prank. One user even got a picture from a Wikipedia admin's MySpace and added it to the article. See Talk:Christopher_Paul_Neil#Picture_on_the_left, Talk:Christopher_Paul_Neil#Pic. The users Jon P Stevenson (talk · contribs) and Meanlevel (talk · contribs) were blocked for this back in 2007, and now there's a new suspected sock Mollie White (talk · contribs) doing this. The picture stayed in the article for a month (5 December - 5 January) this time; extra eyes on this article would be helpful. Thanks, --Zvn (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Picture did appear to be a fake, I have nominated it for deletion here . Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion discussion concerning User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect

    Earlier today I nominated User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect for speedy deletion as a BLP-violating attack page per WP:CSD G10. It is a recreated version of a page that has been deleted three times - twice deleted following two AfDs and subsequently speedily deleted in a new version. It was speedily deleted again after I nominated it but has since been restored and is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect. Views from uninvolved editors are invited on what should be done with the page. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The BLP implications of this article are questionable, at best. The page does not denigrate the subject, it merely notes an apparent correlation between Al Gore and the weather where he speaks on global warming. I believe that the article has merit as a description of a notable pop culture phenomenon (i.e. the coining of the term "The Gore Effect") that has spontaneously emerged. --GoRight (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If it sought to document the pop culture phenomenon (and there were sufficient non-trivial-mention WP:RS for that), it might be OK. But instead it seeks to document a series of coincidences between Gore and the weather, with obvious selection bias and WP:OR issues. In other words, it is not a document of the pop culture phenomenon, but a perpetuation of it. The BLP issues should be obvious, and in case they aren't, the page included this choice bloggy phrase "Al Gore has become the commander-in-chief for those warning about the dangers of global warming". Rd232 talk 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. Please note that the page was only recently resurrected and improvements are on-going in user space where little harm, if any at all, is done. Reasonable time to work on the article in user space should be accommodated to address the previously raised concerns. --GoRight (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A glance through the week the draft has existed doesn't inspire confidence; others have noted that the user doesn't seem to have understood the AFD issues. Anyway, it is possible to draft things offwiki, non-publically, in the unlikely event that the user suddenly changes their view of the topic 180 degrees, and/or the whole thing becomes a lot more notable. Rd232 talk 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth noting that the creator of the article is not longer the only editor working on it. --GoRight (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, but that has no bearing on the unencyclopedic nature of the topic of the article. What next, an article on "Al Gore is fat"? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rumour about Lady Gaga

    Some editors would like to include a rumour that Lady Gaga is an hermaphrodite in her article, see Talk:Lady Gaga#The hermaphrodite thing needs to be addressed. The rumour has appeared in multiple reliable sources.[18] Thoughts? Fences&Windows 00:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This has also been discussed before: see Talk:Lady_Gaga/Archive_4#Hermaphroditism_rumours. Reliable sources aren't so much the issue as WP:UNDUE and WP:HARM, which has been brought up in prior discussions. Several editors have noted other biographies such as Michael Jackson where rumors about the subject are mentioned, however, this is where guides like UNDUE apply, since rumors about Michael Jackson have been so widespread they became a part of popular culture and almost every professional biography ever written about him. In contrast, Lady Gaga rumors have been largely an internet hoax, far from making any legitimate impact on her career or biography thus far. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly right. Besides, have any other "she is a transsexual/hermaphrodite" rumors ever proved true? It's almost certainly utter nonsense, and even if it's not, it's nobody's business except the article subject's and Lord Gaga's. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no value to the reader in adding this gossip and speculation, all arising from someone saw a bulge in her nickers, it was probably her Genital jewellery . She has totally denied it and said she was offended by the accusations, unless there is a development like she herself says it is true then keep titillating gossip out of articles. Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Genital jewellery?? Not really... --KnightMove (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the probability that, accidentally,

    • a female megastar is visibly wearing something looking like a penis between her legs on stage,
    • a simulcast camera is in place from an unusual downward position to tape it?

    Of course it was a publicity gag of Gaga, and most likely one of the all-time best (and she's really embarrassed and harmed by the rumour...). It has been mentioned in quality newspapers. As written in timesonline: "If you google Lady Gaga the first thing you see is a related search asking “Is Lady Gaga a hermaphrodite?”". The information should be included as a matter of course. --KnightMove (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See , here you add your own personal belief that it was a publicity stunt, if this becomes clear we can add it, but presently it has no encyclopedic value. To explain, this is what you want to add...It was reported in the times on line entertainment section that a bulge that looked like a penis was seen in her knickers and she might be a hermaphrodite..sorry but its not very encyclopedic is it, if people want to read this kind of titillation they can go to those type of places, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're perfectly right that personal beliefs do not belong in articles, and I did never intend to do so. But here (and in prior discussions) people plead their personal believes that this content should be ruled out due to WP:HARM. I deem this wrong and explained the reasons. The facts that this rumor was extensively discussed even in serious media (Example: Austrian Die Presse) and denied can be embedded into the article in a perfectly neutral way, and that's what should be done. --KnightMove (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Carol Connors (pornographic actress)

    I have reverted back to your version. When someone vandalises like this, you need to warn them by substituting warning templates on their talk page, and then report them to WP:AIV if the persist. Martin451 (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Artie Lange

    Resolved
     – Additional reliable sources have been found. See article talk page for further information Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't feel remotely comfortable about this, the addition of details about Lange's alleged suicide attempt. I fear that editors would get their panties in a bunch if I attempted to remove sourced information, so I would really like to get a second opinion.... here are my issues with the source: the New York Post is a well-known publication, but it's also a salacious tabloid with a track record of printing vast amounts of harmful and mean-spirited gossip. That's not to say that we should never use the Post as a source, but in this case it seems hopelessly shady... if you read the article, it uses only vague, anonymous sources and doesn't allude to any confirmation from hospital or law enforcement authorities, or from Artie's family or representatives. Most importantly, the anonymously sourced article is the only news source claiming Artie has stabbed himself. All other articles covering the suicide attempt refer to the New York Post as their only reference. Until some independent confirmation of Artie's status can be given, it does not seem appropriate to reprint such sensitive and personal details in a BLP.

    If you reply, please reply on the Artie Lange talk page, I'm copying this note there.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi there,

    Perhaps you can peruse this post - it reads like a fan page and not a standard Wikipedia entry. I have problems with various parts of this page - here's an example:

    Legacy and playing style

    Hardaway's style of play was rare in the early 1990s. Players of his height were encouraged to play closer to the basket and often were not ball handlers. He was a pass-first point guard who could score like a shooting guard. Hardaway was too big for most point guards to defend and too fast for shooting guards to defend.[17] Hardaway was also an underrated defender who finished in the top six in steals on three occasions. Hardaway's versatility and size set him apart from many other players of his era. He was the only player during the 1994-95 and 1995-96 seasons to average 20+ points 5+ assists and shoot above 50% on field goals. Early in his career Hardaway's flashy style of play was the closest thing the NBA had seen to Magic Johnson since his retirement. After the departure of Shaquille O'Neal in 1996 Hardaway's role changed to that of the primary scorer. Hardaway continued his role as a shooting guard in the early part of his stint with the Phoenix Suns. Later in his career injuries limited Hardaway's style to that of a versatile, smart role player who was a steady influence on younger players.

    Hardaway's popularity reached its peak in the summer of 1996 as he was coming off two consecutive All-NBA first team selections and a selection to the USA Olympic Team. In addition he had the most popular basketball shoe on the market complete with the "Lil' Penny" commercial campaign for Nike, featuring a tiny puppet voiced by Chris Rock.

    Todd <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.32.110 (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone who knows nothing about bball and who has never heard of this player, the article reads pretty well to me. The section you don't like doesn't seem unreasonable to me, but if you toned it down, I wouldn't object to that either. In any case, I don't see a BLP issue here.Jarhed (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesse Ventura and Bilderberg Group

    See [19] which is about Ventura's program that you can see here [20] and accuses its members of planning genocide. Can we use this in the article? It also accuses Obama of attending the 2008 Bilderberg meeting, which he didn't attend. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Side note on sources - some newspapers of the time did carry a story that Obama and Hillary Clinton had an undocumented meeting saying that they met "after an event in Virginia". The event referenced was Bilderberg but there is no claim that Obama attended the meeting itself, however this did create a fair amount of speculation in less reliable sources and may cause some confusion if someone were searching on the internet for this story; see example news item.—Ash (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't look like the program is respected much as far as factuality goes, as you say, they accused Obama of going when he didn't. I wouldn't add it, repeating such titillating imaginations would imo be more tabloid than encyclopedic. Looking at the article there are a few other conspiracy type comments about living people that could use trimming. Off2riorob (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever was claimed on the show has to be mentioned in the article under the Conspiracy Theories section. It is another conspiracy theory and although whoever removed my edit probably doesn't like that theory, it's yet another theory presented in a TV show that was produced by a former governor, a show with high viewing ratings (highest ever in TruTV). Even if the claims of the episode are totally flase, that's what the show claimed within the scope of a conspiracy theory, and therefore my paragraph should be resored in that section. John Hyams (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the removal of the content. I also see that whole section as troublesome and was thinking that it would be better removed and sitting in its own article Conspiracies about the Bildeberg group where all the conspiracy people could go and add all the titillating stories they can find. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the conspiracy theories regarding the group may indeed require a separate article. John Hyams (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Conspiracy theories by their very nature are troublesome especially when they refer to living people, it is simply what someone thinks, for example a person like David Ike who is mentioned on the bildberg article, sees aliens everywhere and reptiles also, the Bildeberg article should simply report the details of the meetings and attendees and so on with a comment about how they don't like publicity, to go on excessively on the article about all of these rumors and titillating stories and opinion of people who perhaps are not in themselves reliable is not very encyclopedic or conservatively writing. I am on my way as we speak to look at the David Ike article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A separate article would be a clear pov content fork as well as impossible to keep NPOV. Yes, we have a chemtrail conspiracy article, but there are no such things as chemtrails, whereas there clearly is a Bilderberg group. Please don't create one, that will only cause more problems as we don't allow pov forks. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia cannot put its head in the sand and not report/describe a wide-scale and gaining popularity phenomenon. Either on a separate article or on the same page (I prefer a separate article), whatever a former United States governor is claiming should be mentioned and not be covered up/cencored. In addition, the TV show gained the highest viewing ratings ever in TruTV, and if the living people (Bilderbergs) who are accused in the show are offended/appalled by the accusations, then they can file a civil lawsuit against Jesse Ventura and TruTV. If they deny that they ever discussed or planned depopulation, then they should/could make a minimal attempt to refute Ventura's claims. Morever, if Jesse Ventura would claim, for example, that the moon landing was a hoax (it wasn't), then Wikipedia should mention this here. There is no escape from some conspiracy theories; they merit mentioning in Wikipedia as long as they adhere to WP:FRNG. John Hyams (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as dougweller pointed out, a seperate article at this time would be a pov fork, there is no support here to add this controversial content containing unsupported claims regarding living people, this is an encyclopedia and we don't have a responsibility to add every obscure point of view, as you see there has been no support here to add the content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Obscure point of view? Definitely not, this is a wide-spread phenomenon on the internet and on TV documentaries, including a History Channel documentary. No support here? Well here, this talk page, is not exactly a place where public opinion can be measured. Unsupported claims? Well, that is only your opinion. I watched the eposide and whatever it presented merits investigation in my view. In any case, are you suggesting to remove the Conspiracy Theories section altogether? A side note: the Bilderberg is a group, it has no personal biography, some of its members are dead, and I don't quite understand why this debate is done here and not on the group's talk page. John Hyams (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As for "pov fork", that is currently the policy for the following: List of conspiracy theories This includes False flag operations in which numerous living people are mentioned, regardless of whether the claims are supported/unsupported. John Hyams (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just another point, the Bilderbergs are also mentioned here: Global warming conspiracy theory. Was the global warming conspiracy theory article under Wikipedia's responsibility (as an encyclopedia) not to add unsupported claims? Why was this "POV fork" allowed? The reason: it adheres to WP:FRNG. John Hyams (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur Koestler - Deletion of Discussion on Rape Charges + Other Subjective Changes

    At least one credible accusation was made against Koestler of rape -- made by the respected British writer (and wife of the former Leader of the Opposition) the late Jill Craigie. This used to be discussed in the article on Koestler. Reading the discussion page for the article does not reveal any general consensus that all discussion of this matter should be sanitized from the article. But now it has disappeared. This seems to fit in with a larger effort in recent edits to portay Koestler in the best possible light: (a) playing down the significance of his healthy, much younger wife's joint suicide with him on the grounds that she had "no life without him", and (b) minimizing the detail provided on his interest in the so-called "paranormal." I have tried to re-insert some sense of balance into the discussion of his wife's suicide (we will see how long that survives...). If others care about having a credible article on this subject, perhaps they could pitch in on the other sections that have been edited in this way. Nandt1 (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    While this isn't a BLP issue per se, I tend to agree that The Homeless Mind by David Cesarani is a reputable source, and certainly one of the major biographies of Koestler. The material about his suicide pact, and about the treatment of a number of women described in Cesarini's biography, would seem to be a reasonable part of an encyclopedic biography. MastCell Talk 18:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is reasonable and I agree.Jarhed (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hve added a short referenced section on the above.Cathar11 (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You are of course right that this does not concern a living person. Apologies for that: my mind must have been wandering!Nandt1 (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Lawrence Seldon Bacow

    Hello,

    Acting as a representative of Tufts University and the subject of this entry -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Seldon_Bacow -- I wanted to point out an updated bio page with additional information that may be beneficial to this entry:

    http://president.tufts.edu/1173361337309/Pres-Page-pres2w_1173575082497.html

    Thank you,

    Tufts Office of Web Communications

    TuftsWebComm (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pete Townshend

    Basically Townshend fans are arguing that a reference that claims Townshend was "falsely accused" of a child pornography offence should remain in the article [Townshend, in 2003 admitted to and accepted a police caution for a child pornography offence]. My position is that Townshend's own words and admissions, here [22], here [23] and here [24] should speak for themself, and that unless the article's subject claims to be falsely accused, or there is reasonable evidence that he was mentally incompetent or unstable, we should not admit such claims by unconnected third parties. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What was the outcome of the last RFC? Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The outcome of the RFC was to remove the claim. But since then a new user has come along and started things up again, trying to add it back, which resulted in the article being locked.Sumbuddi (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the section if anyone wants to have a look, the debate is about the second paragraph, should it be in or out? IMO..It is well cited so just leave it in, Townsend was only cautioned for accessing one sex site and an investigator claims he didn't even do that, whats the big deal. Just leave it in and forget about it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For me the big deal is that it's misleading to people trying to find out about Townshend and this well-publicised incident. Townshend did something, he says he did something, he said so several times, we don't need to contradict that. I read the article and was given the impression that he didn't do anything, it took a lot digging and now several months of discussion to find out that the article was wilfully misleading. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see it as willfully misleading at all. The comment is well cited and as far as it goes not very controversial, all the details of the incident are in the first paragraph, his actions were more of a misdameanor than a crime and this investigator had a look at the operation ore records and his cited comments are there, really it is no big deal, the content is not imo causing us to represent him in a good light and is all cited and not imo excessive at all. As this content is a repeated problem lets allow some time to see if any other editors see it as a problem.Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the info should be included. People are trying to force The Super Bowl not to let the Who perform at half time on the grounds that Townsend has been accused, whether he was found guilty or not. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That story is here from the Florida child abuse activists if anyone wants to investigate. Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Disgusting article - American trash media at its worst. Meowy 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what that outburst lends to this discussion, but thanks for sharing.Jarhed (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Update, just noticed that the disruption to this page stems from a call-to-arms on this fansite: [25] Sumbuddi (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanjay Gupta

    Another editor is trying to insert what I feel is soapboxy material into this article. Can other editors please share their thoughts here. --NeilN talk to me 17:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jason Stewart

    This page has been subject to massive insertions of fraudulent information, probably from an offsite coordinated attack. I reverted to what appears to be the last good version, however I would appreciate it if someone could double check. Thanks, Triplestop x3 18:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    JohnYettaw on "John Yettaw"

    User:JohnYettaw -- who has the same e-mail address as the owner of his travel blog (linked to in his WikiBLP's external links) and who has provided a recent photo to me for use on his biography here -- has interspersed within it comments addressing Yettaw's assertions that he is being portrayed in a false light, mostly due to poor sourcing that had been utilzed by Newsweek in a profile they had published about him.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    some of the statements to which he objects are reported in multiple news sources, but in many cases attributing them to "family members" or to specific named relatives without independant verification. One of these sources refers to his past as "murky" and implies that soem of these statements are based on things family members had been "told" by unnamed sources. If Yettah has self-published, even on a blog, his responses to any of this, that could be cited as a rebuttal when writting about Yettah. DES (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    All of the personal details that have nothing to do with the incident that is the subject of this person's notariety should be deleted. I am no lawyer, but this article looks like a lawsuit waiting to happen.Jarhed (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    John Yettaw Comments: I would like to thank "Jarhed" for his insight concerning a lawsuit "waiting to happen" (Rhetorically: If I were to sue any media-outlet... I would sue organizations that wrote and perpetuated articles that have defamed me and placed me in False Light). My 11 year old daughter learned about highly personal and tragic bits of my childhood concerning Child Sexual Abuse, also know as "CSA," when she read about it on Wikipedia's "John Yettaw" bio, and from Newsweek. In other words, my daughter and was NOT aware of my experience with "CSA" until she read about my childhood as reported on Wikipedia and Newsweek. I mean... "Tramps" shouldn't have to endure Invasion of Privacy... Libel... Or be Misfitted with painful images created by journalists with obvious "Father Issues."

    I am still new to the backside of the screen of Wikipedia and when I am unable to figure out how to email an individual... I just press what buttons I can to leave a few words of concern - here and there. A few hours ago I left a message to whateverhisnameis who calls himself "Mandsford" who call me a "Dumb sonofabitch." - no matter how clean the vessel is... there always seems to be some bit of non-symbiotic-bacteria stuck to the lining. Mandsford... I am neither "Dumb"... and I KNOW you weren't talking about my mother.

    Was there one of you (Wikipedians) who was in the water with me at any point? Is there one of you who can tell me that (at least) one highly trained 2-man team (with back-up) was NOT going to enter Inya Lake and enter the Compound and enter the home and seek to Murder the woman/women? I mean... let's face it... it's not as if someone could actually enter the Lake and penetrate the junta's active - AK-47 - grip on the compound... and get into the house. I was not "captured"... the junta/Court has my map with the police outpost circled with the words "Police" next to the spot identified as "US Embassy Residence." I say someday Intelligence Reports are going to surface that are going to make Mandsford-like-critics appear to be inconsiderate and impatient Human beings.

    There is more to the story than what was "lost in translation" (and suppressed) during the trail and what Aung San Suu Kyi could talk about... and myself, as well (I never broke into the house... and I have it on a reliable source perhaps that someone initially refused to enter... and that the "Burmese" are watching the back side of Wiki - looking for tid-bits and details). Also... BTW... it was my Burmese Attorney who started the story (and reported to the press) that "God" had told me to save the woman (aka: Aung San Suu Kyi). I did not testify in court that "God" told me anything. I mean... I may seem Stupid to some of you ...I am not a Dumb SOB." I may have done something that was without question unconventional but from where I was standing in the water... I Did The Right Thing. I don't care if the entire world doesn't believe that Aung San Suu Kyi was targeted for murder via the Lake... there are a few people in this world who know otherwise. I had the courage to get into the water... while many mis-informed critics did nothing but poke their fingers at me on keyboards to ridicule and slam me. There have been some who have taken a deeper look at things and have refrained from negatively judging me. Some have even spoken positively about the increased attention that both ASSK and Burma have received.

    I am Grateful for the experience of being exposed to... and enduring... world-wide Castigation. As I see it, I am in a great position to espouse the blessed-liberties of democratically endorsed Freedom of Speech and the spiritual and intellectual/mental/emotional freedoms found in practicing Forgiveness all in the same sentence and breath.

    As I see it, there is a full-circle aspect to forgiveness which allows this phenomenon to become more readily obtainable... and - potentially - more fully capable of being prolonged (1) by sincerely asking for forgiveness from those whom one has offended (though forgiveness may not have beed granted)... and (2) freely extending forgiveness to those, of whom, offense(s) have occurred (though forgiveness has not been sought/requested). My dissertation is centered on the subject of: "Forgiveness as a Means of Emotional Resilience: Coping Skills from (and for) Survivors of Torture (and Torment)."

    Tying-in my Wiki-posts with the Suu Kyi incident... I may not have done it exactly right, but I have successfully gotten my point across. You-all have been able to see my Wiki-Point-Of-View. And as far as the "Suu Kyi Trespasser Incident" goes... the incident CLOSED-OFF THE REAR OF THE COMPOUND.. and closed the "Rear Door" to - what could have been - a viable tragedy. To this end... I say... We Shall See... whether or not what I have shared is accurate.

    For those of you who have sought to belittle me... may I suggest that you consider learning to bridle your crita-sizzles (aka: criticisms) in the absence of knowledge and relative-truth/accuracy and seek/attempt to direct your energy toward sustaining/protecting the lives and liberties of the less fortunate. As I am certain that most of you do... but for those who don't: Consider increasing the scope of your research/writing talents in Stopping/Reducing Genocide/Ethnocide though greater awareness. Consider Torture and Suicide Awareness as worthy endeavors, as well.

    Please forgive me for my entry mistakes/impositions... but some of you people have pissed me off by perpetuating Newsweek mistruths about me and my choice and blessed childhood-and-current family. Your "JWY" page hurt my daughter. I am going to disappear from Wikipedia soon. For those of you who have been decent/respectful toward me (and have extended respect to many others who have been misunderstood) - Keep up the Good Work of Sanitizing the Project. I appreciate Wikipedia. I am neither a "Tramp"... nor am I "'The' Missouri Misfit"... nor am I a "Dumb sonofabitch." Period! Pardon my language.

    Thanks to those of you who pertetuate kindness. John Yettaw JohnYettaw (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Maria Lourdes Afiuni

    The article Maria Lourdes Afiuni seems like a classic WP:BLP1E. At the same time, the related Eligio Cedeño is a bit of a battlefield. Suggestions? Rd232 talk 11:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    She seems to be important enough. The article needs some work to bring it up to WP standards. Borock (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced. As a reminder, WP:BLP1E says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. ... In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Rd232 talk 20:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rajendra K. Pachauri

    The subject is the head of the IPCC. Allegations of a conflict of interest emerged in mid-December. Pachauri issued a rebuttal and the news seems to have died down according to Google News--just two hits on "pachauri conflict of interest" in the past week, one is a website run by the John Birch Society and the other is in a user's comment on a news blog.

    I'm in favor of waiting to see whether the story re-emerges before adding it in. The allegations appeared in a Sunday Telegraph special report in December and that story was covered in terms of "The Telegraph alleges..." and the like by reputable third party sources. Pachauri has been in the news a lot recently, for other reasons, but in this case the mud doesn't seem to have stuck. The speed with which the story was dropped by the mainstream media persuades me that this is a nine-day wonder and it would be undue weight to discuss the allegations at this stage.

    Others suggest that the standard for inclusion has been met, as long as Pachauri's rebuttal is included. Further opinions are solicited. --TS 14:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    These allegations were reported in several reliable sources: The Telegraph, The Business Standard, The Australian. There are several other sources reporting Pachauri's denial, including The Guardian. The sourcing for these claims is reliable without question, and far less sourcing has been required for similar conflict of interest charges, when directed at Pachauri's opponents in the climate debate. Examples of such are provided on the talk page. ATren (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the sourcing that's at issue. It's whether this shortlived and apparently quickly dismissed event, which has seemingly vanished without trace, merits coverage (at least, at present--we don't know whether it will resurface). That's why I'd like somebody other than those already involved to comment. --TS 18:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter. It was a notable event, relatively recent, and far more transient and less notable accusations have been added to GW skeptic BLPs, mostly relating to ties to Exxon. To allow those while suppressing the Pachauri accusation is incorrect.
    In any case, this is the incorrect forum since it's clearly not a BLP issue.' ATren (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, the text is as follows: "On December 15th 2009 in an open letter, Lord Christoper Monckton and Senator Steve Fielding of Australia called for his removal as head of the IPCC. This was due to allegations of a conflict of interest in being the head of the IPCC and his involvement with carbon trading companies. Pachauri has strongly denied the allegations." sourced to The Telegraph, Business Standard, and the Guardian. See this diff for links to the sources. ATren (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is fundamentally an issue of weighting, a particularly pertinent concern since the source of the open letter, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley‎, is rather a fringe figure. The fringiness of the source is quite likely why the allegations have not received much coverage. The question, as far as we're concerned, is whether every micro-controversy should be documented in a biography or not. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd really like to avoid rehashing the talk page discussion, chaps. Could we agree to leave it there and allow a previously uninvolved party to get a word in edgeways? --TS 18:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm only involved in a small way..I don't see the big deal, so and so have said that he has a conflict of interest due to his involvement in such and such companies. It was widely covered in reliable global sources. Get over it. its not very controversial is it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The article could use a better picture too. Borock (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, that picture is a BLP violation. Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ... what? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if it wasn't clear, but that was a joke. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit waring to include a WP:BLPSPS violation.

    Resolved
     – No administrative action required. (inserted from discussion page) AniMate 02:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    People here should be aware of a conversation that I began at [26] which involves a WP:BLPSPS violation being edit warred into a BLP. I do not mean this to be a WP:FORUMSHOP. I only raise it now because it was pointed out there that I may have chosen the wrong board. Please direct any discussion of this topic to the other board so that it is conducted in one place. Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. --GoRight (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter_R._Orszag

    • Peter_R._Orszag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Peter Orszag is Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama Administration. There has been recent widespread reporting regarding his child with Claire Milonas. Updates to his page by several editors have been revised by an anonymous IP address citing security reasons.. // 96.231.74.2 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't appear to be a BLP problem, his girlfriend had a baby and its widely reported and not disputed, not excessive and is plainly written. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Names of under-age persons in murder case

    I would be grateful if someone with experience in applying this policy would comment on the issue brought up by me at Template talk:Did you know#Stureby murder. --Hegvald (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have taken the names out for now, the names of the murderers do not appear to be in the citations, all the citations are in Swedish, could you please also provide a link to the Swedish article. It seems funny when murderers should be protected, but that is sometimes the case, I would request any comments about this issue please. Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Murderers are minors and so it would be best to be conservative about personal data.Jarhed (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The link to the Swedish article seems to be in there already. You can use Google Translate to make some (limited) sense out of the discussion page. --Hegvald (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Amir Vahedi

     Done Rumors are surfacing all over the net that Amir Vahedi passed away, as of right now, there are no reliable sources to this... only blogs of some notable poker players. I've made several reversions, but somebody might want to give it a second set of eyes to see if it should be protected... I don't want to do it as it might be perceived as a COI.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Robin Brooke

    Brooke is a former All Black with a distinguished career in sport. Over the last few days he's been in the New Zealand news for an alleged groping and assault in Fiji. I am concerned that the coverage of this incident occupies too great a proportion of the article, and a discussion has ensued at Talk:Robin Brooke#Brooke's bad behaviour. I don't think the discussion is coming to a consensus, and would appreciate some further feedback at that page.-gadfium 07:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    An accusation that he touched a 15 year old girls bottom on new years eve, two weeks later he hasn't been charged? Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    John Walker Lindh

    Resolved
     – Picture has been moved from the infobox to the related section. Off2riorob (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please check out the, very offensive, picture. I know he is a "bad guy" but I don't think this is the kind of picture that we should use at the top of a bio. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean File:John Walker Lindh Custody.jpg? Nothing offensive here, except perhaps that it shows arguably inhumane treatment, but that is described in the article and hence an illustration of it is appropriate. I've moved it out of the infobox and into the section dealing with his capture, though, since it is not the type of image normally found in infoboxes.  Sandstein  15:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I have no objection to it being shown there. The impression it gave me, at the top of the article, was that it was put there to mock him. That wouldn't exactly be "encyclopedic." As I understand it mug shots are not encouraged on WP. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Seyran Ohanyan

    The Seyran Ohanyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article is making an extreme and unsubstantiated claim that Seyran Ohanyan is an "alleged war criminal". I had removed this claim [27], but it has again been reinserted [28].
    The sole source is a propaganda webpage from Azerbaijan [29] that alleges two unproven claims - that a regiment of Russian forces took part in an alleged massacre of civilians (it calls the regiment a "genocide regiment") and that Ohanian led those Russian forces (a quote from the source "Xocalı şəhərinə hücum əməliyyatına 366-cı alayın zabitləri Seyran Ohanyan" - "Officers of the 366th regiment led by Seyran Ohanyan went to the city of Khojali"). No national or international court or international body has made this allegation against Ohanyan. No evidence is presented to back up the claim. The same webpage is filled with phrases and allegations that would make it unsuitable as a source for even a general article let alone one about a living person. For example, it talks about "Genocide of Azerbaijanis" by Armenians, of Azerbaijanis being "peaceful" and a "sinless people", of the alleged massacre being "one of the 20th century’s most serious crimes against all humanity – equal to Lidice" (Dinc əhalinin vəhşicəsinə kütləvi qırğını bütün insanlığa qarşı ən ağır cinayətlərdən biri olmaqla, XX əsrin Xatın, Lidiçe, Babi Yar kimi dəhşətli faciələri ilə bir sırada dayanır), and that "lying Armenians" and "Armenian nationalists" have "invented" the 1915 Armenian Genocide to gain sympathy at an international level to justify their claims against the territory of Azerbaijan (Erməni millətçiləri qonşu dövlətlərə, o cümlədən Azərbaycan Respublikasına qarşı ərazi iddialarına haqq qazandırmaq, bunun vasitəsi kimi seçdikləri işğalçılıq, soyqırımı və dövlət terrorizmi siyasətini pərdələmək üçün hər vasitədən istifadə edərək, guya 1915-ci ildə ermənilərin soyqırımına məruz qaldıqları barədə uydurmaların beynəlxalq səviyyədə qəbul olunmasına cəhdlər göstərirlər). Meowy 17:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, the reference in the edit to the Human Rights Watch document doesn't mention either Ohanyan or the 366th MRR, so that can't be used without extensive further documentation. As for the foreign language reference, we need something that helps editors evaluate both the text of the reference and the reliability of the source. The war criminal charge is a big one, and I would need to see reliable documentation. Until then, delete it as a BLP violation.Jarhed (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    About Ohanian you can find some info here: [30] [31] He was the commander of the 2nd battalion of 366th regiment, who later defected to the Armenian side and joined the Armenian forces. HRW also mentions the role of 366th regiment here: [32] Also here: At Nakhichevanik Armenians and troops of the CIS 366th regiment opened fire on the retreating OMON militia and the fleeing residents. [33] The accusation of Ohanian comes from the report of the special commission of Azerbaijani parliament, which investigated the massacre. I think it should be presented as an opinion. Grandmaster 07:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the information can be reliably sourced, there is no question that it belongs in this bio. On the other hand, you can see that it is reasonable to be suspicious of such sources, especially when making an allegation of this gravity. Please marshall your citations and write the relevant paragraph on the article's talk page. I will do my best to help you evaluate it.Jarhed (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:Attack page article at Constant Rijkenberg

    The article creator added a link about a "scandal". The victim of the alleged "scandal" is the owner of the website alleging the scandal (I can add links proving that but perhaps I should not). The content edits of the editor User:DegenFarang primarily consist of linking to this same website, plus repeated abusive edits to BLPs like John Roberts and Russ Hamilton. I would simply revert the second sentence (of the two sentence article) and remove the link myslef, but the editor is wiki-hounding me so it seems best to leave it to others to check out. 2005 (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the site in question http://pokernews.theplayr.com/Constant-Rijkenberg-Staking-Scandal for people to have a look at. I left DegenFarang a note about this thread in case he should want to comment. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an extremely transparent attempt by 2005 to discredit me. The Constant Rijkenberg article has been up since April and the staking scandal addition has been up for several months and 2005 did nothing or said nothing about it. Suddenly the day after I asked on Baloonman's talk page where I could bring up the issue of so many poker-babes.com links being included in Wikipedia, 2005 makes multiple posts across Wikipedia calling my actions into question. Again here 2005 has violated WP:OUT by claiming I am the owner of ThePlayr.com, which I am not.

    Beyond that, I'm not even going to dignify this 'issue' with a response. It is just 2005 playing a game and attempting to divert attention from the real issue - hundreds of dubious poker-babes.com links across Wikipedia. Can somebody please tell me now where I can raise that issue?DegenFarang (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:EL. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Or WP:RSN if it's being used as a source. Not 100s though, see [34] Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Article on Michael Steele

    This article contains unconfirmed information as to the subject's father's death due to alcoholism, (quoting the NYTimes is not a legal defense against libel). It contains an entire section headed "Criticisms" with no balanced section of Achievements. Almost every comment is made by persons of the opposing political party of this subject or magazines and newspapers known to be politically slanted. It is so obvious it is embarassing to read, even by an Independant. This article should be heavily revised or deleted altogether. Mugginsx (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, not "balance." Second, if you feel the article is unbalanced, you can discuss it on the article's talk page. Keep in mind that people of all political persuasions edit these pages, so the articles (while leaning towards criticism) tend to be politically neutral. Finally, the part about his father's death is already gone. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    JamshidAwal

    Hi all I am new to this section of Wikipedia. I had an article about the Hon. Ali Mirzad which has gone through excruciating drilling and I have made all necessary changes (trying to please) every john smith that leaves a tag on my article ..lol But now I think it finally completed. Could an Admin remove thos infamous tags from article, please. Thank you for your time and cooperation. --JamshidAwal (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=337261757"