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 Acp39 (talk | contribs) at 02:17, 12 November 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:




    Jennifer Lerner

    I removed some coatracky stuff that was recently added to the article by newly created account Humbert1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See my note on the talk page. It has been restored by that editor. Opinions on this, please. --TS 22:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Welcomed users that had edited the page. Removed the material that violates WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in a WP:BLP. Semi-protected the page. Posted a warning to talk page of user Humbert1 (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Humbert1 (talk · contribs) did it again. User blocked for two days. -- Cirt (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And he did it yet again October 27, immediately after getting off being blocked. betsythedevine (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And again today, same edit [1]; could some admin please reblock? betsythedevine (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef. -- Cirt (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tabloid-like accusations against Clarence Thomas

    Recently Clarence Thomas has been in the news, with his former girlfriend making highly-charged accusations against him (in e.g. The Washington Post). Some editors (IP accounts and regular accounts) are using the occasion of this news to introduce highly-inflammatory information into his BLP and related subarticle. Most of the material deals with accusations that relate to their former personal relationship, as opposed to a subordinate employee relationship. As far as I can tell, none of the material deals directly with his behavior or verbal interaction with his subordinates. If it did, then it would be relevant to the Anita Hill accusations, as she was a subordinate of his. Many people involved in the production of The Washington Post and The New York Times clearly strongly dislike Thomas, as he is a favorite whipping boy of left-leaning journalists. In my view, the following paragraph in the lead of WP:BLP applies here:

    Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Drrll (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP is also not a good place to insert claims made in new books, as there is a tendency for book publicists to make the most scandalaous charges, which somehow then are not supported by the final product. This is especially a concern during the biennial US political silly season (vide the charges against Arnold S. two years ago, which then turned out to be of trivial significance, charges about Alex Sink using Florida state jets, and so on). Collect (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I haven't seen anyone talking about inserting "claims made in new books". At issue is material covered in news items in the CNN, New York Times, ABC News, CBS News, Washington Post, among others. As far as I can tell, news items from these sources are acceptable, or even preferred, sources for a BLP.

      Drrll (talk · contribs) has objected because he considers the New York Times and Washington Post to be "left-leaning", "partisan" news outlets ([2]). And because he personally believes that "many people" at the Post and the Times "clearly strongly dislike Thomas" (immediately above). And because he personally considers this material "trashy" ([3]). None of those seem to be policy-based objections to me; they seem to be based on personal opinion and ideological viewpoint.

      This material seems to fall very clearly under the portion of WP:BLP which states: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. So there is a strong policy-based rationale for including this material, and (as best I can tell) no policy-based objection. I would appreciate additional outside input, though, because I agree that discussion at Talk:Clarence Thomas tends to be driven primarily by editors' personal ideology rather than Wikipedia policy. MastCell Talk 17:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have never objected per se to using The NYT or The Washington Post as sources in BLPs. It's just that WP is not obligated to use whatever material these sources put out. The question is that of relevance of adding unrelated sensationalistic material to articles. Drrll (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Inter alia [4] "I have nothing against McEwen, but I hope her book fails to find a publisher." [5] "Of course, McEwan has her own reasons to hype up the issue: she is currently shopping a book about her career and relationship with Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas" and so on. I think it was clear. Collect (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree strongly with MastCell, an attempt to make a policy-based objection to this material is utterly unconvincing. It is entirely relevant to his notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I stated a moment ago on the Thomas Talk page, I, too, agree with MastCell. There's way too much hoopla being made of adding this material. The resistance to adding it by a few editors speaks volumes.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding was that MastCell favored waiting on inclusion, due to WP:Recentism. In any event, why should the McEwen material all be included in the main Thomas article, instead of included in the applicable sub-article and then merely summarized in the main article; in other words, why disregard WP:Summary style?166.137.136.187 (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I counted it, 3 editors here favor major restraint and/or contextualizing McEwen's charges and 3 editors (yourself included) take a different view. Drrll (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are charges of sexual assault relevant to Al Gore's notability? It was reported by reliable sources. Drrll (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you having a hard time finding Talk:Al Gore? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take that as a no. Depends on the target of accusations, eh? Drrll (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The main problem right now at the Clarence Thomas article is that WP:Summary style is being disregarded. By the way, Drrll, you should mention at the article talk page when you start a discussion here. Anyway, consensus here is quickly ignored at the article in question.[6]166.137.137.161 (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Lynndie England

    Is it just me, or is placing three images of Abu Ghraib abuse on this page an unnecessary insult? I'm not sure that any pictures of her is not a violation of her personality rights; thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no evidence that any use of these pictures in an article about the individual themself could possibly be violation of personality rights. What would lead you to believe this, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I should have said privacy rights. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    We are not invading the privacy of someone whose picture was featured in articles at Marie Claire, the BBC, the Army Times.... Hipocrite (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, putting three pictures of Abu Ghraib abuse stretches the boundaries of good taste. While opinions differ on how work-safe Wikipedia should be, there's no need to flagrantly offend people's sensibilities. This is not a BLP issue, however - England's ties to the scandal are very well known. Best resolved at the relevant talk page. RayTalk 14:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dick Wagner, American Rock Musician

    The initial paragraph about Dick Wagner states his date of birth as being born December 14, 1943, in Oelwein, Iowa. The year is incorrect. It should be 1942.

    I am Dick Wagner's official archivist and webmaster for wagnermusic.com. He has asked me to get this corrected.

    Thank you, Don Richard Drakmar (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Webmaster & Archivist for Dick Wagner www.wagnermusic.com designer@wagnermusic.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakmar (talk • contribs) 04:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The best thing to do then is to add that date to his official web site, http://www.wagnermusic.com/biography.htm for example, that would be a Verifiable source. --GRuban (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rand Paul et al.

    Second the question, as it is my understanding based on work with WP:USPE that this is the general consensus of that workgroup. When an article exists on an individual separately notable campaign, as opposed to on an election or candidate, that is the most preferred, with the election being the backup. JJB 16:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)I agree. And so does Jimbo when asked about "political silly season." BLPs are not to be used as campaign vehicles for or against any candidate. Collect (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe neutrality means Wikipedians should not be trying to tie the BLPs concerning politicians too closely to their respective campaigns. But having said that if an opposing politician or campaign is tying the article subject to something controversial associated with his or her campaign, rigorous deletion of the material should be done judiciously since such deletion would be clearly opposed by the opposing campaign. It's not just some drive-by Wiki vandal that wants it in. If a campaign worker did something outrageous and the politician distanced himself or herself from the campaign worker, it should presumptively not be included in the politician's article. But if the politician has not distanced himself or herself and it is not just a few pundits that are making an issue out of it but the opposing campaign as well, I believe it should presumptively go in. An outrageous action by an employee might go into the BLP of a CEO, for example, if it became an issue for that CEO's management reputation. The idea being to minimize Wikipedia's discretion such that Wikipedia doesn't end up the only entity trying to distance a politician from his or her campaign. Follow the secondary sources: there should be a secondary source (usually the politician him or herself) that holds the POV that the material is not directly related to the politician if Wikipedia is going to consider that POV the NPOV.Brian Dell (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutrality is a fine thing. Unfortunately, one set of Rand Paul supporters justifies their repeated deletion of the "stomping" incident from Rand Paul with a claim that it belongs in the less widely-read campaign article. When the "stomping" is moved to the campaign article, a different Rand Paul supporter has now deleted it twice. This is a newsworthy event generating press stories on a daily basis. betsythedevine (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the vandal for edit warring (this is his third block so I made it for three months), and semi-protected the page for three days. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

    There's a discussion on the talk page about the selection criteria, but I'm concerned that there may be BLP problems in what is in any case a contentious subject. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I wasn't clear about my concern. It's simply that from looking at the talk page the criteria is being discussed, and that a suggestion being discussed is ".For the purposes of this list, qualification as a scientist is reached by publication of at least one peer-reviewed article in their lifetime in a broadly construed area of "natural sciences". The article need not have been written in recent years nor be in a field relevant to climate." Is that enough, or do we need reliable sources for each name in the list that they are indeed 'scientists opposing the mainstream' etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 06:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've been watching this page for nearly a week, waiting for the intellectually sound and morally stimulating debate to begin, but it looks like climate change issues are still persona non grata in polite society. So, "it's just us chickens"; we'd better sort it out among ourselves, as usual. --Nigelj (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tareq Salahi


    There are several issues with this article. Focusing on one paragraph, I started some edits due to the issues below. Another editor reasonably disagreed with my edits, but instead of improving reverted them. The problem is all the original problems persist. I am sticking to BRD but the issues are potentially libellous and need attention, so I'm asking for more editors to take a look. The nuances center around the Washington Post article source stating allegations from a court filing by one party against another, and citing them as such, but these allegations have ended up in the BLP as statements of fact. Plus they are word for word taken from the source (except for the explanation "as alleged in legal filings").

    Issues in current second paragraph of “Oasis Winery” section:

    Issue 1: Word for word plagiarism. WaPo: In the following years, he started calling "himself 'president' of the Company and 'owner' of the winery, although he never held more than a 5 % minority interest," WikiP: In the following years, Tareq started calling "himself 'president' of the Company and 'owner' of the winery, although he never held more than a 5% minority interest.

    Issue 2: Reporting of points as fact when in WaPo they are clearly stated not as facts, but statements from a court filing. In a stunning feat, the wiki article manages to plagiarize without even saying the same thing, by dropping “According to his parents’ lawsuit” from the end of the above quote in issue 1.

    Issue 3. Near word for word plagiarism. WaPo: Tareq also began operating a new business out of the vineyard, Oasis Enterprises, which included a limo operation, wine country tours and an events-and-catering business. Around 1999, according to his parents' lawsuit, he "diverted" a "substantial amount" of the vineyard's wine to Oasis Enterprises and had not paid the vineyard back. WikiP: Tareq also began operating a new business out of the vineyard, Oasis Enterprises, which was developed to raise ancillary income as a venue for polo events and other functions such as weddings. Oasis Enterprises included a limo operation, wine country tours, and an events-and-catering business. Around 1999 Tareq "diverted" a "substantial amount" of the vineyard's wine to Oasis Enterprises and had not paid the vineyard back

    Issue 4: Reporting of points as fact when in WaPo they are clearly stated not as facts, but statements from a court filing. The difference in #3 is that WikiP does not use “according to his parents’ lawsuit” 96.247.118.213 (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion so far has gone against the IP though more eyes are needed. I haven't ignored the comments at all, I've tried to explain them. The use of the Washington Post to make the comments made are wrong to make and another source is required to make claims that Tariq Salahi lied about things. It is not up to me to find the sources, it's up to the editor who states them. On the talk page so far, my comments are agreed to. Rob comments that this is here but if I remember correctly he doesn't give an opinion on things. Also, I am concerned with sock puppetry. This IP is a Verizon account which is what an editor who is stalking me uses. I think that from the comments mado so far, that the duck test shows I may not be wrong. I don't have enough to take to SPI or I would but this too needs sorting. Thanks for listening. I would have commented earlier but the IP didn't tell me that this was here even though the IP came to my talk page about this very same problem [7]. Something is wrong here, I hope it's me but well... --CrohnieGalTalk 19:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits from this ISP follow exactly the pattern of the banned sock puppets of SRQ. The above editor is correct. Need more eyes here. DocOfSoc (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    George S. Livanos

    There is no Countess Kasa-Hunyady, that's a scam, but don't know what is true and what is fake in the article.It needs the attention of an expert.

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Csesznekgirl (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if this article could be a candidate for deletion. It's rare that we do that for billionaires, but if Mr. Livanos has been as private as the article suggests, to the point where there's even confusion over his name, then it might be best to respect his privacy and delete the article. RayTalk 14:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dilma Rousseff

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

    Rick Scott

    Material relating to Columbia/HCA is covered at length in the BLP. An IP insists, however, on inserting a section in the lede duplicating material in the section. [8] and asserting that it is "censorship" to not have extensive coverage in the lede as well as in the article. I consider it a matter of simple common sense that WP articles are not campaign literature for or against anyone, and inserting the duplicate material is thus improper in any article. Will foolks kindly weigh in? Collect (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a look. Someone else is now deleting the entirety of the discussion about the Columbia/HCA issues later in the article. I have reverted this, but the article might benefit from some sort of protection. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, all I had done was revert to the exact same status you reverted to :). The only "edit war" was from the IP. Collect (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see a problem with the IP's edits. Your characterization is incomplete: he/she is also adding detail to a later section, and the material added to the lead is a concise summary of a later section, not a duplication. So even in regard to the lead I don't see anything inappropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Margaret Thatcher

    Margaret Thatcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    A user has been insisting on have a NPOV template on the top of this article for the last two years, adding the template are his only edits to the article for the last two years. After questioning he has stated the whole article needs re written for the template to be removed. He is imo setting standards on the article that are greater than we apply to our articles in general. The article was featured and is now only a good article and imo easily meets that standard. I would like to resolve the template but his demands of a rewrite are extreme. His insistence is a labeling of a more or less decent article as biased. I would like to get a few users comments about the article in an attempt to resolve the disputed template. No article should be unduly labeled for such a length of time and that is not what the templates are for. Recent discussion about the template is on the talkpage here. Do users consider the article to be so poor and biased to benefit from the template ( if it is please specify the most offending content so it can be improved) and is it so biased as to require a complete re write. Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The complaint is that the article reads like a hagiography, and after a superficial reading I agree with that. It reads as if it was based on something written by her PR team. All her achievements and honours seem to be made explicit, while you must read between the lines to get an idea of how controversial she was as prime minister.Hans Adler 15:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there specific sections that you see as being very poor in this respect? Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Welner Page

    There have been several edits made to the wiki page “Michael Welner”. Activity on the page has risen in tandem with Michael Welner’s role in the Khadr trial, Beyond the overt acts of vandalism in which one Khadr advocate went as far as to call Dr. Welner an “an awfull jackass”; there have been edits to the page that reflect more diplomatic advocacy – absent any real contribution to the page. I hope to clear it up with the posting below. What’s going on is people who are real advocates are attempting to sabotage the page and they will continue to do so. In order to prevent the page from becoming a forum for Khadr advocates to spout their disapproval and vicious libel, I respectfully ask that you restrict the page from outside edits beyond those of your editorial staff. The paragraphs below, which I have included on the page, updates the page objectively and informatively.Stewaj7 (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm confused. Your edits to that page today amount to this. What exactly is the problem that you are unable to resolve through discussion at that article's talk page? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    JORDAN HALSMAN

    I would like to report abuse to the attached site ref. Jordan Halsman. This has been going on since yesterday with the person below changing all the correct details to absolute nonsense. Can you please block this person from any further use.

    I will edit to correct information

    (cur | prev) 17:24, 1 November 2010 Steven1875 (talk | contribs) (2,670 bytes) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.117.142 (talk)

    Will likely need to be semi-protected. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How do you do this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.229.44 (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tani_Cantil-Sakauye

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

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

    Chai Ling

    Chai Ling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There is much debate on Chai Ling’s Wikipedia talk page, including claims that are repeatedly appearing on the main article page, which are not in line with Wikipedia’s policy on biographies of living persons. The issues raised vary from criticism of her role in Tiananmen to inappropriate attacks on her personal life.

    Most of the negative references tie back to the website: http://www.tsquare.tv, which one could argue should not be used as a reference source as it is a website run by those involved in the conflict with Chai Ling and the articles referenced either are an obvious attempt at character assassination or they violate copyright laws (http://www.tsquare.tv/film/harvard.html) Furthermore, some of the users posting negative materials are posting from China and are under active investigation by Wikipedia. It is therefore likely that they are attempts by the Chinese government to defame people who are friends with the recent Nobel Prize winner, Liu Xiaobo.

    Wikipedia is an open forum for discussion and such comments are likely to continue to be posted until there is a significant cultural shift in China. However, readers should be urged to exercise their judgement when reading biased statements and to be understanding when some material is removed because of its open defamation of character. Chai Ling has committed her life to improving conditions in China, and is an accomplished business woman, as evidenced by her career history. It would not be just to leave false accusations and misquotations in such a public forum.

    Please could Wikipedia act within its policy and remit, in order to ensure that repeated offenders are appropriately restricted from placing slander on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurora07 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is this users first post....interesting!

    KoshVorlon' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shahrzad Mir-Gholikhan

    Resolved
     – wrong location to decide notable or not. - Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That "Fair and Balanced"(tm) "source" Press TV has brought up the case of Shahrzad Mir-Gholikhan.

    Ref: http://payvand.com/news/09/mar/1120.html

    Is she notable yet? Hcobb (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    List page about BLPs at AFD

    Resolved
     – Not really a BLP issue, and seems likely to die at AFD anyway.--Scott Mac 18:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorary Guides of the Raëlian Movement. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Cirt. This page does concern me as it appears that many haven't accepted this nomination and that labelling them as honorary guides of a UFO movement is a BLP violation, we can't ascribe a religious belief to BLPs on the basis of them being nominated as guides by that belief.Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, anyone can honor anyone else with anything they want, and the honoree can accept or reject it. I only think it's a BLP problem if we don't make the unidirectional nature of the relationship clear. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    New Life Fellowship Association

    This page is being repeatedly edited with malicious and false information about me (Victor Nazareth) and my family members: Pastor S Joseph (father-in-law), Ian Hendricks (brother-in-law), Naomi J Hendricks (sister-in-law). I have once again expunged the contentious text. Not only is it factually incorrect, it seeks to defame us and impute to us motives that are mere conjecture. You can clearly see that the text is not in keeping with the spirit of your site.

    I strongly suggest that this page be shut down as it adds little or no value to wikepedia. I understand that there has been a warning placed on this page but now request that action be taken and the page pulled off your site.

    Thanks for considering this,

    Victor Nazareth (vnazareth@gmail.com)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.179.203 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    There have been some problems on this page. I've restored what appears to be the latest sourced version which I believe has no BLP violations. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken the additional step of semi-protecting it. We've had persistent BLP violations and failed to spot and revert then. There's no way the subjects should have to continue to put up with that failure.--Scott Mac 13:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary Herbert

    Gary Herbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Article about a politician is a long term site for edit warring. The question I have regards the controversy section--it's all sourced, but the article in general could use some more attention re: neutrality check. JNW (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Benyamin Netanyahu BLP violation?

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

    Some users claim the information added here:[9] is a BLP violation, and it has now been removed from the article.

    Source is Haaretz, its a direct quote, attributed to who said it.

    Is it a BLP violation? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Its not an insulting attack, its the White House spokesman describing Netanyahu according to his pov. Could you please show me what text at WP:BLP this information violates? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

    This quote is not a "titillating claim" that Lockhart said it, it is a reliable quote from a notable person. Its not a "claim" that he said it. How is the information not conservatively and how is it a "tabloid" or "sensationalist"? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Supreme, don't be absurd. It's an insulting, scurillous attack and we are not going to reprint it. Also, do not forum shop - I'm sure you can find people at Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu who will explain to you at length what words like "conservative" and "titillating" and "tabloid" mean, assuming you do not already, given your previous encounters with our BLP policy. RayTalk 21:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)reply to user Supreme Deliciousness - I can't help you any more than I have, feel free to wait for more comments. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While Lockhart may have written these words, there are two big problems I see with their use in the article:
    1. The quote is taken out of context, so we have no idea why Lockhart might have described Netanyahu this way.
    2. Because this is presented as a pull quote, it not only prevents the use of prose to add the necessary context, but it gives the quote undue emphasis.
    While it's generally best to use secondary and tertiary sources, in this case I find myself wanting to see the original source—Lockhart's book—to see if there's any context there that might redeem this quote. (Also, while Lockhart's book would be a primary source about Lockhart, to the extent that he discusses Netanyahu it might be a secondary source, but it's impossible to say without seeing it.) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ralph Watts

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

    Can someone familiar with political biographies check Ralph Watts' quotes and issues sections? They are all well-sourced, but seem intended to turn his article into a political attack page. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I know nothing about US politics, but that version was an outrageous hatchet-job. I've reverted back to an earlier one, removing half of the article in the process. Can someone else watch list this, I expect the pov pushers will be back.--Scott Mac 22:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking a look at it. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Spiegel

    I strongly suspect that a Wikipedia page about me was created during the 2008 Presidential campaign by people who wanted to sensationalize the William Ayers "paling-around-with-terrorists" claim against Obama. It is clearly biased, focuses on one part of my life 40 years ago, and contains inaccurate information, some of which should be considered a violation of your privacy standards, at the least. Since the time period discussed in the article, I have become a civil rights attorney, I have worked on some notable cases of public interest, and have other achievements which may or may not merit discussion on a page about me. To the extent that there is information on the existing page which you think belongs in Wikipedia, and is accurate and sourced, I do not object to it. What I propose is that you immediately take down the page, and work with me to put up another one that complies with your standards. I have read your BLP policies, and I am not interested in self-promotion, but I would like to create a fair, balanced and accurate page about me if there is going to be one. Mikespieg (talk)

    Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Spiegel. -- Cirt (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Stubified article pending result of AfD. J04n(talk page) 15:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Cork's 96FM and Neil Prenderville

    This info was inserted into Cork's 96FM this morning on the back of a breaking news story where a radio stations leading DJ has hit the headlines for some pretty negative reasons on a flight from London. The story has been corroborated and the individual himself issued an apology on air. From what I can make out, at the time of the incident, Prenderville was operating in a private capacity. I'm not sure if this adds to the article on the station as it is about the individual and I feel could be counted as a sourced attack however I am hesitant to remove such well sourced info as per WP:NOTCENSORED. I would appreciate some third party input. GainLine ♠ ♥ 11:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree removal could be seen as censorship. Its really a single report repeated in the other cite, if the comment remains as it is and is not expanded unduly then it is borderline for inclusion. It is not exactly headline news in major international publications and wikipedia wouldn't want to be the primary dissemination of such information about a person who is actually not Wikipedia notable...thoughts? Off2riorob (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The incident is probably only receiving coverage because it so is sensational, I'm not sure it is deserving of attention in the article unless the individual loses his job because of it. I really don't see how the controversy relates to the radio station and this seems to be introducing negative material for the sake of it GainLine ♠ ♥ 16:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've semi-protected it for a week. Fences&Windows 23:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've boldly gone ahead and removed the section. I have moved the references used to the talk page (but without a references section) so that they are readily available for reinsertion if that's what's decided. I have no problem with someone or someones arguing for its reinsertion in the article if that's seen as warranted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, seems reasonable. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tranches: a new way to patrol BLPs

    Please visit the page below and consider adopting one of the 100 lists of 5000 BLPs by putting your signature at the end of the corresponding line.

    The idea is to get every single edit to a known BLP patrolled, even the articles that are not otherwise watched.

    To patrol recent changes to the articles, click on the "related changes" link for your chosen list. Diffs can be inspected in the usual way; it's not unlike a normal watchlist. Start at the bottom and work your way up.

    The lists will be refreshed regularly to account for changes in the content of the living persons category.

    Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur Alan Wolk

    User Lawrencewarwick is working with Arthur Wolk on the Arthur Alan Wolk article: see [10] and [11].

    The same user is deleting information about notable court cases from the Arthur Wolk article. He claims that this violates living persons policy because blogs are cited, but no blogs are cited, just journalist Jacob Sullum, reliably-sourced newspaper articles, and court decisions.

    But Lawrencewarwick's edits turn the article into a press release. That does not seem right. I looked up Arthur Alan Wolk after reading about his unsuccessful lawsuit, and there was nothing in the article about what seemed like a notable internet lawsuit. (I use this account name because I don't want Wolk to sue me, too!)

    Can a third party help resolve this dispute? Thank you!

    Why all the primary court reports? If this issue is actually noteworthy their will be independent reports about the issues and we can report on those reports.  ? The content is overly primary cited to legal docs and it overly legalistic in detail resulting in this jargon bloated court report. Off2riorob (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The primary court reports are supplements to the secondary sources that discuss the primary court reports. I cited to the primary source for the most neutral and complete explanation. I am happy to collaborate on edits.
    Should I cite to the Overlawyered post that was the subject of the lawsuti? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boo the puppy (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to keep it, I would suggest trimming it to the bones and supporting it with two or three of the strongest secondary citations. Others may disagree, I have a dislike for publishing primary court reports as that as I see it is beyond our remit. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it really independantly notable? Apart from the person that wrote the blog is it covered in major publications? Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. It's been covered in Reason (magazine), The Legal Intelligencer, and Philadelphia Business Journal, all of which are cited.
    You say "trim it to the bones," but the section discusses three notable court cases, and devotes only two or three sentences to each. What is fat? Boo the puppy (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, reason magazine is not a bad magazine but it is not a mainline major publication and we have few links, about 50 to it from our BLP articles., the same could be said of the other two. Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am guessing, you have a legal background? I am thinking that as this content is in your field so to speak that is why it appears noteworthy? Wikipedia is not read by legal experts and as such is not written by legal experts.Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reason is major. "The magazine has a circulation of around 60,000 and was named one of the 50 best magazines in 2003 and 2004 by the Chicago Tribune." That's bigger circulation than The New Republic. The writer of the Reason article, Jacob Sullum, is a notable journalist. I read about the lawsuit in Reason, read about Wolk's threat to sue Reason for writing about the lawsuit, and looked up Arthur Wolk on the Internet, and was surprised to see a press release written by an associate of Wolk masquerading as a Wikipedia article. I don't understand what you consider to be "legal expert" about what was written. Can you read the two short Reason articles, and compare and tell me where I can make things clearer? Boo the puppy (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reason is not major at all. And Sullum's comments are all primary reports that don't assert any independent notability at all. I like press releases, I like neutral reports, we are not here to add a bunch of negative legal primary dockets that the bot removes and minor issues reported as if major. I would suggest that from your editing contributions that you would benefit from reading WP:COI - Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Off2riorob, Reason is a major magazine. That doesn't exempt what they write from our BLP rules, however. That said, the current form of the biography reads more than a bit like an advertisement. RayTalk 17:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough Ray, in its field/area it is a decent magazine but it is quite minor as far as being used to reliably support content in this wiki. The article is a bit like a CV but that is it really, simple stuff, the main details of his life. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What a puzzling post. It only looks like a cv today because you have been repeatedly removing sourced material added by another editor. Once that material is properly restored, it won't look like a cv. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't confrontationally engage with me in a continuation of our previous dispute, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since that's not what I'm doing, I'll let my own post stand on its merits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The addition by Boo the puppy "Unsuccessful libel plantiff" is not noteworthy at all and should be removed from the article... too much space (about 1/3 of the page) is devoted to a liabel lawsuit that was dismissed because of a 1 year statute of limitation law - how is that noteworthy isn't that a very minor issue? It set no legal precedent and is not relevant. Six (6) of the 8 citations in this section are to Jacob Sullum's blog on Reason Magazine the whole section is about Sullum's comments. Furthermore Boo the puppy says I am an associate of Arthur Wolk which is not true I wrote the article because I'm interested in air safety issues and from seaching the internet found he is an expert in air safety and aviation law I called him and asked if I could write an article for Wikipedia ... Also Boo says Wolk unsuccessfully sought the impeachment of a Judge there is no citation for this and in fact the judge later recanted her criticism of Wolk. I don't understand Boo the puppy's agenda ... why such a big deal about a lawsuit being dismissed for filing too late? Is it appropriate for me to delete Boo's edits or should I leave the descision to other editors? My agenda is I admire Arthur Wolk and am very unhappy that such weight is given to a conflict he is having with bloggers, please advise me as to what steps should be taken LEW (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You go ahead as you are aware of the level of actual notability, I supported trimming it right back to the bones myself. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to User:Lawrencewarwick, the fact that an attorney tried to get around the statute of limitations says a lot about the character of that attorney. So it is relevant to the article. Racepacket (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani

    Someone continuously tampers with the article on Sakineh Ashtiani in a way that spreads libelous information about a living person who is in fact fighting an unjust execution sentence in Iran. Most specifically, someone continues to include text that says that Sakineh Ashtiani was convicted of murder. Ms. Ashtiani was never convicted of murder; she was exonerated on the charge of murdering her husband and in fact another person was convicted for that crime.

    When the Islamic Republic faced opposition to Sakineh's stoning sentence for adultery, they sought then to convince the world that she was instead a murderer, so that they could hang her instead (which tends to meet less political resistance than stoning) for a crime on which basis other countries also execute people (murder). The continuous inclusion of Islamic Republic fabrications to smear the name of Sakineh Astiani is unacceptable in any case, not least in the situation where this woman is fighting for her life.

    Sincerely,

    Maria Rohaly Coordinator, Mission Free Iran http://missionfreeiran.org <e-mail redacted>. Maria Rohaly (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Steven Seagal

    The introduction to Steven Seagal's biography contains several uses of profanity.

    Cnnjnnbnn (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan Severn

    Dan Severn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    NPOV issue with this article:

    "The future of this renaissance man is unlimited."

    "Severn easily established his place among the best fighters in the world with his awesome competitive fire to be the best."

    "Severn has also had more of desire to do films"

    "...dominating his opponents to capture the tournament championship at UFC 5: Return of the Beast."

    nameless314 76.112.210.182 (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Feel free to be bold next time and make the changes yourself; I just went through and did a first pass. I'm currently moving around the references. I'm sure this could use more work, too--so more eyes is more better. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Joel Monaghan

    The subject has been the subject of some fairly nasty rumours - which admittedly have now got some coverage in some fairly reputable newspapers. See the Sydney Morning Herald article here for example. I have deleted the offending edits and semi-protected the page—before I saw the SMH article—but given that there is now a reliable source for the allegation (but not the fact) someone else may wish to review what I have done. I stand by my edits given the seriousness of the rumours but would like some confirmation from others (or otherwise). Mattinbgn (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As presented it was a major BLP violation so I suppressed the edits in question. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I learned about this BLP situation when List of scandals with "-gate" suffix had allusions to this scandal added to it more than once. (List of scandals with "-gate" suffix is now under "pending changes" protection for now...) There's a fairly long thread on Talk:Joel Monaghan that links to several proposed sources. I think, based on one of the oddest Google searches of my life, this probably does merit sensible, tasteful inclusion... — Scientizzle 13:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    John Beyer

    John Beyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    On 20th October, 31 August and 20 August "contentious material that is unsourced" was added to this page.(unsigned by User:217.44.124.228 - Off2riorob (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

    • - Removed, you are also able to edit articles, please be bold in removing such uncited content in BLP articles. I also removed the picture as it was copyrighted .. actually he is not really notable enough for his own BLP and the content would be better merged to the Mediawatch-uk article but he appears to have retired last year .. I have added the merge template. 11:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

    Arash Ashkar's

    The above-mentioned article lacks neutral point of view as it is obvious in all parts of the article. The article provides aesthetic opinions about the artist's artworks without mentioning any references. As you may see, the writer mentioned:"Arash Ashkar is one of the Minimal photographers who is very talented in this field" or somewhere else in the article:"He loves significant and meaningful art styles and he tries to create professional and effective photos" and in order to introduce some of the artist's artworks he/she mentioned:"Now here you can see some of his incredible art works" and it is obvious that these sentences are against NPOV (Neutral Point of View) which is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. This article also is not verifiable and it is not attributable to any reliable published source. As a matter of fact the article is poorly sourced and the only sources mentioned in the article are the artist personal website and his personal profile in MyOpenid.com.

    Gone via CSD A7. Interesting first edit by User:Pg326... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Alan_Wolk_v._Walter_Olson

    I represent Arthur Alan Wolk, Attorney in connection with the proper use of his name on the Internet. I came across several wikipedia pages regarding him. Arthur Wolk is a living person who is an expert in aviation law and air safety. He is also an author who wrote a book, "Reflections of My Puppy" at www.boos-books.com with all profits donated to animal shelters.

    This user "Boo the puppy" is posting information not relevant to Mr. Wolk's area of expertise and his username and description "I am a lovable golden retriever with no assets. Woof! I live in California and am familiar with California anti-SLAPP law." show that he CLEARLY has a conflict of interest or personal agenda to defame or otherwise discredit Mr. Wolk.

    I am requesting that the page Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Alan_Wolk_v._Walter_Olson) be removed immediately and that "Boo_the_puppy" be banned from wikipedia.

    Christine DeGraff 856-769-5600 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.165.58 (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    DJ Miko

    Just a heads up about a section currently in the article claiming that a named individual is an impostor of the subject and had previously hijacked the article. (There is a reference provided for the individual having been arrested for identity theft.) Even so, does it belong there? Voceditenore (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the section - it does not. Hipocrite (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomas Moody (musician)

    This article has just been replaced with the text TMoody requests that this article be deleted to prevent further slanderous and defamatory information from being added to it. [and then some more]. The editor requesting deletion is the same editor who made the article. Maybe it should just be deleted per speedy deletion criterion G7: 'Author requests deletion'. Arthena(talk) 22:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There was an active prod, and so I've reverted that edit -- in another couple of days it can be deleted according to the usual procedure here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a lot of unreferenced material in there that had nothing to do with his musical career, it has now been removed. J04n(talk page) 22:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine -- my intention was to restore the prod and I agree with the removal of unsourced material (I shouldn't have re-added it). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Glen A. Staples

    This article is written in a rather hostile tone and makes some rather definite and uncited assertions about the tehology of T. D. Jakes. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the unsourced/antagonistic stuff (e.g. calling Jakes a heretic) -- Mangoe, next time just take the initiative and do it yourself.
    The article should probably be prodded -- a news archive search produces only a few results. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rayo Withanage

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

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

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

    Mark Zuckerberg...

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

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

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

    Lee Baca

    A single-purpose account keeps adding a skewed view of Baca's recent statements on a marijuana vote, which is defamatory and not noteworthy to his bio. Please lock down.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I left User:Alienassasin a note about this thread and a note not to add that youtube link as it is an unofficial upload and a likely copyright violation. Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rafer Johnson bio

    Resolved
     – small edit to address concerns Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong information about Rafer Johnson subduing Sirhan Sirhan, In fact it was Roosevelt Grier

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Kyoung4678 (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rafer Johnson ....from our BLP .. In 1968, he worked on the presidential election campaign of Robert F. Kennedy and helped wrestle Sirhan Sirhan to the floor immediately after Sirhan had assassinated Kennedy


    the cite is a bit blogish ..but does say .. "It was Rafer Johnson who wrestled Sirhan Sirhan to the ground and, with the help of football player Rosey Grier, pried the gun from his fingers". http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/08/02/rafer-johnson-and-the-power-of-10/?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin written by Joe Posnanski

    Rosey Grier ....from our BLP .. the night that Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles in 1968. Grier and Olympic gold medalist Rafer Johnson heard shots fired ahead of them. Reacting first, Johnson subdued the shooter followed by Grier (as seen in official White House archives. As Johnson grabbed the gun, Grier placed his hand over Johnson's to help secure the weapon.

    Seems pretty fair imo, perhaps a link to Griers BLP as in ...and helped Rosey Grier apprehend Sirhan Sirhan immediately after Sirhan had assassinated Kennedy. Done - Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed Cunningham

    Can use more eyes on this article. There's a controversy section using youtube and self published sources (my.journalstar.com) as sources, and every time I try and remove this information it's reverted. I've opened up discussion on the article's talk page to no avail. I don't wish to edit war over this, so extra help to settle the dispute would be appreciated. Akerans (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the content as it is cited to not wiki reliable locations and left the IP:64.141.193.11 that has added it three times a note here about the content and a link to this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    File:FIT spotter card

    Resolved
     – moved to fair use and lower resolution Off2riorob (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    File:FIT spotter card.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This was uploaded as PD because The Guardian claims it to be so. It's beyond me how they can publish images of people that are explicitly not meant to be for public view. But for sure Wikipedia should not ! 217.235.14.122 (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see the claim of public domain is correct at all, I can't see any copyright info so it must be free is not a strong public domain claim to say the least. A whole bunch of unidentified people on a police card that clearly says it should have been destroyed after the event, clear BLP issues as all the people are unidentified and could well be uninvolved or whatever, which article does the uploader want to add it to? .. ah Forward_Intelligence_Team - who is the alleged copyright owner that has released it into the public domain and grants any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.? It can't be the police as they clearly say on the photograph that it is classed by them as confidential waste and that it was supposed to be destroyed, I imagine they are the actual copyright holders and the guardian have simply taken a picture of something they have found. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thought this might come up after I mentioned it at Wikipedia:ANI#Image_question. I uploaded it in GF, if an RS says something is PD, then I'm inclined to believe them, no offence but I think they might have more of a clue about what makes something PD than we do. I'll try contacting someone at The Guardian to get some clarification. (Thanks Off2riorob for the note). SmartSE (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I see I forgot to sign, excuse me. I looked on the Guardian article, where do they say it is PD, I cant see it, perhaps for looking. If is is unclear can we keep it out of the article whilst we find out? Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. It doesn't actually say beneath the big photo, but as I explained in the description, follow ups which used parts of the spotter card said that they were PD, e.g. [12] [13] and others. IMO, there's a good chance of making a decent fair use rationale even if it isn't PD - it's relevant to the article, is irreplacable and it could easily be discussed in more detail in the article. Anyway, I've emailed the guardian, so should hopefully here back within the next week. SmartSE (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The fair use claim is plausible but then we have to start looking at the BLP issues of multiple unnamed people some of whom have no criminal record and one of them is named as being a notable person that we have a BLP on, personally I wish it hadn't been uploaded and is imo a net loss. In the uk it is not even normal to release pictures of criminals under PD never mind what are actually innocent people. If you like you can easily request deletion as uploader and get rid of it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you're thinking along the lines of WP:MUG, but I don't consider it to "present a person in a false or disparaging light". The article and caption don't say anything about who they are, or whether they are guilty of anything or not, in fact it makes it implies that they have done nothing wrong. I'm a bit personally attached to the article, as it's what got me editing here in the first place, but I do think that it adds to the article, so am not going to request deletion at the moment. If you think it doesn't belong for whatever reason, theb nom it at WP:FFD or WP:PUF (not sure which) and I won't fight too hard. SmartSE (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I will have to disagree with your position that it doesn't show the people in a disparaging light, imo it very clearly does., well I don't support it but I can do what I usually do with such things that I really don't agree with and take it off my watchlist, presently it is unsupportable as PD and the license needs sorting out and I may be alone in my belief that it is a violation of the peoples rights in the picture, well the IP that opened this thread also agrees with that, so, the Guardian imo has already done the damage there but we don't have to continue to aid the posting of these people across the internet. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem is it's questionable if the Guardian is even definitely trying to claim the photo is in the public domain in the copyright sense. The Guardians lawyers may believe they can legally use those photos. However the claim of photo: public domain is unlikely to affect any relevant fair dealing claim AFAIK and so they probably don't care whether journalists, who don't necessary know much about copyrights and may not even be intending to refer to copyrights when they say photo: public domain (possibly instead that the photo is in the public domain in a general sense as it came from a police pamphlet and they have no idea who took the photo). I do agree a fair use claim here on wikipedia is plausible. To put it a different way, we have to be careful about reading too much into random stuff even if they are in RS. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a fair use rationale and reduced the resolution. Looking at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Privacy rights I don't think there is a problem, as these people were all photographed in public places. (Not sure what to do about the PUF thread). Thanks again for the note. SmartSE (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see that these people were actually not all photographed in public places, some of the shots are smiling and square on to the cam, some of the pictures have clearly been harvested without permission from facebook sites and so on, so yes, imo privacy rights are an issue. Art least one of the people in the picture (without their permission) is an identifiable notable living person. Also imo it doesn't add anything to the article as way of information (apart from a colourful pic) that the explanation spotter cards are cards with multiple small pictures of people to watch out for on ..doesn't explain. Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The increased low res looks ok and comprimises are certainly a good idea. It isn't on commons, so I'm not sure why you've linked to a commons guideline, though and they're only identifiable by reading things off wiki. I'll ask Dcoetzee to take a look at the FUR and see if it can be improved. SmartSE (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, It was the first time I had over written a pic and I messed it up a little bit, I think this is about sorted, although I don't support its inclusion, the fair use rationale and the image size is all as good as it is going to get, those issues have been addressed, so I guess you are free to add it if you want to. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I need an admin to delete from the history the latest version of Terrorist Screening Center

    Resolved
     – vandalism removed - additional watchlisters welcome - Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A name is identified, without any source and in an inappropriate place in the article, as being the latest addition to the TSC. [14] Lulaq (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dog and racism

    Another editor pointed out that Dog_Chapman#Racial_slur_and_fall_out is 25% of the biography. This seems to be overly-weighted to me, and may be indicating that someone is trying to slur the subject of that BLP. I bring it to this board's attention now. I don't think it is necessary to excise the entire section, but is it possible, perhaps, that we pare it down? Also, I have a feeling that those blockquotes detract from the encyclopedic nature of the article.

    ScienceApologist (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • A bounty hunter? Wow. I had no idea this barbarous practice made it into the 20th century, let alone the 21st. It does look like a BLP vio to me, but that's really for Americans to decide. Hans Adler 13:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, for most people it would be a BLP vio. But certain people ... choose to be notorious for certain things, and are not in the last ashamed of them. Generally speaking, I've got a lower bar for what constitutes inflammatory or inappropriate coverage for media celebrities than for other notable people, particularly ones that cultivate such ... colorful public personalities. RayTalk 21:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ray's cuts are a definite improvement, but that section is still poorly written in the kluged Wikipedia style of people adding a sentence every time something happened in the news without updating what had previously been written or considering how the section as a whole reads. An editor could easily consolidate what's there into four or five sentences (Dog said something bad, there was controversy resulting in advertiser(s) dropping, Dog apologized, Roy Innis accepted the apology, the show was briefly taken off the air) without losing any substance. THF (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian Blair

    Ian Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    What a mess. It looks like it has been a mess for a long time, and once was stubbed due to the mess. The issue is the classic problem that we often have: the man has been involved in a fair number of controversies, about which there has been a ton of press coverage. But our tone is unrelentingly negative, and I believe we have a lot of cherry-picking going on by people who hate him.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What are the more positive things for which he is known? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He was a policeman that joined the police force as a simple constable and after thirty years service, some of it walking the streets of Soho rose up to the highest ranking police officer in the Metropolitan police force.Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem here is the usual problem is that we are writing a biography, without biographical sources. All we have are media reports which mention him. Media reports centre on controversies, and as a Chief Constable any controversy involving the Met (which is one of the largest police authorities in the world) will get his name attached because it happened on "his watch". So what dominates the article is "police problems during his tenure". All verifiable and true, but not a biography. A true biography would narrate the "boring" bits about how this particular pc was brilliant enough to rise through the ranks to the very top. Sadly, I doubt there's much can be done about articles like this.--Scott Mac 16:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sure there's something that can be done. The trouble is that, whether by bad luck or bad judgement (I have no opinion), Blair was commissioner at the time of some of the Met's most controversial incidents, such as the shooting of Jean-Charles De Menezis, the two terrorist attacks on London and was repeatedly outspoken in views that weren't popular with the politicians and controversy sells papers, so that's what the vast majority of RSs will focus on. I'll have a look at it in the morning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Brady

    Resolved
     – User:Pats1 has now undone his own revert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Brady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I have posted a true fact about Tom Brady's statistical football career three times now, the last time with two reputable references to back up the claim, so I'm wondering as to why the edits have been taken off both times. This is in reference to the TD:INT ratio career statistic edit that I have made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pendragonrah (talk • contribs)

    The problem here appears to be the source you used for the statistic. Find the same fact mentioned on ESPN.com or NFL.com or a newspaper website or some other similarly reputable site, and no one should complain. This is a WP:RS issue, rather than a WP:BLP issue. THF (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor (admin) who has been reverting the edit really ought to have provided an edit summary explaining the problem... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yishayahu Yosef Pinto

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

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

    Euan S McIver

    This 'biography' read's like an advert for the actor. There is more content and so called knowledge on him than most figures who are actually in the public eye. The only sources are from local newspaper. Breaches terms of neutrality of biography of persons living in terms of neutrality, also as this actor is seemingly very little known there is not much justification for having so much information on him if any at all. 213.104.244.32 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a piece of work... I've stubbified it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Linda McMahon

    Linda McMahon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Linda McMahon was an unsuccessful candidate for Senator from Connecticut. The article has material which is problemating in any BLP, but which is there because one editor says it must be there to prevent a "whitewash." Some of the material lacks cites from RS sources, and makes conjectures as to her acts and motivations. I tagged some of the unsourced claims, and the other editor quickly reverted. I used the same standards on Alex Sink which he did not object to, and I suggest that BLPs are not the place to tabloidify WP. I beseech others to examine what the reliable sources actually say, and determine which claims are proper in this BLP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, do not assume bad faith. I included information because it is factual and referenced. There is no disputing the material. It is cited and if you had read the sources, you would not be starting this illogical argument. I welcome feedback, sure, but do not beseech others to do something without your own due diligence first.
    (side note) Regarding Alex Sink, I never edited that page. It must be on a separate discussion.--Screwball23 talk 23:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I always think if someone adds some templates especially citation required templates in a BLP rather than just remove them it is better to just discuss them. Shall we look at them here? That whole section is a bit coatracky, lots of detail that reallty has nothing to do with her .. One of the cite req that was added, is .. Because of Hogan's testimony,[citation needed] Vince was acquitted of all charges... to me that is clearly a fgalse claim, you are aquitted because you are innocent.Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but that is wrong. Even in the best of worlds, you are acquitted because the prosecutor failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt (as determined by the jury, if it is a jury trial). It's neither necessary nor sufficient for someone to be factually innocent to be acquitted in a court of law. Without going into the details of this case, the testimony of a witness can certainly lead to acquittal. Of course, such a claim does need a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I make any such assertion? I listed a page which I had edited, and made no claims about you at all. You have, moreover, edited a number of BLPs, to be sure. And it appears you simply deleted the POV tag with the comment "Template with Unicode control characters" which seemed a tad opaque when you meant that you were simply removing any and all tags you disliked. Collect (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All readers look into Screwball's history and you will see a clear case for all editors to assume bad faith from him. He's been blocked numerous times now for 3RR violations and opinion pushing. Collect's concerns are absolutely correct. Conjecture (even from a realiable source) is not fact and BLP rules are very strict in this regard. Suggest that Screwball be blocked from editing the article due to his failure to maintain WP:NPOV and for in all likelihood a touch of WP:OR with an agenda. Needed to be said. PrinceJP (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (to Stephan) Yes, excuse my feeble expression, I am far from a legal expert, it does seen to be at least a bit opinionated thought, who says she got off because of that persons testimony, at least if it is in the article we should attribute .. The cite is without an external link - can anyone provide a link to the actual article - ^ a b "A Promoter Of Wrestling Is Acquitted". The New York Times. Printed Saturday, July 23, 1994. Retrieved 2010-01-25.- Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at it. I deleted one OR opinion, but I think the BLP abuse is problematic, in that most of it is via COATRACKing relatively correct material in a way that's certainly UNDUE. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Screwball have reverted that edit and has removed the templates that user:Collect placed again, I have left him a revert warring warning on his talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, these warnings and personal accusations against me are not productive. I can tell you that the material is cited, and I urge you to do your due diligence in reading these references. Linda McMahon was made President as part of a legal move in 1993. That has been supported by Counterfeit hero, as I have stated. As far as the tipoff memo is concerned, Collect has never raised a legitimate discussion- or any dicussion for that matter - as to why it's point of view is in some way a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality.--Screwball23 talk 02:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It's generally accepted people should explain the reasons for a template while adding it. However even if someone has failed to do so and you don't personally see a reason for the template, particularly if the person is active in the discussion it's better to give them time to explain rather then getting into a needless revert war over the template. Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely right. I do want to make it clear that Collect placed a POV tag on the section previously and neglected to discuss any of his gripes with the section. I don't know what your feelings on that are, but a template stating POV without any rationale was not helping push this discussion forward. Even now, I'm getting threats from Off2riorob for removing the template, but I still see no discussion as to what his issues are with the section. I personally feel there is nothing wrong with the section, and no one is putting any ideas forward.--Screwball23 talk 02:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? I was certainly quite present on the talk page and your assertions that I did not are paplpably errant. Note further that you have been repeatedly warned about your POV pushing there. The issue here is whether the templates were properly added - and the consensus here is clear that they were. I ask that those agreeing, please check the latest edits on that page, as I fear Screwball did not hear you. Collect (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't lie. You never placed any rationale as to why you put the template up. You just put them up and neglected to put any rationale on the talk page. Second, I put together most of Linda's page, including the good and the bad. You just came along, whitewashed the page, and then accused me of POV because you are immature and would rather delete and fight other people than read referenced research and listen.--Screwball23 talk 23:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Austin Collie

    Austin does not have 4 wifes and 9 children by his religious standards. He is married to Brooke Collie, only one wife. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, do not practice polygomy. It is illegal. Only Fundamentalist LDS, a seperate religion, practiseit illegally. Get your facts straight and change this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.113.116 (talk • contribs)

    One [15] of a number of unfortunate instances of vandalism in the aftermath of his injury before the article was protected, most including this reverted within a minute or two [16] Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Harriet Harman

    I would encourage editors familiar with British politics and BLP to add Harriet Harman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to their watchlists and contribute to discussions on the talk page. It's not a big deal at the minute and I'm hoping more eyes will prevent it from becoming one. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Harmon has been convicted for some traffic offenses. Based upon this, someone has apparently decided that she should be included in the category "British criminals." Fortunately, this has now been reverted. I consider it a blatant BLP and UNDUE violation and, pursuant to the rule that controversial BLP content is to be omitted unless and until there is consensus on the talkpage to include it rather than the reverse, in the absence of such a consensus this categorization is not to be restored. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we ever use British criminals for Summary offences? I presume her traffic offences are of this variety. Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony G. Adams

    Resolved
     – speedily deleted

    The noted article is little more than an advertisement for a product, and one of dubious value at that. Beyond his role in the questionable product the article's subject is of no significance. I was inclined to edit it into oblivion after reading it but decided the route at hand may be the best way to handle the matter. Epischedda (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Epischedda[reply]

    History of the Irish Guards

    User has created a section in this article entitled 'War Crimes' and stated as fact the charges against three soldiers, named by the user. In fact the charges against all three were dismissed and the evidence given in court was rejected as per BBC News. Given the heading and tone of the edits the user in question has stated rejected charges as fact and is thus libelous. (Diff) Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    kylie babbinton webuyanycar advert dave channel

    Resolved
     – mistaken identity Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Kylie Babbington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This is not Kylie Babbington appearing on this advert it is Carly Baker I think you should check this out before printing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 94.172.15.219 (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It was not the subject, a case of mistaken identity. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe Sulzer

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

    White Argentine

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

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

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

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

    Yitzchak Ginsburgh

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Just answered Nomoskedasticity at [[17]]m656 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I wrote there "Nomoskedasticity does not seem to understand that not everything that is published at a university automatically complies with all of the important Wikipedia restrictions. I have explained to Nomoskedasticity that the material is extremely libelous. Please note that it is not libelous just to Ginsburgh, but is defamatory to Judaism and the Jewish people as a whole. This type of irresponsible text is used by neo-Nazi-style fringe websites."m656 (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The Awareness Center and Its Executive Director

    Further information: [[:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 15#The Awareness Center|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 15 § The Awareness Center]], [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 18#Links to the The Awareness Center in articles on individuals accused of sexual abuse|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 18 § Links to the The Awareness Center in articles on individuals accused of sexual abuse]], and [[:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#The Awareness Center|Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45 § The Awareness Center]]

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

    I was invited here by a note on my user page. I've worked on the article over the years, although my description in the note on my page overstates my role.
    The article started out as hagiography. It's now more balanced. Please look through my edits over the last several years and you'll see the evolution. The executive director's WP page was blanked, and that was correct. The requests to blank this page have been rightly rejected. TAC is notable. Most of the reliable sources note criticisms of the Center and its executive director. The laudatory stuff is mostly found on TAC's own pages. TAC's pages are chock full of copyright violations. Reliable sources that speak well of TAC should be added, if they can be found. The executive director's inclusion among twenty contestants for a grant is not notable, unless it leads to more. Being one outta 20 in an obscure popularity contest is not notable. But if she wins, and it's in a reliable source, it belongs in the lede and the article.
    As a long-time observer and participant, I can comfortably say this page attracts kooks of every stripe. Generally, the help of experienced editors and the attention span of the kooks conspire to help create a slightly better page. Then it starts up again. Rinse. Lather. Repeat. There is an ongoing problem with SPA's on both sides of the debates, and a fair amount of editing by someone who doesn't always sign posts and whose user name is uncomfortably close to that of the executive director. David in DC (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, as regards the note on your talkpage .. the major contributor to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy poop. I had no idea. The article had stood for some time before I first came to it. I guess the edits pile up. I probably should have marked more of my edits as minor. Nonetheles, thanks for the correction.David in DC (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of the SPA's ... David is basically right about the history of the page. It looked like it was created by TAC and for years (as you can see in the talk archives) there were ongoing complaints about it being a hagiography (I think the word was "whitewash") of the organization. I have not seen a lot of "kooks" among those with a negative view of TAC, but there's no question David has stood in the middle and policed. Now that a verifiable source has finally printed what those who knew, already knew, the page has taken a more negative slant. This is also true because reliable sources have also become more and more critical as the real story came out. Anyways, David has been a good cop and it's no surprise he's one of the top contributors, erasing the stuff that Wikipedia shouldn't print (I didn't know you can't put a link to a youtube video unless the copyright is verified...). Oh, and by the way, it looks to me like Chaim B is a VPolin sock puppet. The complaints are exactly the same. SunAlsoRises (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - The issue as I see it is, if you create a balanced article containing balanced content about a living person they usually do not come alleging libel and long term repeatedly attempting to balance up content about themselves. A person is usually not all evil and imo some energy should be looked at the content the user is attempting to add to balance up her representation here at wikipedia and look to add some of it sourced to somewhere. If this can't be done and no not negative content can be found thwen thoughts should be considered as to the fact that she is being unfairly portrayed through the limited negative content that we have cited and included about her and through BLP consideration should be considered to the removal or rewriting of the content we do have to remove some of the negative weight. Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles Jaco

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

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

    Ralph Drollinger

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

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

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

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

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

    luba lesna

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 193.82.155.28 (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Charlie Crist

    Are rumours of homosexuality which have been denied by Crist properly in this article? [18] is the current paragraph, which is sourced to Salon.com and to local and national papers stating the denial. How strong should allegations or rumours of homosexuality be before they are placed in a BLP? Collect (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Louis Farrakhan

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

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


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

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

    Ned Yost biography

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

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

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

    Michael R. Gordon

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

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

    Marc Haynes

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

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

    Catherine_McQueen

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

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

    allen timpany

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

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

    Moises Salinas

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

    IP warned. Favonian (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mehrzad Marashi

    • article: Mehrzad Marashi

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

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

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

    Laura Callahan

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

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

    Trimmed a fair bit of content that was not actually about her and was coatracking on her BLP and edited the content a bit for undue negative weight. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen Gammell

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

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

    I've simply deleted this "information". I could find no evidence either. It is probably not a coincidence that it was added on Halloween [19]. Voceditenore (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As the death report and date sat in the article unreverted for nine days I have requested pending protection, this will require any future such vandalism to have to be reviewed and accepted before it is visible to the public. Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA posting accusations

    Two posts to date: [20], [21] Novangelis (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    robert swift pro -wrestling entertainer wrestler

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

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

    McCain birther

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

    additional comment also at the Wikipedia:Editor assistance

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

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

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

    The contention that McCain was born in the civilian hospital is contentious, and the source is poor to say the least. I have followed wikipedia policy and reverted your revert.Mystylplx (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - As I posted on the talk page to this article, at least three articles list a place where McCain was born: this article, John McCain, and Early life and military career of John McCain. The latter two say born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station. The first currently says Colón Hospital. It is complete foolishness to me that ONLY this article has an edit war going on, and that no effort has been made to go to the main John McCain article to actually talk about it. Get a discussion going on the main John McCain article and nail down the views and supporting references for each side, then put out an RFC on the topic and go from there. Until then, find how the page was before this edit-war started, lock it down and force people to talk. Ravensfire (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I responded to you on the talk page, I'm quite certain they have gone through all this many times in the main McCain article. Perhaps not with Britcom, but with other McCain birthers. This is not a new debate at all.Mystylplx (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A review of the cited sources seems to show that Mystylplx is right: the reliable sources agree with him, at least one of the sources offered for the born-in-Panama theory is truncated to leave out the text that actually supports the other side. Under WP:BLP, I think, it is very problematic to leave this article in a state that is not supported by reliable sources and that, in effect, calls McCain a liar. The text might say that although McCain, Congress, and the mainstream sources all say he was born in the Zone, a disputed claim has been made that McCain was born in the Republic; but the current wording--stating this as a fact--is unsupportable under WP:BLP. There has already been at least one recent discussion of this at Talk:John McCain#Birthplace as well as an older one at Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain#Birth certificate image. I don't think that another one is needed before this evident BLP violation is fixed.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Finally someone actually looked at what was happening.Mystylplx (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverted. As clearly explained, the "Panama" claim is based on poor sources, and moreover contradicts the main article for the subject, John McCain. This is clearly a BLP issue, and it should not be re-added at the Natural Born article as fact (it's there now as disputed claim) unless it is agreed at John McCain to have it there as fact. Rd232 talk 21:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    DAVID DAI JENKINS

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

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

    Are you talking about David Jenkins (rugby league), or David Jenkins (rugby)? Do you have any sources for this change? Also, TURN OFF YOUR CAPSLOCK! Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    These issues had already been raised at the AfD and dealt with there. Multiple respondents commented at the AfD that the article is appropriately sourced, neutral, notable, not a coatrack, not pov ([22] [23] [24]). -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's objectively true, then you should have no concern about uninvolved editors without off-wiki agendas taking a look. Wikipedia doesn't particularly care about consistency, but right now this AFD is being treated differently than very similar AFDs about similarly structured articles. THF (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The user that started this BLPN thread has a COI related to the other unrelated AFD he referenced himself, per his own self-disclosure, here diff link. -- Cirt (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And what does that personal attack on me have to do with the BLP accusation in this AFD, where I have no conflict of interest? Yes, the articles are apples and oranges: the libel lawsuit article that is about to be deleted actually has a legal opinion associated with it and doesn't repeat the alleged libelous statements, while this one involves a lawsuit that was withdrawn immediately and coatracks claims of incest and a completely unrelated controversy on a completely unrelated website. THF (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the nature of some forms of litigation, particularly libel, that it is equally informative and interesting when someone starts a case but withdraws it (with costs) as when someone fights and wins or loses. (I've already voted Keep by the way so I am not "fresh eyes").Fainites barleyscribs 22:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Filed cases with no Court opinion, if covered sufficiently in RSs, are notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I think THF may misundersand WP:POVFORK. He says "none of the material is in Werner Erhard". A POV fork occurs when the same content, more or less, is in two articles with different POVs. Instead, this might be considered a "content fork" which is perfectly acceptable. When an article is too long for all relevant content it can some material can be split off into a new article. That's routine.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been a lot of activity on the Marco Rubio regarding Rubio's religion. Until recently the article was locked but now that it is unlocked an unregistered user has been making constant edits. I have tried to police the article but the task has become daunting.

    This is the gist of the dispute. As the cited sources indicate, Marco Rubio identifies himself as Catholic. There is no dispute about that. However, a single news report remarked that he has attended an Evangelical Church for the past six years and that he has made donations to that church. As a result of this report many blogs have begun to question whether Rubio is actually Catholic.

    While I have made sure this ambiguity is noted in the article, I think the best and most accurate policy is to continue to label him as Catholic, since that is how he identifies himself. In addition there is a great deal of evidence calling him Catholic while there is only one line of a single article that suggests that he has attended a non-Catholic church.

    While I think in general, Wikipedia should not dispute someone's own religious identification, this should especially be true in this case where there is so little evidence to indicate that Rubio is "Southern Baptist", "Protestant" or a "non-practicing Catholic" as one unregistered user has continually edited.

    I recommend that the article be once again locked and if necessary the problem-editor be blocked from Wikipedia or at least this article. Thanks. 

    Lepanto (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=396242255"