Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

Artel Jarod Walker

This is a repeated problem. Person depicted in this photo is not Artel Jarod Walker. Please remove this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgreative (talk • contribs) 12:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what is going on with this article but it is a repeat problem and we appear to be unable to do anything to protect the living person and he seems to be of little note anyways as per the request I support deletion. I am not even sure iits a real person..anyone got any ideas about this person and article..? Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected this, pending investigation. Something strange is going on here. There seems to be a (deliberate or mistaken) confusion between this person and someone called "Artel Great". We need to sort this out. Right now, I'm not seeing any real sources of Walker, and I think we may want to delete this article as not-notable or not verifiable. I'm also concerned with this image File:Ajw2.JPG which may mis-identify and may need to be removed from commons. However, the uploader says they took it themselves, if that's the case it can't be a mistaken identity unless it is fraudulent. Strange.--Scott Mac 13:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same identification of Walker an "Great" is made at imdb.[1] So, is it right, or is imdb wrong too? Where is UncleG when we need him?--Scott Mac 13:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting Scott. I remember this coming up before, personally I think its some kind of scam but I can't work it out. I will ask the uploader to come and discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We've got "Artel Jarod Walker" "Artel Great" and "Artel Kayàru" being identified here. Are they the same person? Can we reliably source this?

Imdb identifies them [2]
Other sources do too the movie library.com but these are not that reliable and may be derivative of imdb.
Google come up with a bit, but all questionable [3]

Thoughts? I'm thinking we might cut the knot and take it to AFD as all being unverifiable - no sources available for anything. I'm still looking though.--Scott Mac 13:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he appears in small parts. I doubt he meets WP:NACTOR. Isn't that easier? It also explains the lack of sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artel Great = ARTEL Kayaru http://w11.mocovideo.jp/movie_detail.php?KEY=gpKSjAGky0s, the african person in this clip - and not the person in the pic we have . This is the twitter pic http://twitter.com/#!/artelgreat - the imbd pic look like a fake to me Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC) He was in this movie Dahmer_(film) - the credits appear to be under Artel Kayeru, I think that is the name the article should be under. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've prodded the article. Someone should probably alert imdb.--Scott Mac 13:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a prod-2 template.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the pictures a fake. We should get it deleted from here and commons. Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure as to note and the prod, he has been in a few things and there are links back to him, I think the current name is perhaps uncitable but under Artel Kayaru also known as Artel Great ... he might have note, and left under pending protection as is now.. Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have solid sources (I can't find any) then remove the prod, move the article to a new name, and fix it up. I can delete the redirect.--Scott Mac 14:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much in the way of reliable sources either, perhaps a film buff will, but I am not going to remove the prod with what I can see via simple google search' Off2riorob (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you found sources, how would he satisfy WP:NACTOR ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions")? His roles are not "significant".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but his roles are more significant than a playgirl that once took her top off for a picture and we have plenty of articles about them - but thats another issue. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other articles fail notability guidelines but aren't deleted doesn't support keeping this one. Perhaps you should nominate those other articles for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but the tittie girls have supporters that voted against policy claiming that through their consensus at the AFD that there was no consensus for the policy ...yada yada.. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines are not policy. They are merely a record of "what usually happens" at afd, which future debates can either be guided by or not as participants decide.--Scott Mac 14:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, excuse me - they are the guideline part of process. Wikipedia guidelines - long and the short is, if six users like tittie models and support at AFD, you will have a hard time overruling them. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, succinctly put, ain't Wikipedia grand?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

!Commons admin please read thread and review File:Ajw2.JPG.--Scott Mac 14:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated for deletion at commons as a hoax ..they are a bit sleepy at commons, feel free to add a comment also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ajw2.JPG - Off2riorob (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This all comes back around to User:Phrasia who originally introduced the fake photo of Artel Kayàru in to the now-deleted Artel Kayàru article. They fought incessantly to have the fake photo included and have been blocked for edit warring on BLPs. The user has been editing on and off again and may be testing the waters in order to return. See this "self portrait" on their talk page in comparison to the alleged Artel photo uploaded by commons account "CenterfoldSally". We're either dealing with a WP:COMPETENCE issue with the Phrasia account, or we're being trolled. Either way the account should be blocked for disruption and the introduction of repeated image hoaxes. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way to point to the deletion of the Kayaru article in the proposed deletion of the Walker article? Looks like it was deleted for the same reasons. Isn't there a mechanism for pointing to a previous deletion, even if the article name is different (same subject)?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a note could be added to the deletion notice. Clearly someone is having a laugh here, that user has a picture of himself on his user page User:Phrasia and that person is the same person that has been uploaded as the fake picure of the subject, the same pic was also added to imbd and user has on his user page - " I have been very bad in the wikipedia community for the past years, but I'm going to change my ways, have you know." - Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<ec> The Kayaru article was speedily deleted (twice), the link is here showing the dates, reason, and deleting admin. Looking at the Artel Jarod Walker article it is simply a recreation of the deleted Kayaru version, albeit with a new hoax picture. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a sock report on User:CenterfoldSally and User:Phrasia will two birds with one stone sort of thing. Seems to clearly be a connection. Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, I hate filing SPIs with the burning fire of a million suns. I was sort of hoping a passing admin would hear the quacking echoing off these BLP walls and just plonk the two accounts. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, perhaps one will, if not, I am also watching them as I see you already were Ponyo. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- This user just attempted to replace the picture (thanks for the pending protection Scott) User:Pleasantview - possible hat trick amigo of User:CenterfoldSally and User:Phrasia - Off2riorob (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but aside from the hoax picture...

Having or changing a stage name is a quite common practice in the entertainment industry. IMDB and other sites quite often share the various names and pseudonyms under which actors have received their various film and television screen credits.
The name "Artel Kayaru" is sourcable as having received an Independent Spirit Award nomination for 'Best Debut Performance' for his work in Dahmer,[4]...a role attributed on IMDB and other sites to the stage name "Artel Great"
The name "Artel Jarod Walker" is sourcable through The New York Times as having had a role in Save the Last Dance[5]... a role attributed on IMDB and other sites to the stage name "Artel Great"
The name "Artel Kayaru" is also sourcable through The New York Times as having had several more of the roles [6] attributed on IMDB and other sites to the stage name "Artel Great".
As stage names are common practice in the entertainment industry, all that is required it to source this inter-connection of names.
And I have been doing just that... addressing the inter-connection... in a sandbox. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the imdb, can you connect these people? If there's a hoax, the imdb cannot be relied on not to have been hoaxed.--Scott Mac 08:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, there are other databases that link the names, but none are as complete as the information on IMDB. FullMovieReview [7] lists Artel Great's films and his various on-screen credit attributions... Movieweb.com lists a few of Artel Great's films[8] and his various on-screen credit attributions... Movie Station lists a few of Artel Great's films[9] and shows his various on-screen credit attributions... Heck, even Amazon.com lists the selling of Dahmer[10] with Artel Great listed as one of the stars even though the on-screen credits of the film itself lists Artel Kayaru... and there are others, each doing what they do to inform their own readers in their own way. But as I cannot find some article in the Washington Post that explains why this individual decided to keep changing his credited screen name... or why ANY actor chooses to do so... all I can do is use logic and common sense. But AS there are SPAs intent on uploading improper images and/or adding information to the article without ading the sources, and as the currently protected verison has been made nigh impossible to work on, I do not expect it to survive an AFD... which is why I am working in a sandbox. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly if it is that hard to tie the various strings together in order to solidify notability, I'm not sure he should have an article here. Cobbling together a history of the various names shouldn't be necessary, and I'm especially concerned with relying heavily on IMDB as the hoax picture is sitting front and centre on the their Artel Great page; obviously the individual behind the Phrasia account has been mucking about there as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That SPAs and Socks have chosen to play fast and loose with images in relation to this individual, complicates the issue of name... and no article ever "needs" an image. But the issue of hoax images does not automatically equate to some grand conspiracy over data involving The New York Times, InBaseline, IMDB, and the numerous films and filmmakers, and verifiable records of on-screen credits. When the issue of names was brought into the discussion above, I began this sub-section to address just that single issue. I do agree though, that the issue is rendered moot.

I am convinced through the inter-relationship of screen names as verifiable in reliable sources, that "Artel Jarod Walker", "Artel Kayaru", and "Artel Great" are indeed stage names of the same person. Such practice, specially for industry newcomers still seeking their "place", is a common happenstance in the film industry. That said, and in my own accepting the three names represent the one actor, my reserach has found that no matter which name or combination of stage names one wishes to research, the individual's career falls a bit short of meeting WP:ENT, the lack of coverage under the various screen names fails WP:GNG, and his single nomination fails WP:ANYBIO's caveat toward a win or multiple nominations. I might expect and even encourage that when/if this changes, a properly asserted and sourced article might be considered for return in the future.... and would further hope that if/when it does, the SPAs and puppets will stay away. I have no disagreement at all that notability is currently lacking and the topic is not quite ready yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the three names are one individual, and you've done some great research to try to piece them together to present "the whole picture". In this specific case through it appears that even with the "whole picture", notability is still an issue. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Rackoff

The biography of Charles Rackoff, a living computer scientist, contravenes WP:BLP. Rackoff, a low-profile individual, is notable for his decorated career as a researcher in cryptography and computational complexity. Yet a substantial part of his biography is devoted to comments (allegedly made by email) of his Montreal Massacre Remembrances at U of T. This event is not notable and its inclusion in the biography is indiscriminate and unfairly skews the article away from Rackoff's notability. Further, the quality of the reference for this event (a CBC `news' article) should be questioned as it gives no author.

Edit wars consistently rage about this article; assistance is requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil post (talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a violation of BLP? The only reason it forms a "substantial part of his biography" is because his biography is so short in the first place. I see nothing wrong with the source, either. CBC News doesn't seem to show authors of their news articles - that doesn't make it unreliable. Why don't you take the issue to the Talk page if you think it's inappropriate? It's the only topic on the Talk page, and no one has responded to the editor who supposedly added it to the article. My main quibbles with the statement are the introduction to the quote, which is awkwardly worded, and the lack of contextual foundation as to what was going on, but to correct the second problem, even more space would have to be devoted to the controversy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can do without the quote, it seems to be getting undue weight in his life story. As Bbb23 says, to explain it correctly it would fill up more than 50% of his life story. Off2riorob (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have chopped it. A more detailed explanation is given at the talk page. Ray^Talk 16:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I interject one notion at this juncture? As a new Wikipedia editor trying to get a handle on the metadata of composing/editing bios, the following seems clear: the subject expressed views in email which became public, on which he then granted an interview and on which his employer, the university, commented. His views were that memorials for the 14 female victims of the Montreal Massacre were "an excuse to promote the feminist/extreme left-wing agenda". The story is well sourced and verifiable, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2000/12/07/massacre_email001207.html The main reasons given for its complete deletion from the bio seem to me to be Wikilawyering: he is Notable enough to be here but Not Notable Enough for any negative material to be appended, no matter how truthful and well sourced. I see only a difference of degree, not of kind, between his situation and that of Ward Churchill and Lawrence Summers, both of whose bios contain accounts of exactly the kind of foot-in-mouth moment which has now been deleted from Dr. Rackoff's. References to WP:NPF don't cut it, because both Churchill and Summers were notable for other things before usttering controversial statements, which just as justifiably could be cut from their bios on the grounds that Unfortunate Blurts are not what they were Notable for. Thought experiment: if you were thinking of inviting Dr. Rackoff to a panel on Women in Cryptography and looked up his Wikipedia bio, wouldn't his views be relevant? In fact, if you were considering inviting him to any kind of panel, wouldn;'t his statement be of interest? I think deletion of this kind oif material crosses the NPOV line; we are acting to protect the subject against the consequences of his actions, and that's not our job here. If it is, lets just call this by its right name and make a rule that we will not include Stuff The Subject Should Not Have Said. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, we aren't here to make sure that he suffers the consequences of his actions, either. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You see, that's a statement which sounds straightforward but has lots of fascinating subtext. I respectfully suggest (this is about ideas, not persons, nothing personal intended) that what NPOV really means is "Report verifiable, reliably sourced information about people already notable"--and let the chips fall where they may, regardless of an editor's personal beliefs, politics or preferences. The minute we withhold any well sourced information because, if we include it, there may be consequences for the individual, we have violated NPOV--are in fact doing what I indicated above, and protecting people. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now you are getting it Johnathan, BLP is about protecting living people from such additions as you want to add. A minor issue given undue weight in his life story with a possible detrimental effect on that living person. In such ten year old minor issues that when wikipedia becomes the primary vehicle for the propagation of that content we do have a duty of care to consider editorially that there is consideration to us not propagating it. I see you are also supporting adding the incest charges of the husband of a living person who has nothing to do with that .. please consider taking advice from experienced editors and consider taking a little time out to read some of our policies and guidelines, wikipedia is not the place you can add anything you want about anybody as long as you have a citation to some online article. As wikipedia editors we are required to edit conservatively and with consideration and care to the living people that we write about . Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off2Riorob: I am a newbie, you guys are more experienced, and I will probably shut up after this post. I feel more strongly about the Charles Rackoff situation than the other one you mention. I believe that we are making interpretations that are not supported by WP:NPF when we assert that accurate, nonlibellous, well sourced information about living people should be deleted to protect them. I interpret NPF to protect, not the subject, but Wikipedia and its contributors, against liability for libelous, unsourced allegations. Truth is an absolute defense to libel, and it is clear Rackoff made these statements and then defended them in a CBC interview. I find it near impossible to formulate any objective, rigorously logical rule that says its OK to discuss Ward Churchill's unfortunate statements, or Lawrence Summers', but not Rackoff's. I think we get into worlds of subjectivity when we try to distinguish them. But I also have no strong interest in Rackoff's bio, which is why I haven't attempted any edits--just trying to get a handle on the Way Things Work here. But I have to say that the consensus seems to be for bland, careful, "Who's Who" type entries--in which case I don't really understand the No Autobiography rule, as who would be a better caretaker of reputation than the subject himself? Anyway, I hear you loud and clear, and hope not to debate Charles Rackoff any more. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret it to protect our subjects first and the projects as a whole second and little old me third - I am not very worthy of protection and as I am here I also have the ability to protect myself by closely editing in a conservative manner and in an uninvolved manner and closely as possible erring on the side of caution in regards to all guidelines and policy. The days of coming to wikipedia to add negative content about people users don't like are history , this is the way of the wiki now. As I suggest to many new users, if you want edgy, close to the limit, investigative or titillating content you are in the wrong place, getting a blog is a better alternative if that is your position. The foundation goals are closer to education than titillation , I do understand that a lot of users live in a tabloid titillating world and want wikipedia to be the same but the foundations goals and ambitions are much higher than that, free CD's full of knowledge to the developing world, if you would like to be part of that ... Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Resetting indents, hope that is OK.) Charles Rackoff's comments in question were sent in his campus email to faculty and staff of the university. They were covered on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation web site as already mentioned. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2000/12/07/massacre_email001207.html Also in The Globe and Mail (165 year old Canadian newspaper with circulation of 307,330 national edition) Colin Freeze, "Klan Furor Mars Massacre Vigil", December 7, 2000. Rackoff was quoted by one of the legislators in a session of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do;jsessionid=c72d607830d85bc305417ae040bfb3efc4adab5c5f0f.e3eQbNaNa3eRe3aOaNyNaN0Pay1ynknvrkLOlQzNp65In0?locale=en&Parl=37&Sess=2&Date=2001-12-06 His remarks also received extensive coverage and commentary in student newspapers at Canadian universities, http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/pdfs/ubyssey/UBYSSEY_2001_01_23.pdf, http://mediumonline.ca/backissues/Archives/January8/default.html http://www.themanitoban.com/system/manit/issues/000/004/083/2Dec2009_final_screen_quality.pdf?1259651997 According to one of these accounts, the president of Rackoff's university issued a statement calling his words "repugnant" but defending his academic freedom (similar comments of university spokesperson quoted in CBC piece). Rackoff's statement was discussed in a law review article, "Civil Disobedience and Academic Freedom", by Leslie Green in the Osgood Hall Law Journal http://www.arts.yorku.ca/politics/ncanefe/docs/civil%20disobeidience%20and%20academic%20freedom%20by%20L_%20Green.pdf Ironically, Rackoff's email is quoted in the Wikipedia article on the Montreal Massacre, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre (must we now delete that too?) To sum up, Rackoff used his position as a professor to express an opinion in a widely disseminated email sent from his university account, defended his views in an interview with the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, and was criticized by his own employer. But its not a PUBLIC matter and should not appear in his neatly groomed Wikipedia biography. A radically wrong result, people. Yours in distress Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JonathanWallace,

If the proposal of removal of the CBC article were an attempt to white-wash the blemished career of an academic, then I agree fully that the suppression of these articles and this discussion would be wrong. It is now clear to me that the main reason this article (and event) deserves suppression from Rackoff's biography is that none of these sources, despite their appearance in prominent Canadian news outlets, are a balanced account, nor do they even contain enough facts to draw any conclusions.

Here are the only facts I can see. We have a quote from Rackoff in an email, the fact that this quote was distributed to the U of T campus, and that Rackoff did not retreat from his position in an interview.

All context of this email is missing. Did Rackoff really write to entire campus? Or did he communicate this statement to an individual by email, and this was eventually copied to the rest of the campus? Did Rackoff really have nothing to communicate in the interview other than a refusal to retreat from his position? Or was what he had to say so reasonable and airtight that any quote could only provoke sympathy for the professor?

The poverty of facts admits almost any explanation (and I feel the current suggestions are attempts to find controversy at the expense of a decorated academic). To call such accounts journalism is what is truly repugnant. Perpetuating this sensationalism does a disservice not only to Rackoff, but to free speech and, ultimately, democracy.

If Rackoff, completely unprovoked, spammed the campus with an email saying little more than `Feminism is the Klan!', this certainly would be an abuse of his position as professor and the University would be unconstrained by freedom of speech concerns in seeking his removal. Instead, we have some condemnations but little else (which to me suggests there was much internal turmoil over this event, further suggesting there is much more to the story than we are hearing).

The ultimate absurdity to me is that Rackoff's quote is expressing real sympathy for the victims, and frustration at the idea that these people are being forgotten when we are use this event as a political platform. Sure, this is expressed in a bombastic way, but that sentiment should be evident, especially in the context of the memorial. Other readings - such as Leslie Green's - are facile at best, and deliberate misinterpretations at worst.

In closing, all accounts of this very brief snapshot of Rackoff's life are very sketchy and to entertain them in a biography as short as Rackoff's cannot be considered fair or balanced by any stretch. This remains only a topic of discussion due to wikipedia, not because of continued notability. Removal of them from the biography is the right action and one that has now been taken. I hope we can consider this matter closed. --Emil post (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I answered user Emil post at greater length on the Charles Rackoff talk page. We seem to spend a lot of time here protecting subjects via the deletion of factual, reliably sourced information about them. When a proposed BLP standard of "do no harm" failed to gain consensus, someone contributed a useful well considered essay called "Avoiding Harm", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm, which states:

The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources).

I agree. I think the deletion of the Rackoff information was very wrong and a violation of NPOV. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some doubt seems to have been introduced as to whether Rackoff wrote to "an individual" or to, as the information inserted into the article alleged, "departmental colleagues" (which I rather assumed meant an allegation that he emailed his entire department, perhaps some dozens of staff and other professors). Is there RS (and I don't mean student rags) that specify the latter is the case? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on this topic seems to be happening mainly on the (discussion page of the) Charles Rackoff article; perhaps we can have discussion there for now.--Emil post (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Resolved

– The article has been completely overhauled, the reliable sources urged by both sides have been included, an editor received a 31-hour block to encourage civility following an ANI complaint, and the article seems stable now.

Over at Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a self-identified relative of Taleb, IbnAmioun (talk · contribs) has been editing the article extensively. The overall effect is to glorify Taleb.

Taleb is an author and hedge-fund manager. His track record as a hedge fund manager isn't that great (see Empirica Capital), and this has been established from reliable sources. His supporters try to play down and obfuscate his actual financial results. The article could use a few more neutral editors. A knowledge of finance helps here. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at the article talk page pointing to this BLPN discussion, and also overhauled the lead to bring it into conformity with WP:Lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That helped a bit. Thanks. The "three distinct careers" line is probably inappropriate; he's still running funds, so his careers aren't "distinct". His books are mostly about running money. His academic job is about financial risk management. Effectively, he's a trader who also writes books on financial subjects. (Many of the better financial managers have done that; Peter Lynch, who ran Fidelity Magellan, is probably the most notable.) So that part of the lede might be reworded a bit. Note that Talib is into heavy self-promotion[11][12]. So there's hype that needs to be toned down. --John Nagle (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the three careers aren't completely distinct, but it's not inaccurate enough that I would make a huge fuss about it. If you want to either delete the word "distinct" or insert something else instead (or maybe clarify with an adverb like "somewhat"), then you could try doing it directly, or bring it up at the article talk page. Maybe "overlapping" instead of "distinct"? Or "distinguishable" instead of "distinct"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some severe inaccuracies. 1) Ibn Amioun does not initiate posts, does not GLORIFY Nassim, just here to REMOVE edits that are inaccurate or matters that invade privacy, particularly when either undocumented or quoting detractors from such web sources as blogs without giving subsequent resolution (as accepted by Wiki). 2) Nagle (who has a record here of stating his dislike of Taleb) is intent on treating Taleb the way he wants to sees him "a finance guy who also writes books" which does not match the record or writes "heavy into self promotion" (a pure LIE) when Nassim rarely speaks to the media, and, having 4 million readers is bound to have admirers enthusiastic about his ideas. IbnAmioun (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quickest way to make dramas and confrontations go away at Wikipedia is to find some common ground and move on. This can be done without even assuming good faith, although AGF is preferred (I personally suspect that all parties in this dispute are behaving in good faith). Anyway, can we fix the word "distinct"? This is a small matter, but is the only specific article-content issue before us. Larger issues like WP:COI are important, but why bother if we can agree on a quick fix to the article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "distinct" is OK Anythingyouwant but I don't really care (and not involved) in these very minor points, rather the larger issues of harassment (and his intent of putting shoddy claims like "he blew up many funds"). As per his track record here Nagle will come back with something strange unless some drastic action is taken. IbnAmioun (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding harassment, if there is a user with whom you have arguments, see dispute resolution as the usual first step. It's always important to keep calm (I know from personal experience!). It makes it easier to identify the problem you are having if there are some specific diffs. I haven't closely examined the dispute, so I have no opinion about it, other than what I already said about AGF. Anyway, I hope John Nagle will now feel free to fix "distinct".Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix distinct. It is actually better, stylistically. Please keep Nagle away. IbnAmioun (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. Blocks and bans aren't my department. Try WP:DR, and certainly don't try to effectively block a user from an article yourself. Only admins can do that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<Undent>There's now a discussion at ANI.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the archived ANI discussion. The article has now been overhauled.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange et al.

Charges against Julian Assange

Could some editors more familiar with BLPs comment at Talk:Julian_Assange#Too much detail in sex crime reports? Up until now, it has been uncertain what he was accused of but now there are sources explaining. I'm not sure whether they should be included or not. (Any advice/help with the article in general is more than welcome). Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not WikiLeaks. We don't have to help leak all the titillating details. Just summarize and provide a link in the footnotes. See WP:Tabloid.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not WikiLeaks." NSS. I'm here to ask whether or not it is appropriate to include details in this article, that we probably wouldn't normally include in BLPs. I don't think WP:TABLOID is too relevant, since the sources are based on legal accusations. SmartSE (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding weight, and the accusations being extremely accusatory, unsupported by anyone, I would support keeping any accusations to an absolute minimum. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It currently violates WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. The negative material dominates and is the single largest sect of the entire article's present contents. It needs to be significantly trimmed down. -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a bit of a vomit pit. All cited of course, wiki seems to struggle to balance such issues in times of viral interest to its articles. I could write that massive section and include the actual specifics worth reporting in a single paragraph, involved and opinionated users seem to just add anything and they never stop to consider that through their additions creating a bloated section actually makes it less readable. Anyone fancy doing some work and getting reverted, dive in. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do so. -- Cirt (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<Undent>I don't mind being compared to Sherlock Holmes, thanks. :-) Assange is in jail in Britain, and his British lawyer says "the substance of the allegations [was] revealed to the press through unauthorized disclosures...." So there was leaking, and publishing all the leaked details would be more like something WikiLinks would do than we would do. Anyway, the section on this in the article is now very bloated, contrary to WP:Recentism if not WP:Tabloid.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure it can be trimmed, our policy on undue weight states that the article should be weighted relative to the amount of coverage. No one can deny that these charges make up the majority of secondary source coverage of Assange at this point. They should have a prominent role in his article, and to trim them too much gives undue weight to the rest of the article. Gigs (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had to remove the (dubiously sourced) alleged victim's names from the article (as inserted for the second time here), as a breach of WP:BLP. can people keep an eye on this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That has continued, with better sources, but it still doesn't seem right to include it. It's currently been removed but I've a feeling it will continue. SmartSE (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article seriously violates WP:BLP

The Julian Assange article and its talk page are serious violations of WP:BLP in my humble opinion. From everything I've read the charges against him are regarding condom use and that everything else was consensual according to the victim's lawyer. The article mentions the "R" word repeatedly and the talk page comments go even farther (which I won't repeat here).

I don't feel qualified to walk the fine line of WP:BLP on this article in order to fix it, but I do think somebody — preferably a BLP expert — should look in to this. - Hydroxonium (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this has been a failure of WP:RECENTISM from the start. The problem is that the article has troops of POV warriors adding as much positive and negative material as they can find. Any reasonable editing or attempts to reduce the section to something of more due weight and clarity is immediately pounced on by one side or other (often with various bits of abuse hurled as well). I quit editing the article because there is simply no way to stamp on the article properly till it dies down. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would feel much more comfortable if the article was changed from semi-protected to fully protected and only edited by admins for the next month, specifically because it is a serious WP:BLP issue in my opinion. - Hydroxonium (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You what?! Sorry, I totally agree that there it isn't fully BLP compliant, but suggesting it can only be edited by admins is a big mistake in my opinion. More eyes on the case should hopefully improve matters, but stopping most people editing it wouldn't help. Regarding RECENTISM, this is kind of inevitable, given the massive spike in interest in him. As far as I'm aware, all the details from older sources are already included. Errant, please have another go at editing the section, I'm sure that a better balance can be achieved, I for one would support attempts to do so. SmartSE (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; semi protection seems fine for now. There is still a lot of content to go in. Smartse; if we could get a group of neutral BLP editors together to rework and propose the section on the talk page I would be willing to help, but the accusations being thrown by the more extreme editors were getting annoying, so I went back to my usual stalking grounds --Errant ^(chat!) 11:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a classic example; I see the article still has the long, extremely partisan and dubiously sourced quote from Greenwald that mostly just attacks the motivations of a New York Times' article about Assange (without addressing any of the actual article content). But, you know, that's crucial information... --Errant ^(chat!) 11:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's been taken care of now. I'm not sure who you had problems with before, but the main contributor to the article before has recently gone on a wikibreak, if that makes any difference. SmartSE (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this relates to consensual sex, according to both Assange and the women involved, with friendly relations both before and after sex, and that the only thing that brings it within the purview of Swedish rape law is the question of condom use does need to be made absolutely clear. --JN466 16:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that the Swedish authorities may base the charges on the consent ending when the condom is removed, or breaks, or is not used, and the intercourse then continues over the female's objections. "Consent" is not an irrevocable license for the male to do whatever he p[leases over the other person's objections, and "Stop" means stop just as "No" means no, in many countries, not just Sweden. Edison (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RESOLVED - My issue with the article is resolved as it has been rewritten from a more nuetral point of view. Thanks very much for fixing the issues. I appreciate everybody's efforts. - Hydroxonium (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, thanks for everyone's help. SmartSE (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assange sex charges and trial

This has just been created from the BLP, suggestions, does it, should it warrant its own article? Seems a bit excessive imo. Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And further to that, given the clear linkage being drawn by many sources between these allegations and Assange's other activities, a separate article is going to make things difficult from a practical point of view.

Also, as far as I'm aware, Assange hasn't actually bee charged with any specific offence yet, and there certainly hasn't been a trial, so the article title is incorrect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems OTT to me. If it turns out to be a 'storm in a teacup', a separate article might be high on speculation, and low on significance. These matters may appear weighty now, but look very small fry in a couple of years time. I think it is way too premature to hive this article off the existing one. Plus AndyTheGrump (above) is quite correct about the title. Any trial (if it comes to that) could be months, even years away. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section has become very large on the Assange page. There has been significant discussion as to whether the backgrounds of the two women should be discussed. Two points around that issue have been, confidentiality of "victims" and "relevance." The second issue is resolved by having a stand alone page for the trials. It also seems reasonable from the stand point of formatting to have two pages. The issue sexual charges are only becoming more relevant as their own stand alone topic. If and when Assange is transferred to Sweden will add a significant amount of information to the subject. Possible future sections for a page devoted to the charges and trial would be:

Background of Mrs. A and W.

Possible political motives. Political backgrounds of the prosecutors.

Controversy regarding the definition of rape in Sweden.

These issues are quite significant and cannot be fully addressed within the article on Assange. Tim.thelion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

For a start, the 'Background of Mrs. A and W' is a dubious subject to include, given BLP policy on non-notable persons. Any comments on political motives will need proper sourcing - most of this speculation is going on blogs, and in other non WP-RS sources. I'm not sure there actually is a controversy regarding Swedish law. There seems to be a great deal of speculation based on third-hand report of the issue, but this isn't the same thing. Any article focusing on these issues runs the risk of becoming a POV-fork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are currently not naming miss A and miss W in any location, so that is not a good reason to move. He hasn't even clearly been charged yet, I think we need to avoid a complete article full of opinions and claims and so on. I suggest deletion as it will serve to further increase the size of content related to the issue when we have actually been trying to keep it slimmed down. Off2riorob (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. There is no trial. The fork is unjustified per WP:UNDUE, and since when did we have BLP with surname only?--Scott Mac 16:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support the redirect at this time. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Guettarda (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Major problems with the name of the article, as Andy The Grump has pointed out - there has been no trial and, apparently, no formal charges. Beyond that, it strikes me as excessive at this point in time. Creating a properly balanced article would require reproducing a large part of the Assange article and the cable leaks article. The article is also sure to turn into a nightmare - as Tim.thelion wrote There has been significant discussion as to whether the backgrounds of the two women should be discussed. For example, the complainants have been named, and it's very likely that someone will argue for the inclusion of their names in this daughter article. The main Assange article probably has enough people watching it that issues like this can be dealt with by editors who are conversant with policy. The pool of watchers of a daughter article is likely to be that much smaller. While concerns of that nature should not be arguments for keeping articles out of Wikipedia, they certainly are worth considering when creating daughter articles.

As it currently stands, the article is inappropriate (per its name, etc.) And in a more general context, I think a properly-titled daughter article would be premature and the curatorial problems it would create would probably outweigh the benefits. Maybe later. Guettarda (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still hold that we should have a sepperate article, and am somewhat surprised by the imediate negative responce to the idea. There ARE non blog sources about the subject. There is no shortage of legitimate reporting on the subject. While I agree that most of what has been said, even by supposedly legitimate news papers is simple speculation, there are also a lot of facts going around. I don't see why we should limit the depth of wikipedia. Off2riorob stated it will serve to further increase the size of content related to the issue when we have actually been trying to keep it slimmed down. To what purpose are we reducing the ammount of information availible on Wikipedia??? Tim.thelion (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC) PS. I concede in the issue of the name.[reply]

I think in the future there should probably be an article on it, but at this point almost all sources, even normally reputable newspapers, are based on speculation. There is very little unbiased information from original sources. With all the edit wars going on with anti-Assange and pro-Assange writers this article would probably turn in to a mess very soon. It's better to stick to the basic information that is known at this point, and wait with the fuller article until we have a better grasp about what is actually happening. 85.225.222.10 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I call WP:IGNORE for a little bit here? I have a good reason to want a separate article on the subject. I think that there is enough notable information to make that subheading take up 70 or 80% of the Assange page. Obviously that notable information cannot be added until the case has it’s own page to contain the extra formatting required.

I have a possible compromise for now. We leave the Assange page as it is, and edit in parallel a page on sex related charges against Julian Assange?

One more note. To get any issues of NPOV out of the way. I do NOT have NPOV with regards to wikileaks. I am a strong supporter of the project. HOWEVER, I DO have NPOV with regards to Assange. He is just a person. Wikileaks is an ideology. I am not trying to do this to remove sexual allegations from the Assange page... Tim.thelion (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that if you are a 'strong supporter' of WikiLeaks, you possibly aren't in the best position to write about Assange with the level of neutrality required. In any case, the issues you remarked on earlier as being 'significant' seem to me to be of dubious merit, regardless of where they are discussed. Perhaps you should make clear (without using the alleged victims names please), what it is you wish to see discussed in further detail? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that almost everyone who follows the subject of wikileaks closely is bound to have an oppinion. Admitting that I have one only serves to strengthen my ability to take that into account when writting NPOV... The section is currently not long enough to fully cover it's own contents. For example "A lawyer however accused Assange of having unprotected sex with a woman who was asleep" does not say "which lawyer." The current section doesn't say anything about the media responce to the charges. Which is interesting for the reasons of translation issues, AKA translating various swedish words to "rape." And also the media's "personality assasination" of one of the two women involved. Maybe even a note about supposed names of the women being circulated in the media despite victim confidenciality laws in the case of sex crimes. I also read here http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/6871-wikileaks-sex-charges-backfire.html that one of the woman has publicly stated things in Sweedish tabloids, though I'm not sure of the honesty of the source nor the tabloids in question(I can't read Sweedish and cannot confirm the link in the source.)

My most serious complaint here though. Is probably the lack of formatting in the section. It makes more sense to have an article on it, because the section "wants" to be expanded into a larger formatted document. Right now, it is a roughly chronological set of paragraphs, with an insuficiency of facts and quotes...

While this case is intimitly related to Assange, the amount of information availible about the case is greater than the information availible on Assange himself. I guess he's pretty secretive about his familly ect. It doesn't make sence NOT to cover relevant information on the case. But it also doesn't make sense to fill half the page on Assange with information on the sexual accusations against him.

I think this atleast furthers my own case for the "parallel editing." I believe that after a week of parallel editing the sexual accusations page would grow SIGNIFICANTLY, and it would then be clear to you all that it should have it's own page. Tim.thelion (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose this and similar forks, and even its inclusion in Wikipedia at all. If this material is growing too long on Assange's article, it should (must) be shortened there. Turning the Swedish women into fodder for speculation is best left to bloggers and tabloids. Abductive (reasoning) 11:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has argued that the current content is turning the Swedish women into fodder for speculation. The only argument I see here is that "in the future that page would become." It's an odd slippery slope argument, because we have yet to even see that trend. As it stands, the section is not too long, but rather, not long enough. The situation is very complicated. And the current content does not suffice to explain the situation properly. However, it is impossible, to even add one more paragraph to the current content, because it is too long for it's current location already. Tim.thelion (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the Assange article, and it is in dire need of editing down. All the legal mumbo-gumbo could be boiled down to what secondary sources say about the charges, not exhaustive primary descriptions. And all that quoting! A pure sign of lack of editorial oversight. Abductive (reasoning) 11:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my Wikipedia:Splitting resolution idea for resolving this issue. Tim.thelion (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think one needs to read the discussion page in its entirety to get a clear view. Have any criminal charges been laid against Assange yet? WP:BLP policy is being swarmed over in an "Anna Nicole Smith Custody Battle" kind of way. Ideally, the allegations should not be mentioned at all, just the fact that he's wanted for questioning about 2 one night stands. But if the allegations about the Subject are spewed out, then so should the allegations about the Accusers.

I'm saying that in order to be adhering to BLP amd NPOV policy in relation to the sex allegations we have 2 choices;

1. We go with what Tim suggests and bring in the "whole story" to include much more of the RS info about the Accusers(see Tim's edit in the "tagging" section) , or else
2. Trim it right down to 1 sentence:e.g. "In December, Assange was arrested, detained, and appeared in a British court in relation to allegations (about his sexual behaviour)made by two women,aged 26 and 31." I prefer the 1 sentence approach but Tim's suggestion is ok also; either way we would be much closer to reasonable NPOV/BLP compliance.

There is also,I think, an article control issue by a few Editors, especiallyOff2riorob. When there are so many experienced Editors editing, there is especially no positive effect of that. Last weekend Off2riorob and AndyTheGrump did not edit the BLP and there was not so much bickering. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd, and ad hominem comments about editors is simply not going to help... --Errant ^(chat!) 14:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing their edits, not their persons. Obviously there would be noWikipedia:Ownership of articles policy if it could never be brought up. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Someone delete it as "attack" page under BLP concerns. THis presupposes charges and a trial... neither of which has happened yet! --Errant ^(chat!)

Ok, this just didn't sit well with me at all. So I nominated the redirect for deletion. But if a friendly admin wants to speedy it that works for me too :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I don't like the fork approach either. But this deletion move is deflecting attention from what is actually being read in the BLP right now. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange - Names of the victims (include them or not?)

[13] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And on and on and on and on …

Kati Marton

Kati Marton's biography lists her year of birth as 1956, yet goes on to say "she started as a production assistant 1971 in her 20s...". If 1956 is the accurate year of Kati Marton's birth, by my math she was 15 years old in 1971, NOT in her 20's, as the biography claims! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebookchick (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, yes. The biography isn't exactly overrun with sources, so this might be difficult to figure out. I'll check the article history to check it hasn't been vandalised, but this may be a difficult one. Anyone else know more? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1956 date has a source. However, the infobox says 1949 (no source). I've since found two sources, one that says 1949 (only the year) and one that says April 3, 1947. See here and here, and I haven't finished looking.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"From 1971 until 1973, Marton was a reporter for National Public Radio in Washington". Here: perhaps not WP:RS, but it seems that the 1956 date is unlikely.

See Enemies of the People: My Family's Journey to America [14] by Marton herself. I can't seem to find her birth date (Amazon won't let me do another search), but she seems to have been born well before the Hungarian uprising of 1956. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that 1956 is wrong. Here is an article she herself wrote saying she was a "small child" in 1956. See here. The bigger problem is what is right. Another article says that she was 7 when her mother was jailed for a year. See here. Her mother was released in 1956, so that means Marton was born in the 1940s, probably even earlier than 1949. Still looking.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is building that she was born in the 1940s. A review of a book she wrote about her parents apparently says she was six in 1955. See here. My view is unless we find something definitive, we don't put in a birth date at all, but where the article says she was born in Hungary, we can cite to some of the better sources that indicate she was born before 1950.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one is correct... I've added it. Connormah (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've self-rv'd until we can reach further consensus. Connormah (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the April 3 date in another source, but the year was 1947 (see above). The problem is I don't understand how we can reach consensus on this issue. There's simply too much conflict in the published sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor added the birthdate of April 3, 1948 (that's a new wrinkle). They cited to "date & year of birth according to LCNAF CIP data". What exactly does that mean? I reverted it asking the editor to go to the Talk page and explain, but perhaps someone here knows more about CIP data than I do (which ain't much). From reading the Wikipedia article, an author's birth date doesn't look like the kind of data that would be below the copyright info of a book, and even if it were, who would have put it here? I certainly wouldn't trust Marton at this point to give her accurate birth date. And how did the editor access the information?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LCNAF is Library of Congress Name Authority Files. CIP data is "Cataloging in Publication".

Let's look for Kati Marton's "Authorized Heading":

1. Link here ~> http://authorities.loc.gov/
2. Link on "Search Authorities". It looks like this >>Search Authorities<<
3. Now you are here ~> http://authorities.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First
- a. Here you can conduct an Authority Headings Search
- b. In the "Search Text" box, be sure to type: Last name, First name and then press the "Begin Search" button. For example:
  - Marton, Kati
4. Look for the Authorized Heading button to press. This is in the left hand column.
5. Now you can Select a Link to View the Authority Record. In this case: Marton, Kati. Connect to the link on this name.
6. You now are on the page for Marton's authorized record, listed as LC Control Number: n 81137262
7. Listed with the CIP data is this. According to information Library of Congress first cataloged on Marton for these publications (in 1982 and 1994) the date and year of birth is 4/3/48:

Her A death in Jerusalem, 1994 b CIP t.p. (Kati Marton) data sheet (b. 4/3/48)

8. Of course, even this information could be incorrect or inaccurate. In fact, lucky if you get a birth date or year on many of these "Authority Record"(s).
- Library of Congress is reputable, so probably not incorrect to list this on Marton's wikipedia page. Christian Roess (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is one great list of instructions, thank you. However, the problem I have is with your last part, when you say that the date could be inaccurate. My question is who supplies the Library of Congress with the information. That seems to me to be key. If it's Marton herself, I'm not sure that's good enough. Normally, I would say the subject should know when she was born, but given the discrepancies in the other sources, I suspect that it's partly due to Marton herself.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying, and so the dispute will continue over her birth year and date ( & even if we hear from Marton herself!). If you look at the Cataloging in Publication data (read up on what this entails if you have a moment), this is established by the United States' own national library, the Library of Congress (LOC). If you go to the MARC (MAchine-Readable Cataloging) display listing for Kati Marton, one part of the authorized LOC Heading file for Kati Marton is derived from a publication called A race for life, c1982 and I haven't been able to track this publication down in various web searches.

Bottom-line is that the listing from the LOC is the U.S.A's National Library. The LOC is responsible for establishing the authorized bibliographic CIP data used by libraries in the U.S.. and they are "supposed" to get it right, otherwise this would play havoc with our archives nationwide. As I hinted at before, this may be incorrect if the publisher submits a copy of the publication to the LOC with incorrect information. I've used birthdates from LCNAF in other wikipedia articles and there have been a couple of instances when it has been wrong. But for the most part, it has been accepted by other wiki-editors (sorry, but there is an approved citation format when using CIP data for a reference, but I can't find it at this particular moment).

That being said, why not ? use the birthdate & year (4/3/1948) in the Marton article with a citation and reference to the LCNAF and the Contemporary Author's article (listing 1949) and include the results of the research done on this page, with a link to this discussion. ? If it is incorrect, eventually some future reader/editor (who may know Marton or is researching her biography) may have more reliable and credible information and will make the correction. That's my recommendation. We'll see what happens though... Christian Roess (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable using the Library as a source in this instance. First, it's not clear where the birth date came from or what, if anything, the Library did to confirm it. Saying they are somehow "responsible" for its accuracy isn't good enough. Second, there are too many conflicting sources, some of which would normally be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. So, it's the intersection of those two things that make me uncomfortable. If there were no controversy about her birth date, I would, of course, feel otherwise. Even though Wikipedia articles, of course, generally always want to include a birth date for the subject of the article, I don't see why it's indispensable.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I disagree Bbb23. But I'm going to let it go. It's not my call. That's why I like wikipedia so much. But I don't (outwardly) have a problem: let's leave this information out of the article for now and see what happens.

But privately, I've got a problem with not including some information about this birth-date inconsistency (and it's not the only inconsistency re; Marton's biography) in the Wikipedia article.

Now this is just my opinion (of course) but a responsible article on Marton would at the very least mention the continuing (the ongoing & attendant) confusion and questions that accompany a discussion of Marton's biography (not her life; it's her life: I'm talking about her biography---the public record of her life). And that biography should (tacitly) be shaped and formed by this consideration: the public and civic trust.

Why?

Marton was a public servant and there are mimimum standards we demand of our public servants and officials. More so regarding Marton: both as a journalist (a profession that should demand from us a mimimal standard of credibility) and the partner of a civil servant ( a government official, Holbooke, who just recently died) who is entrusted with our constitutional authority and law on foreign soil. Both of these facets of her biography demand nothing less than this from the public: integrity, truthfulness, and straightforwardness.

But questions remained then and remain now.

For example: a journalist and the partner of a high ranking public official/diplomat (again, now recently passed) is not forthcoming about the year she was born? There are other inconsistencies to her biography as well. There has to be a reason. Yes, she has written and spoken powerfully, movingly, and in-depth about her journalist parents and their terrifying plight in Hungary with the authorities. But as the poets reminds us, what reveals is really (or is also) what conceals. Christian Roess (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cooper (inmate)

An editor has recently expressed a concern that the article is unduly negative on the article talk page. After having a look at the article, I share this concern. From reading the article, I come away with the impression that Cooper is most likely guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. From reading about the case in the news (for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/opinion/09kristof.html?_r=3&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1291892411-wk/pMPw4PqQwTi5hQGOOxw), it seems that there is a strong chance Cooper is innocent. It would be much appreciated if someone could take a look at this article with a view to making it neutral and compliant with the BLP policy. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since he has been convicted, I'm not sure it is inappropriate that the article conveys the notion that he is guilty. I've read Kristof's column as well (and then removed a mass of unsourced negative stuff). I think the solution is to add material along the lines Kristof discusses -- though whether it will work to use Kristof as a source might be considered unacceptable by some. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the tone of the article should reflect the balance of reliable sources. If most reliable sources concur with Kristof, then the article needs some work. By the way, Nomoskedasticity, I don't see you've edited the article, so I think that your changes removing unsourced negative stuff were not saved. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are there, on 9 December -- the main one was this. Just to be clear -- I find Kristof convincing and will not be surprised or displeased to see this person acquitted (not to mention alive well into the future). But as things stand he is a convicted murderer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment everything against Cooper is well-sourced; the pro-innocence stuff less so. I don't see a current NPOV problem, but am open to additional changes. Given the existence of courts repeatedly finding against Cooper, all we can do is tell both sides of the story. THF (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor's objection to the article's neutrality was based on a dissent by Judge Fletcher to rehearing the case en banc. Fletcher's dissent is now in the article (don't know if it was before). In my view, it's given more prominence than it deserves in the lead, but so be it. There's nothing I can see that is non-neutral about the article, and I have removed the tag. Fletcher's dissent has little legal value. What matters legally is the district court's decision denying the writ was upheld by the panel, the Ninth Circuit refused to disturb the panel's decision, and the Supreme Court has denied cert. Unless there is some other objection to the neutrality of the article, there's no basis for the tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hashim Thaçi

More eyes need to help sort out multiple, credible (though as yet untried) allegations of criminal activity currently stated as straightforward fact of criminality.--Misarxist 10:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly sourced to the BBC. Here is a recent NY Times piece which reports the allegations re trafficking in the organs of Serb prisoners: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/world/europe/15briefs-Kosovo.html Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Generation

I have reverted two edits by a new user how has made biased and unsourced that violates the policy on BLP. The page name is Girls' Generation. I am allowed to make a third revert according to 3RR, but I shall consider informing the correct group of people. The statements are unsourced and falsely accuse (in an indirect way) the group of being awarded the prizes they shouldn't have received (in the editor's opinion). Please help. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 12:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly checked the current status of this article. It appears that CrystalFriend doesn't have much experience at Wikipedia, but s/he has now been given guidance by Wikipedia regulars (Off2riorob, Scott MacDonald, Active Banana, et cetera).Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri

More than 90% of the Article related to Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri was deleted without any notice. The persons who deleted asked for outside references, other than Shaikh's Websites.

I provided 4 scan copies of letters Shaikh Deedat ( a very reputable Islamic Scholar) wrote about the works of Shaikh, praising and appreciating his books and works.

In addition, I provided about 19 references from various sources of Registered Islamic Institutions and their Websites.

I provided authentic information that the Shaikh is the Head of "Correct Islamic Faith International Association" (CIFIA) a joint effort of 330 Islamic Institutions and literally all Sunni Scholars of the world.

They are demanding that I should provide newspaper publications or third party books.

In the presence of the above references, their demands are unreasonable. Therefore, I request your intervention to restore Shaikh's Article as soon as possible. Thank you for your assistance.

115.184.12.173 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)--115.184.12.173 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I agree with the other editors who have commented on the talkpage of the article, 115.184.12.173. It is important that we have a policy of requiring third-party reliable sources in order to provide biographic details about people. This is because we need to ensure that they really are notable enough to have an article. We can only be sure of this if they have been mentioned in books, newspapers, TV etc. If Mir Asedullah Quadri hasn't, then there is no reason for him to be mentioned in Wikipedia. If he has, then someone needs to demonstrate this by providing the sources. The other reason for requiring such sources is that Mir Asedullah Quadri is clearly alive and we need to be reasonably sure that everything we write about him is true so we are not misrepresenting or libelling him and so that we are not just reporting his own spin. It's our view that we can't be reasonably sure about this on the basis of blogs, forums, facebook pages or websites connected to the subject of the article (incidentally, I noticed that three people "like" Mir Asedullah Quadri on Facebook, which doesn't seem a very high number). --FormerIP (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- This is getting repetitive, this is the third section opening on this page - Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- previous thread from 3days ago - opened by User:Guide99

- and another similar timeframe same people are vandalizing my article claims - also opened by User:Guide99

Guide99 is currently indef blocked, so the excitement is likely to be over. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Etheridge

This statement seems rather flimsily supported for my tastes. The ~~article~~ source asserts this happened in an aside but provides no verifiable details such as names or dates. Given the scarcity of details, I also have concerns about WP:UNDUE. User:Cresix is willing to edit war over it so I figured it's worth getting a second opinion. Is the sourcing adequate or should we look for something better to support this (contentious?) allegation. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the other side of this issue. First let me say that I will accept any clear consensus on this matter. I also thank Ronnotel for bringing this issue to this discussion rather than following a pattern in the history of the article in which this information was repeatedly reverted because one or two editors didn't like what the source said. But let me also call Ronnotel out for his false accusation that I am willing to edit war. I have never edit warred on this matter, and I have never threatened to edit war. I have simply said that I would take this to a higher level of review if necessary (just as Ronnotel did here), not that I would edit war. Look at the edit history of the article over the past few months, including Ronnotel's edits. I consider that a personal attack in the absence of any evidence of edit warring or threatening to edit war. And I challenge Ronnotel to give the diffs in which I have indicated that I would edit war, and if he can't do so to remove that false accusation per WP:NPA. That being said, I think information from a source as reliable as the New York Times should be accepted as accurate unless contradictory information from another reliable source is provided, or unless the credibility of the New York Times writer can be reasonably brought into question. If not, I think we create a problem that every statement in every article that is sourced by the NYT (or a source with similar reputation) can be challenged because one or two editors think it might not be true. I would never do this, of course, but it would be easy to go on a rampage removing everything I disagree with that is sourced by the NYT. I'm simply asking for the evidence for what Ronnotel is claiming: that the information in the NYT has questionable reliability. So far the only evidence I've seen is the "tastes" of Ronnotel and another editor. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:Cresix's request, I found four "full revert"'s by this user on this issue over the period of a month: 1, 2, 3, 4, as well as one other instance (1), which can probably be excused as removal of contentious material from a BLP. Is that edit warring? No full reverts would be better. Ronnotel (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnotel, the second link you provide above is not a full revert; it did not make a substantive change to the content, only adding a mention of the source (which you and I later agreed to remove). And you're right, the last link you provide was a BLP removal not even in the section in question. Now here are your two full reverts during the same time period: [15] [16], as well as one partial revert: [17]. No edit warring by either of us, especially since 3RR is for a 24 hour period, not a month (and I am aware that 3RR vio is not necessary to edit war, a caveat that applies to you as well). Now, I truly would appreciate an apology (or at least striking your comment above) for your false accusation that "Cresix is willing to edit war". Either way, however, I hope we can move on past the personal conflicts and wait for further discussion here. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I'm defining a 'full revert' as a complete undo of the immediately preceding edit - i.e. edit warring. I don't believe I made any full revert per this definition. And yes, the second diff I provided above is indeed a full revert of the immediately preceding edit. I'm sorry if you are taking any of this personally - it certainly isn't intended that way and I don't perceive this as a "personal conflict". Any, btw, I find it odd that you are ~~demanding~~politely asking for an apology after you started this thread on my talk page, which was followed by your direct threat (or was it a promise?) to stalk me and then bring me up on charges before WP:ANI. Ronnotel (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, I have not "demanded" an apology; you are yet again making a false accusation. I asked for an apology, telling you that I would appreciate it; there's a big difference. Now, regardless of how you define reverts, you have made just about as many reverts that substantively changed the information in question as I have; and that's the point I'm trying to make subsequent to your accusation of edit warring. But I don't care to quibble about the percentage of a revert that took place. I am simply defending myself against your false accusation. As for taking things personally, I almost never do that. I tend to operate by principle, and I don't like to see any editor, myself included, falsely accused. But as I have said repeatedly, I hope we can put these other issues aside and see what others have to say about the content of the article. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claus Zundel

Article name: Claus Zundel. This violates because the content was copied word for word from the website http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Claus_Zundel. This is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex jazz butterworth (talk • contribs) 00:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the article you've linked it reads "The original article is from Wikipedia". Worldlingo.com appears to be a mirror site. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! There seems to be a more general problem here. Searching for worldlingo.com shows it as being used an a 'reference' in multiple articles, creating a self-referential loop... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed all the worldlingo.com links in the articles. Should the url be blacklisted?--Misarxist 10:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sioufi

Written by Starlight Photography, which is him. Also has no relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstrofbass (talk • contribs) 01:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like advertising to me. Several of the references are dead links. The few that work don't say much to make him notable. A Google News archival search comes up with no hits. A Google web search comes up with little of any interest, albeit many hits. He seems to advertise all over the place - uh, including here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been proposed for deletion. Personally, I think it's G11'able. – ukexpat (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter T. King

Peter T. King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article seemed to go way overboard on criticism, in several cases completely unsourced criticsm or that wilfully misrepresented sources. I've raised the main issues here, however based on edits such as this the IP editor responsible for a large amount of the problems doesn't seem to understand how we write about living people and will edit war to maintain their edits, so more eyes on this article would be welcome. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look, and it appears the worst has been addressed for now. I'll maintain it on the watchlist. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. More eyes on this would welcome too though, since there's now an attempt by a registered editor to manufacture a "controversy" seemingly based on their own opinion that something is controversial, not that reliable sources think is controversial. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Ziegler

Resolved

– The article's been overhauled and now appears more NPOV.

Is this biography unbalanced in its inclusion of long critical sections sourced mainly to UN Watch? What about the mention of Ziegler, referenced to the same source, in Israel, Palestine and the United Nations? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely needs work. The NPOV tag has been at the top for more than a year. Also, the Controversies section is huge, and some of its subsections should be moved out (e.g. the subsection on North Korea). That said, UN Watch is only in one footnote, which doesn't seem excessive. I put a note at the article talk page pointing to this BLPN discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has now properly moved UN Watch out of the lead. The long critical sections are still there, but now the headings are less sensational (e.g. that other editor properly changed "controversies" to "issues"). If people have objections to the long critical sections, then they need to explain concisely what those objections are (e.g. our article goes beyond the cited sources and/or our article excludes certain sources that are more favorable to Ziegler).Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I overhauled the article, and removed the POV tag at the top.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Littlejohn

There is an ongoing dispute on this article. A user keeps trying to insert a 'Criminal Record' section. However the information is not properly sourced but they keep reverting it. The 'source' they are trying to use is a Book Review, a very opinionated review also which does not support the claims they are making in the article. I have tried explaining this but they insist the 'source' is reliable. I would be grateful for your intervention. Christian1985 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section, as sourced, does not belong in the article. For what it's worth, I have added a comment to the Littlejohn Talk page. Be careful about too many reversions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help, your comment basically states exactly what I have been trying to point out. Christian1985 (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might help to have an editor not involved in the dispute add his two cents. I would try to keep the rhetoric (left-wing, etc.) out of the discussion unless it's absolultely relevant. In this case, I don't think any "bias" on the part of The Observer is relevant to the BLP issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The political positions of anyone have nothing to do with whether the claim as put in the article is 1. properly sourced as a factual claim to an article, and 2. whether the contentious claim requires a superior source to an opinion piece. BLPs must be conservatively written, per WP policy. Collect (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is really ugly, but probably that can't be helped considering how controversial the person is. Wolfview (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new problem has cropped up in this article. One editor wants to add a section called "Praise from Nick Griffin" with the following sentence: "Littlejohn was described by Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, as his favourite journalist." Other editors think the section and the sentence don't belong in the article for different reasons. My reason for opposing it is that it's trivial and doesn't belong at all, let alone in its own section. I would say that the majority of editors who have commented agree it doesn't belong, but you can read the Talk page and decide that one for yourselves.

Several of us have tried to keep it out, but it's become too close to an edit war for my comfort. In the latest "reversion", an editor (EelJuice) who has not even contributed to the discussion put the section back in. I'm not sure what he's up to, but his history alone is weird as he hasn't been oon Wikipedia in years, and the first thing he does upon his return is to revert another editor's removal of the material with the following truly bizarre edit summary: "In philosophy, you have to reckon with the implicit level of an accumulated reserve, and thus with a very great number of relays, with the shared responsibility. Clothes off, face down, ass up, c'mon". I reverted EelJice and pointed him to the Talk page and to WP:EDSUM. He then reverted my reversion labeling it vandalism. And that's where it stands at present.

Some help would be appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Kyle

Resolved

– deleted by User:FisherQueen. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well written, and in a neutral tone. However, after some biographical facts, and some recounting of this person's accomplishments, there are one or two statements pertaining to some legal issues reported in the press [18]. This person's legal status has not been deteremined by a court of law. In other words, there is no final judgement from a court of law. Finally, the number of references concerning this one set of legal issues signifigantly outnumbers references related to other facts. Hence, I have to at least be concerned that the focus of this article, is this person's legal situation, and not his biography. In addition, I am removing the material pending the outcome of this discussion. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair enough considering the situation. Thirteen citations added to support that single sentence was totally excessive, lots of them were of low quality and just repeating the same report. Moving forward it doesn't look good, he isn't very notable and this situation is going to swamp the article. He seems to be a small time professor thats written a small time book, first off, we need to look at his notability prior to these awful allegations and say, is he actually notable? Off2riorob (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted material, sourced to ABC news and other mainstream sources, complies with WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, etc. Any searches here are probably driven at this point by the news reports of his arrest. He's become much more notable for that than his academic career (the first three pages of a Google search are all articles about the criminal charges). I would suggest either deleting his bio as non-notable, or re-adding one careful NPOV sentence about the arrest at the end. Or creating a BLP:Disturbing standard which clarifies that we will not add any distressing or shocking information about living people, despite the fact it is accurate and reliably sourced. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jonathanwallace. The article violates NPOV by omitting the well-sourced information. If the argument is that the BLP risk of vandalism is too high given the subject's notability then either protect the article after adding a neutral sentence, or delete it. THF (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per my 14:00 remark, I've cited to one San Francisco Chronicle story with bare-bones facts, and double-checked its accuracy by checking dockets to confirm that the charges are still pending. The article was created just this week, so I've PROD'd it per BLP1E, and will nominate for AFD if the PROD is rejected. THF (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP 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.

Based on this, I see no need to explicilitly report this in Kyle's biography. Also, since there has been no conviction by a court of law I don't see this as anything more than a widely covered news report. It is the same news report, repeated over and over. From that view, it might even be considered trivial (not-notable). Printing a single news report, in a Wikipedia article of an individual, who may not even be notable, does not make sense to me.

So, I have removed the material again, because it is in dispute as stated above. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this person is determined to be notable, then a bare bones statement pertaining to this material might be OK. But, (imho) let's determine notabilty of this person first. ---- Steve Quinn (talk)

Speedy delete it, then. It's a ridiculous violation of NPOV to omit the item for which the bio is most notable. The San Francisco Chronicle and the Associated Press are not tabloids, and titillating details, such as the age of the victim and the relationship with the co-defendant, were already omitted to make it as bland as possible. THF (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed we should delete. Also suggest the creation of a BLP:Niceness standard (as in "information must be verifiable, reliably sourced, properly weighted and nice") . And sincerely hope nobody EVER uses Wikipedia to check on someone they are thinking of dating or of inviting into their home. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over all of the "references" for the rest of the article, and only one was an actual reference. The rest were just gratuitous external links to the websites of organizations mentioned. Yworo (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just found an interesting essay here entitled "Avoiding Harm", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm It states that "Do no harm" was considered, and rejected as a BLP standard.

"This principle was ultimately rejected: while avoiding harm remains an important consideration within our living persons policy, doing no harm has been found to be incompatible with our obligation to maintain a neutral point of view when writing about all subjects, including living people.

It is interesting to note that several recent outcomes on this noticeboard, including this one and Charles Rackoff, very clearly utilize a "do no harm" standard as if it had been adopted by consensus. The essay has a good analysis of the deletion issue, discussing whether a person is notable if only known for one event. Assuming that the person otherwise passes the notability standard:

In circumstances where a person has been charged with a crime, it is acceptable for Wikipedia to give details of the ongoing investigation and/or trial, but speculation must be avoided.

The ssayist says the following about NPOV:

The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources).

I have no problem with the deletion of Kyle's bio. If the bio remains here, the information about his arrest should absolutely be included, in a carefully phrased sentence at the bottom, linking to a source such as ABC News. To maintain the bio of a living individual reviewing academic accomplishments, while avoiding any mention of an arrest and pending criminal charges, is a clear NPOV violation. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the research undertaken by Johnathan, however I quoted the BLP page verbatum, I didn't make up the regard for causing harm. It is in the policy page of the BLP. It says, ..."and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." So somehow this has become policy - and on Wikipedia that is usually accomplished through consensus. In this case, it turns out that WP:NPOV is counterweighted with WP:BLP. Even if there was lack of consensus for "doing no harm, "causing harm" is to be taken into consideration. And taking that into consideration appears sensible to me. Anyway, based on the lack of sources that were uncovered by Yworo deleting this article is also an appropriate action. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve: The question is whether and when WP:BLP requires the deletion of accurate, reliably sourced information about a living person. We have debated that issue in at least four different cases on this noticeboard in the past ten days or so. Some of the others were more sympathetic situations, such as another professor whose spouse was arrested. Dr. Kyle presents the starkest situation possible: is it ever appropriate not to mention the reliably sourced arrest of, and criminal charges against, a subject. Though I think deleting the bio as non-notable was fine, deleting the fact of criminal charges against an otherwise notable individual is NOT "Neutral Point of View". Also, I cannot begin to fathom how we are harming someone by mentioning an arrest which was extensively covered in mainstream media. The reason I keep popping up and tiresomely arguing this issue here is because I believe there is a widespread misinterpretation of BLP standards here which is interfering with NPOV and Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission, and which I am hoping at some point can be corrected. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kia Abdullah

Possibly defamatory/libellous content added here has already been reverted by another IP but may need actually removing - could someone please have a look? Also, I have not warned the user who added it as I'm not sure which warning/level combination is appropriate for this kind of spite: can you please either do so, or advise here? Thanks in advance, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll warn the IP, although others may feel a stronger sanction is necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that and I've noted which template it was. Do you think the offending material should actually be removed, or is it OK to leave it in the edit history? I must say that if it was about me I would be wishing for it to be permanently removed ... and I wonder what her solicitor would say?! Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - the potentially defamatory content has been up for almost 24h now. I'm wondering what to do next if I can't get an answer here. Is it an over-reaction to take it to ANI, simply on the grounds that things seem to get faster responses there? DBaK (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For future reference: CAT:RFRD. I've removed the offending content. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aha! Brilliant - thanks very much, both for the action and for the very useful category! Now I know. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for immediate oversight requests there is Special:EmailUser/Oversight. – ukexpat (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lerner

Somebody is very motivated to add 2 minor incidents to this bio, describing them to make them sound bad for the subject -- now the third sock in a row is at work on it .. socks reported at SPI but as fast as one gets blocked a new one pops up to editwar. Protect the bio? betsythedevine (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 3 months. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy, looking at the discussion page, the subject had some difficulty relating to the fraud of a research assistant or partner and entered into a settlement under which her use of such partners will be monitored. These incidents relate directly to the academic and research status for which she is notable. So long as the sources comply with WP:RS, inclusion of the information in a careful, brief sentence at the end of the article will not offend WP:WEIGHT. Leaving it out entirely, IMHO, is not NPOV:

The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm

Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this. I don't think the prior edit met these criteria, but I would have no problem with one that meets the stipulations you mentioned above. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the two incidents were unrelated to each other. In the first one, an advanced grad student at CMU falsified data, got caught falsifying data, confessed falsifying data ... and as a result papers the student wrote with Lerner based on said data had to be withdrawn. The second had nothing to do with Lerner's research or supervising students. Lerner was reviewing grant proposals for the NSF and sought help because of her disability. Somebody, probably the same person who is now trying to add this to the bio, reported this to the NSF as a violation of confidentiality requirements. The closing report, of which Humbert1 was apparently given his/her own copy, although s/he has blacked out the name on the version s/he uploaded to Commons, made it clear that Lerner's "sin" was that she should have asked NSF permission before getting help with the reading, permission which presumably would be granted. Neither incident was significant enough to attract any "views" from WP:RS, which makes their inclusion in WP:BLP even more dubious.betsythedevine (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive redirects

A few months ago I looked at the redirects to Gordon Brown and found several slightly offensive redirects. eg "Great ditherer" redirected to Brown's page. When I reported it, this was quickly fixed by somebody deleting the offensive pages. Recently, I checked the redirects to David Cameron and found that "Bumsex" was a redirect to that page. Again this has been fixed (by re-redirecting "Bumsex" to a more appropriate target page). However, the fact that I have found this kind of vandalism twice, suggests it is a more general problem and thought I should bring it to the attention of the community. Bluewave (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing is sometimes the product of incompletely cleared up move vandalism - non-admins can revert the move but often forget to put a speedy tag on the redirect. It should be noted that some popular nicknames can be properly redirected to the politician as an aid to readers, even though offensive (eg 'Tony Bliar' redirects to Tony Blair). Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of them are justified. I think that Big clunking fist redirects to Gordon Brown and is probably acceptable. However the redirection of Bumsex to David Cameron is a clear piece of vandalism. I'm not sure if there is an identifiable group of people doing this, and they can be stopped, or whether it's just the kind of thing that we need to be vigilant about as a community. One problem is that anyone can create a new page with an offensive title and redirect it to a biography of their choice. However, detecting the vandalism requires a certain amount of effort, and removing the offending page requires admin privileges. So it seems this is one area where the processes are stacked in favour of the vandal. Bluewave (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's unfortunately right. The pages you're talking about probably have far too many redirects for them to be checked through very easily. As far as "bumsex" goes, I reckon David Cameron would probably be willing to turn the other cheek and take it like a man. --FormerIP (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read much here that makes me smile, but that did! Thanks FormerIP! Bluewave (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the issue of popular nicknames, I assume that the guiding principle should be that BLP considerations apply equally to the redirect as they do to the main article. So, if a nickname would be a violation within the article, it is equally so as a redirect. Do others agree with this? (And I'm not really sure how this applies to nicknames like Fighting Foetus.) Bluewave (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found Couch jumping and One Take Watson?--Scott Mac 21:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects do not have to be neutral, per WP:RNEUTRAL, but they should be genuinely useful and serve an encyclopedic purpose. That's not the case in any of the examples given here. --JN466 21:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two more of doubtful encyclopedic purpose: Doris Karloff (a tabloidish reference to the scariness of Ann Widdecombe) and Cleggover (a nickname coined, I think, by the Sun "newspaper", referring to a deputy Prime Minister's alleged history of "getting his leg over" with rather a lot of ladies). Bluewave (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please nominate/speedy all of these for deletion. They're just there so some schoolboy can say, "Look, when you enter this in Wikipedia, you get to ..." It's very funny I'm sure, but not what we're here for. --JN466 22:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Tatchell

Beau Tatchell is a piece of juvenilia which is marked for speedy but has been tagged with a hang-on tag which has presumably delayed its deletion. However, it is clear the article is about a 17year old school boy from Abbs Cross School. As this is about a minor I believe it should be deleted with all possible haste. Thanks Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I don't see a need for rush, otoh this says no good article can be written here.--Scott Mac 14:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Corbett

The Tom Corbett "whistleblower" is back. I've been fighting this one for a while, they are very persistent.

Recent Diffs: [19] [20].
Pennsylvania Attorney General and Tom Corbett are his targets.
They try to insert a paragraph of previously unpublished information about the AG giving breaks to corporations.
When blocked last time, they explained their position and motivation User talk:174.60.159.180... but they seem to not accept our BLP policy that we can't accept their previously unpublished allegations. Gigs (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Pandya

This appears to be a vanity article for a figure of limited notability -subject has never won a public election or featured significantly in his field.

Problems with NPOV - style and content indicate promotional publicity and some claims lack Verifiability.

Probable COI arising from self-editorship given trivial nature of some clauses - look at edits for MaddoxFordNabokov27. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeppelin75 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Dewey Bunnell page be restored?

There used to be a wikipedia article for Dewey Bunnell. But no more. It's now a redirect page. Dewey Bunnell is an original member of the iconic music group America, who both wrote and sang the lead on such Number #1 (Billboard magazine) hits as A Horse With No Name or top 5 hits such as Ventura Highway. He's still with the group. The other two original members of the group have a Wikipedia article. But not Bunnell.

To summarize

There was a wikipedia article on Dewey Bunnell, but it was changed to a REDIRECT page to America (band) by TenPoundHammer. See the page history here.
On November 01, 2010 TenPoundHammer proposed the article for deletion in accordance with WP:PROD with the rationale, "No notability outside the band". But rather than waiting for the seven-day period to expire, on November 05, 2010 this User replaced the content with the REDIRECT.
Surely, this action is not in accordance with the fair practice standards on Wikipedia? This same USER is trying to delete other articles too, which is questionable. Can we make an appeal to this User?
Yes, I've already brought this issue up on the talk page on November 27, 2010. I only received one response, so there isn't any real concern out there re: the deletion. If it's ok here, I'm going to restore the article after a cooling-off period. Christian Roess (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it last existed as an article clearly fails the requirement of showing significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Without sourcing to meet WP:N, it is a perfectly legitimate article to Propose for Deletion. It is also perfectly legitimate for the proposer to change xer mind and think that someone might put "Dewey Bunnell" into the Wikipedia search and that the best thing for that reader would be to directed to the content in Wikipedia related to Bunnell, the article about his work in the band. So Yes, I support TenPoundHammer's actions. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have is that the article was proposed for deletion and without waiting the seven days (that's the rule), it was turned into a REDIRECT page. That's called gaming the system. See: Wikipedia:Gaming the system:

Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden.

Now of course your point is well taken, Active Banana, about what needs to be done to the Dewey Bunnell article to legitimize its inclusion as a stand-alone article according to standards, but surely you don't support the trickery, the "gaming the system" that occurred? Christian Roess (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be "deleted" - ie completely removed from the system / made into a red wikipedia link - before 7 days have passed. It has not been deleted AT ALL, simply turned into a redirect as per one of the recommendations for "article topics" that do not do not meet the WP:N standard. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And while we are on the topic of "rules", you may wish to look at WP:WIKILAWYER. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Touché--- Christian Roess (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it says in the "deletion tag":

If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so.

I just don't find in that list anything about REDIRECT as a solution. That's not "renaming" or "merging". Again, that's avoiding the spirit of communal consensus. But you solved the problem. The article on Dewey Bunnell needs to be rewritten to meet significant coverage in third party sources. TenPoundHammer was out of line with "spirit" of the rules. By the way, consensus sometimes makes me gag. I would rather be right. Christian Roess (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Green

Can editors with some grasp of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP please keep an eye on Philip Green so it doesn't get taken over by UK Uncut activists? The current lead in particular is a joke. Fences&Windows 21:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, F&W, this doesn't look like a straight-forward one. Does he own companies or doesn't he? I have no idea, but it wouldn't be NPOV to shy away the facts of the matter. --FormerIP (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy over his tax position is covered in the article. The WP:LEAD should be a summary, the singular fact in the lead isn't in the body of the article from what I can see. It should be reduced to "Philip Green is a British businessman" until a reasonable lead can be written, unless there's a suitable one in the history. January ^(talk) 23:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, it's in the Amber Day section but still no obvious reason why it's considered significant enough on its own to warrant inclusion in the lead. January ^(talk) 23:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definite NPOV problems ("buccaneering forays"). Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leuren Moret

The article as written is fiction. Does everyone who spreads lies on the internet merit a Wikipedia page? If anyone wants to write me, [redacted] - I welcome vigorous discussion on Moret and the other con artists who make their living travelling around the world lying about themselves and depleted uranium. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be used to advertise them

I have attempted to edit this article before but Moret's disciples will not permit the edits.

The article begins as follows:

Leuren Moret is a former scientific laboratory employee known for her study of the adverse health and environmental effects of depleted uranium. Moret worked for two periods at two U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories, including Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. She has claimed the status of a whistleblower in connection with her work at Lawrence Livermore.

Moret briefly worked as a Senior Scientific Technologist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from 1989 to 1990. Moret is not "known for her study" - she has no peer reviewed articles pertaining to the subject and her research is confined to the internet. She has done no independent field or laboratory research and probably is not academically capable of doing so. Moret has self-publicized that she is a scientific expert. Moret does claim to be a whistleblower. There is no record that Moret ever made a claim with the Department of Labor under the Whistleblower Protection Act.

Background

Moret earned her Bachelor of Science in Geology at University of California, Davis in 1968, and her Master of Arts in Near Eastern Studies from University of California, Berkeley in 1978.

the above education is correct - the only completely true entry in this entire biography

After working 5 years at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Moret was a Geology graduate student at Lawrence Berkeley. Moret was not classified as an employee but as a student. She may have studied for five years, but probably did not. She left the UC Davis doctoral program that she had been studying under Professor Ian Carmichael after assisting with research for the doctoral thesis of now distinguished Professor Dr Jonothan Stebbins of Stanford University.

and two years at the Livermore nuclear weapons lab,

Moret worked 11 months at Livermore.

she left Livermore and now studies and publicizes the health effects of radiation exposure.

Livermore probably terminated Moret's employment. They will not reveal that fact, but given the level of investigation required to be cleared to work at Livermore, it is highly likely that Moret never obtained the required high level security clearance. Moret claims to have left due to her being a whistleblower. There is no record of Moret's having been a whistleblower or of having provided any meaningful information to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRCs's ADAMS files show three documents from Moret, one is a post card from an anti-nuclear campaign that Moret sent in. The other two are records of Moret's signing petitions.

She has worked extensively on the impact of radiation on public health from nuclear power plants and atmospheric testing and how radiation moves through the environment.

Moret speaks extensively (if someone pays her to come - they had a benefit concert in the Kootenay Moutain community of Nelson, British Columbia to finance bringing Moret to their town)about uranium and DU. Moret has never worked, let alone extensively on this subject. Moret's videos include false claims about depleted uranium in Hawaii, atmospheric testing causing autism and reduced SAT scores and the hands of Nobel Laureate Dr Glenn T Seaborg turning to claws. Moret now rails about the University of Alaska HAARP research program falsely claiming that it has caused hurricanes and earthquakes.

I am more than willing to discuss this at some length with anyone. I have documents to support every word that I say. Thank you.

Roger- [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.83.227 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 21 December 2010

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

I have removed your email address (not useful here), but I have not yet had time to look at the article. As a general rule, it is essential to use neutral and calm language on Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions:

Do you have any reliable sources showing that material in the article is not correct? Please be specific, but brief.
Do you have any reliable sources that verify material which should be in the article, but which is not? Please be specific, but brief.

Documentation you may have seen is not suitable for use here, since all material on Wikipedia must be verifiable from published sources. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sources and probably insufficient notability. Should probably be deleted. Also, it's probably true that she's, ah, incorrect in the things she promulgates. This is the dead link from the article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R Viswanathan

Fake sources; filled with personal info. Please remove contents asap! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.173.53 (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I see you have removed some material, and you have also replaced an html comment with its content, which is from the first version of the article, created by user Vviswanathan. That comment ("This article has been created by...") should not be in the article.

I am not familiar with any notability requirements for ambassadors, but the article is weak and perhaps recommending its deletion may be in order. You say some sources are fake: please explain exactly what you mean. Are you saying that a website does not exist (one of the links appears dead now)? Are you saying that a source exists but contains fake information? If so, please explain what source and how you know that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to crop up a little bit in Reuters (+reprint/rewrites in International Business Times + Hindustan Times) but it's not obvious that he qualifies per WP:DIPLOMAT after a quick search. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Roads

Elizabeth Ann Roads, MVO (born 1951) is Snawdoun Herald of Arms in Ordinary and Lyon Clerk and Keeper of the Records for the Court of the Lord Lyon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resplendent though their titles may be, Heralds of Arms in Ordinary are not notable persons. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Resplendent" is such a wonderful word and used far too infrequently! Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy

Dear Admin,

I have noticed a correction in the biography of Y.S.Jaganmohan Reddy.

Political Life Jagan started his political career by campaigning for Congress party leaders in 2004 elections in Y.S.R. District. In 2009, he was elected to the Parliament from Kadapa District constituency.

The correction is that there is no Y.S.R District in Andhra Pradesh. Please change that. It is only Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy and his associates who call the Kadapa district as Y.S.R. District. Please make the necessary changes.

Changes would be appreciated.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.137.17 (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done; but that article (like the one about his dad) needs work. Also created a stub article about his mom, since she's now the MLA in YSR's old seat in the State Assembly. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Auliya

The article is not sourced nor does it contain sufficient evidence to suggest why this page should exsist. Fryertuk (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post article on his discovery of the "chameleon snake": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700342.html

I would think he probably does not meet Notability standards, though (one sentence bio referencing only the snake is not confidence inspiring). Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Wikipedia article on the snake, which mentions him only in a footnote as co-author of the article introducing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chameleon_snake I don't think this article was linked from his bio. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noël Forgeard

Resolved

I've just removed large BLP violations from this French industrialist. It needs some attention, preferably from someone who reads French. Does the source support the remaining material?--Scott Mac 19:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Le Figaro source and it supported some of the claims, I bolstered the remainder of the info with additional references. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's always difficult to know quite what to do with negative claims sourced to a language I can't read very well. There was so much unsourced stuff too. Thanks for taking this on.--Scott Mac 21:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Wiki Editors:

You guys removed my comment about Kelly Ayotte re: "Free Press"

It was short, factual and unbiased and verified by a substantial New England newspaper.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PQbVMfpHJBg/TRDd36LG-8I/AAAAAAAAEFc/BT5ZKNXS53I/s1600/Picture+97.jpg

Why did you do this, I demand an explanation because you routinely publish the fact that lawsuits are pending against people. This removal smells like fear, or perhaps someone bought you out?

Prove otherwise.

Christopher King, J.D. http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People. 617.543.8085m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.89.115 (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that this diff may indicate why this complaint has been made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the content, as it had been reinserted again. The reference link] to the Nashua Telegraph does not work, and even if it did, I doubt very much that it will baldly state that "Ayotte does not believe that all media are entitled to attend her events or other GOP events that are publicly-advertised and held on commercial property." Please note that this editor has also edited at User:KingCast and was the subject of this COIN thread.[21]. I will be semi-protecting the article due to the ongoing problems on this article. --Slp1 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update- the link does work, now, and sure enough, it does not support the edit KingCast/IP wanted to make. --Slp1 (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audri Mukhopadhyay

This article contained promotional and poorly sourced material. I cleaned up citations and removed sentences that were not relevant to a public biography. Should meet quality standards now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.161.72.89 (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael E. Arth

Even if the man might be marginally notable ([22] and [23] arguably count as independent, in-depth coverage), his article is far more infomercial than neutral presentation. If someone could excise and reformulate large parts of this material, I'm sure that would mark an improvement. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly spamy, and would take a great deal of dedication to revise, since it's sourced relatively well, though that needs work too. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Plimer

Is a BLP. One source [24] is quite clearly an opinion piece (it is labeled "commentary" in the source). Ought this fact, that it is an opinion piece, be at least noted when using it as a source in a BLP? In addition, the opinion piece links Plimer to another living person - Gina Rinehart. Does WP:BLP require stronger sourcing than an opinion coluumn for such a linkage (which ascribes ownership of a group to that person)? See [25] Collect (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ger%C5%9Fom_Qipris%C3%A7i

Dear madam/sir,

I am Gerşom Qiprisçi, and my biography in Enlgish and Russian is sistematically vandalised by Mr. Libor Valko from Czech republic. He claims to know things about me which any prove cannot be provided by him. He was already warned by Wikipedia editors.

I do not have a problem of anyone who wishes to write things about me, but it should be based on some documents, not on hatred.

Here is the text of warning sent by administrator of Czech Wikipedia to Mr. Libor Valko to stop his activities violating rules of Wikipedia in Czech.

Káhirská geniza MOŽNÉ PORUŠENÍ AUTORSKÝCH PRÁV

Oceňujeme Váš příspěvek, ale bohužel nemůžeme přijmout text či obrázky chráněné autorským právem převzaté bez dovolení z jiných webových stránek či odjinud. Podívejte se, prosíme, na stránku Káhirská geniza, a pokud jste autorem původního díla nebo máte od autora svolení k dalšímu šíření podle licence GFDL, pošlete o tom e-mail do OTRS.

Užitečné rady o přispívání do Wikipedie a o některých základních pravidlech najdete na stránkách Wikipedie:Průvodce a Wikipedie:Váš první článek. Díky za pochopení. [editovat]Vážený kolego, Předpokládám, že to Vy jste onen Libor Valko, o kterém jsem se doslechl i já (a to je co říci, normálně se zabývám tím, co mě baví, nikoli zkazkami typu "jedna paní povídala..."). Každopádně, pokud chcete přispěvovat, prosím bez invektiv, urážek a nepodložených tvrzení (viz. článek Salmon ben Jeruham). Vidím, že nejsem první, kdo Vás o to žádá, vezměte si to prosím k srdci. Toto je encyklopedie, kterou používají i normální lidé, kteří se chtějí něco dovědět, ne propaganda k šíření nenávisti. Chováte-li vůči někomu či něčemu soukromou zášť, můžete si ji vylévat na soukromém fóru. Děkuji, hezký den --Thomazzo 00:29, 19. 11. 2007 (UTC)

http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskuse_s_wikipedistou:194.228.88.134

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