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.

White Argentine

Another dispute at the 'White Argentine' article (though on much the same topic as before). User:Sherlock4000 wishes to include an infobox for a supposed 'White Argentine' ethnic group. I have repeatedly asked for evidence that this 'ethnicity' is valid: i.e. that a significant proportion of the supposed members actually self-identify as 'white Argentine' (or any reasonable translation thereof), but none has been provided. In addition, the infobox includes images and captions for living individuals, without any WP:RS which indicates their ethnicity, which seems to me to be a violation of both WP:BLP and WP:V. Given that WP:3RR excludes removing clear violations of WP:BLP, I'd like to know whether I can safely remove the contested infobox without falling foul of WP:3RR. As the article history shows (and the talk page, though those supporting the infobox have sometimes been reluctant to debate the issue), this has been ongoing, but has now escalated to the extent that Sherlock4000 has posted an edit-warring warning template on my talk page: User_talk:AndyTheGrump#Infobox_deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in Infotrac and couldn't find any sources mentioning "White Argentines". I searched in Spanish on Google and didn't see anything. I notice there doesn't seem to be an article on it in the Spanish Wikipedia, which is where an article on that topic would likely be found. If there is a common name for Argentinians of European descent, "White Argentine" may not be it. Cla68 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that an article on the subject was deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia, though I'm not sure on what grounds, and they may well have different policy in any case.

After more reverts, the article has now been page-protected - unfortunately with the policy-violating infobox in place. I'm unsure how to proceed here, and have contacted the admin who blocked the page (User:SlimVirgin) of the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard members:

I regret that we must waste valuable time on this, especially since the dispute was initiated by the user above, and another one (GiovBag) who has been warned not to do so as far back as November.

All minimally sizable cultural, ethnic, or religious communities (including those on the white communities of practically all nations that include them) have an article on the Wikipedia, and just about all include an infobox with basic numbers, as well as illustrated examples of some of the better-known members in their community. His assertion that no literature exists to that effect is simply not true, and it took me a minute to find several that I contributed here (playing the devil's advocate, he'll say that the word "white" appears nowhere, when there are ample mentions of "European identity," and so on). I'd like to add that I find the entire discussion, and its racial overtones, in incredibly poor taste.

If Andy's problem were merely one of semantics, I suggested to him that moving the page to "European Argentine" may be a good idea (pending consensus, of course). His unwillingness to cooperate forced me to initiate a edit war thread (here), and the matter is awaiting their review, as well as yours.

Thank you for your time, and for your patience.

Regards, Sherlock4000 (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that none of these sources actually give evidence for a self-asserted 'white Argentinian' ethnicity. In any case, for the purpose of this noticeboard the issue is that the infobox is making unsourced assertions of ethnicity for living persons: violating WP:V and WP:BLP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those people should be in the info box described by color unless there is a citation to support that they are or have been described as a while Argentinian. Off2riorob (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here I provide links to fore-sights and citations where the phrase "argentino blanco" (white argentine) appears in several books or publications in both Spanish and English language, and they speak of all the Argentines of predominantly European descent. The phrase in not used now in Argentine websites in Spanish for reasons of "political correction". In the last years there has been a movement pro-indigenist in Argentina that has caused the phrase argentinos blancos to be considered racist, and that's why it is avoided by many and replaced by argentinos descendientes de europeos or other equivalents. That was also the reason why the article was deleted in the Spanish wikipedia.

Argentina: Land of the Vanishing Blacks. by Era Bell Thompson. Ebony Magazine. October 1973.</ref>

[1] Los wichí en las fronteras de la civilización: capitalismo, violencia y shamanismo en el Chaco Argetino. Una aproximación etnográfica. Javier Rodríguez Mir. Página 24. Editorial Abya Yala. “Brasil se transformó en un país marcadamente blanco, mestizo y negro, mientras que Argentina se volvió un país eminentemente blanco. ... Las diferencias en el modo de representar la pertenencia al Estado-nación, impulsados por sus respectivas elites, está claramente presente en las distintas imágenes homogeneizadoras que cada identidad nacional proyecta; en Brasil se realizó a través de la imagen de una democracia racial, formada por blancos negros e indios, mientras en Argentina se ha realizado bajo la imagen del "crisol de las razas", formada por la composición de muchos argentinos blancos europeos. ...”

[2] Argentina en marcha, Volumen 1. Comisión Nacional de Cooperación Intelectual. 1947. “Para 1826 se admiten 630.000 almas, así repartidas, según Ingenieros: Blancos extranjeros 5.000, Blancos argentinos 8.000, Indios 132.000, Mestizos 400.000, Negros…”

[3] Folclore en las grandes ciudades: arte popular, identidad y cultura. Escrito por Alicia Martín. Páginas 77 y 80.

[4] Our Good Neighbor Hurdle. By John W. White. Page 168.

[5] Crisis and hope in Latin America: an evangelical perspective. Chapter “The Races of Latin America”, page 23. Escrito por Emilio Antonio Núñez C.,William David Taylor. William Carey Library. 1996. “The population of Argentina, for example, is 90 percent European in origin, whereas that of Paraguay, is Guarani Indian in about the same proportion… Here are white Argentines and black Venezuelans who speak the language of Castile;… ”

[6] Embodying Argentina: body, space and nation in 19th century narrative. Escrito por Nancy Hanway. Chapter 5, The Injured Body. Page 170.

[7] Revista de Filosofía. Vol. 14, Parte 2. 1921. “Y aquí conviene observar que "argentino blanco" no designa una aproximación, sino que quiere decir lo que expresa literalmente, "argentinos blancos" puros, sin mezcla, de ascendencia directamente europea. Sin la "color-line",…”

Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana. Nº 63-65. 1952. “... se levantó una Argentina sin indios y sin gauchos, con argentinos blancos, nacidos de inmigrantes europeos,…”

“los argentinos blancos que sentimos la necesidad de llamarnos hispano-argentinos para que no se nos confunda con cualquier otro producto de mestizaje blanco, los que somos auténticamente argentinos por los cuatro costados,” El Antisemitismo en la Argentina. Leonardo Senkman. 1989.

Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana. RILI: volumen 5, Nº 9-10. Escrito por Klaus Zimmerman y Armin Schwegler. 2007.

“…. Hasta ahora hemos analizado cómo los hablantes han construido un límite entre argentinos 'blancos' e inmigrantes ... cómo una argentina con antepasados indígenas construye los argentinos como un grupo exclusivamente blanco. ...”

I give you another source Etnia, condiciones de vida y discriminación, where it provides information and some statistics in a survey where at least 63% of Argentine people who were asked, self-identified as "argentinos blancos".

Furthermore, here there are several international sources that assess the percentage of "Whites/Europeans" in Argentina in at least 85% of the total population. They speak of "White/European" or "Criollo" Argentines, not of Italo-argentines, Spanish-Argentines, etc. separately. The Joshua Project: Ethnic people groups of Argentina, World Statesmen.org: Argentina Argentina: People: Ethnic Groups., Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI, Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook..

At last, I must point out that user Andy the Grump is one of those who invented that sub-rule to the BLP policy regarding ethnicity, and now he tries to inforce it everywhere. All the people mentioned in the article and appearing in the infobox has undoubted Caucasian phenotype and has proved European ancestry, so that BLP policy regarding ethnicity is just an excuse to be looking for a cat's fifth leg in the article.--Pablozeta (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andy that ethnic tagging of living people, without self identification or notability on ethnicity-related issues, is inappropriate and far too widespread on Wikipedia. Out of curiosity, I went to look at White American and sure enough, there is a similar composite of photographs of Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Megan Fox, Norman Rockwell. I suspect in many cases, we are making the ID based on the appearance of the individual, which fails every known criterion of verifiability, sourcing, and care in handling asserions about living people as well as being completely unencyclopedic. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A correction to Pablozeta's assertion that I "invented that sub-rule to the BLP policy". I have made no amendment whatsoever to BLP policy. I have argued for clarification of where statements of ethnicity must be self-asserted, but as yet, as far as I'm aware there has been no clarification. In any case, this has no significance whatsoever where statements of ethnicity are unsourced, violating WP:V.

As for the broader issue, as to whether 'white Argentine' constitutes an 'ethnicity' at all, this has been an ongoing dispute, with the 'pro' faction coming up with sources that indicate the usage of the term by outsiders, but no evidence that it it is in general usage in Argentina itself. As Pablozeta (an Argentine himself, apparently) said on my talk page '...this term is not common in Spanish language sources, it is probable that all the living people I mention in the article -if asked about their ethnicity- will not answer "White Argentine", but '"Argentine of European/Spanish/Italian/German/Arab/Armenian descent", because the exact term argentino blanco is not commonly used in Argentina. But this is also explained in the section Usage of the term, so we are going round in circles over and over again' (User_talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2010/November). I strongly suspect that there is an internal Argentinian political debate driving this issue, but this does not justify the unsourced usage of a contested 'ethnicity' to construct a synthesis, which is essentially what the article was before it attracted the interest of 'outsiders'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Are you sure she is an African American, have you got a cite? a cite? you just gotta look at her man. - Is it alright if I add the cat - Black British musician to this article? have you got a cite? No man, just look at the (link) pic, how black does she have to be to be included? This sort of thing is all over the wikipedia. I think what we should start doing with these articles White this and white that and black this and black that and Yellow people is remove the pictures from all of them we can still describe and explain the geno type and racial phenotype or whatever it is , and then, only add pictures of people that have defined themselves as such or have been well cited as such. Off2riorob (talk) 5:21 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Given that the page is now protected, can I ask an administrator to remove the images and captions that violate WP:V and WP:BLP? I have placed an edit request on the article talk page (Talk:White_Argentine#Edit_request_from_AndyTheGrump.2C_26_January_2011). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanela Diana Jenkins

Resolved

– 14:55, 25 January 2011 User:Ironholds blocked User:Maximillioner (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Violations of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy)

Following an OTRS inquiry (ticket# 2011012510006899), I went through the edits made by User:Maximillioner. I seems this account serves the singular purpose to harass the article's subject. I'll look closer at the individual statements to see if any of them should be referred to Oversight for permanent redaction. Would you please take whatever action you deem appropriate? Asav (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All edits oversighted. Article looks on first glance quite tidy - Sanela Diana Jenkins if anyone wants to add it to their watchlist in case the user returns Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a watch following the OTRS complaint, so I've got it. Cheers! Asav (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hjálmar Þórarinsson

Resolved

– No action - no explanation of any specific issue. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would like this page to be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.78.194 (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BIOSELF. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fraudsters" category and UK politicians

A number of UK politicians have recently been convicted of fiddling their expenses. Some have already gone to jail. (Some have been convicted on multiple heads - but all relate to the same scandal.) Some editors have been adding Category:Fraudsters to their BLPs.

I have objected to this category as seeming less than neutral. There would be no problem with adding Category:Persons convicted of fraud. However, to label the individual with a term that implies a career criminal seems to be not to be in the spirit of BLP or neutrality - certainly not when we have a far more neutral way of describing. Frank Abagnale was a "fraudster" - a person convicted for fiddling their expenses is not in the same place.

Since we have Category:People convicted of theft, this should be treated the same.

There's some discussion on my talk page, but centralising here.--Scott Mac 22:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like what you're asking for is to rename the category. There was an extensive discussion of the criminal categories a while back. Maybe someone can find it.

On the broad issue, if a hypothetical persona serves one term in parliament and is convicted on one count of fraud, why would we treat those two differently? Both "accomplishments" are officially designated by the state and both tend to be part of one's biography. I see no reason to delete categories concerning criminal convictions where those crimes have a significant impact on the subject's career or life. Will Beback talk 23:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"persons convicted of x" is accurate, and doesn't run the risk of smearing the subject by implying career criminality. Labeling someone as a "fraudster" is not neutral. We don't do assessment.--Scott Mac 23:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Will Beback's assessment, and have also pointed Scott to the fact that Merriam Webster defines fraudster as a person who engages in fraud. It's a pity that Scott did not acknowledgfe that before posting here.

have reinstated Category:Fraudsters to John Taylor, Baron Taylor of Warwick, with a supporting reference: [8].

Scott may wish to open a CFD discussion on the naming of these categories, but since the current category name is supported by a dicdef and by RSs, I see no BLP grounds for removing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the category for people who have made a career of fraud. I object to it being used in the above cases. It IS a BLP violation to use language that may reflect more negatively on the subject that the facts suggest. "Fraudster" carries the implication (or at least will to some readers) of career criminality. It does violate BLP. In any case the categories have now been removed under the BLP policy and so they stay out until there's a consensus I'm wrong. (And I'm not the only one with this concern.)--Scott Mac 23:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Scott. I think FWIW it will strike US readers as pejorative, definitely not neutral. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What aspect of BLP is violated by saying that someone convicted of fraud has been convicted of fraud?

We add the category for "MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament" to someone who wins only one election, not just for career politicians. I don't see why a category for a conviction of a serious crime should be treated differently. Will Beback talk 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it is a linguistic fallacy to imply all "foo-ers" mean the same. "Murderer" implies only one murder committed (we use mass murderer or serial killer for more). Perjurers have seldom done more than lied in one case, and that's implied. Fraudster, burgler, etc. tend to imply a career made of it. Why use a pejorative label which carries ambiguity, when we can be more accurate. We ought to err on the side of not painting an over-negative picture. Whatever we do we need to consider the possible semantic range of each foo-er world. We cannot assume all carry the same they MUST be treated differently, depending on that range.--Scott Mac 23:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are a lot of assumptions based on your own views of the meaning of words. Will Beback talk 23:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Scott, your claim seems to be based on a belief that:

a person convicted of one count of perjury is perjurer
a person convicted of one count of murder is a murderer
but a person convicted of one count of fraud is not a fraudster

Do you have any reliable sources to support this linguistic claim? I note that yuo have not commented on the dicdef I referenced above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note omission of relevant links. This matter has already been discussed extensively on Scott's talk page: see User talk:Scott MacDonald#Fraudsters, and to a lesser extent at Talk:John Taylor, Baron Taylor of Warwick#Fraudster_category. By posting here without linking to that discussion, Scott has been engaging in a form of forum-shopping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FFS, I posted in both of those places suggesting we centralised it here. Please stop with the attacks and assumption of bad faith. It is quite possible to have a civil discussion about this. No?--Scott Mac 23:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - FFS, what's so hard about posting a few links? The purpose of posting at a noticeboard is to involve other editors. In order not to mislead them about the state of discussions so far, you should have linked to the other discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we just create "Category:Persons convicted of fraud" and put the contested articles in that category, then hold another discussion at CfD as to what the best names of the criminal categories are. Will Beback talk 23:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the first bit. But a CFD won't solve it. I've no particular objection to a category fraudsters for some article of career fraudsters. I'd object to these and any similar BLPs being in it.--Scott Mac 23:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a renaming of the category won't resolve your concerns about your personal and unref interpretation of the words, then it seems that your objection actually a broader one to categorising people convicted of crimes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not really considered the wider categories. I tend to look at each BLP on its merits. In this case, this is an unnecessary ambiguous negative category. "persons convicted of fraud" is better and avoids the problem.--Scott Mac 23:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as a crime is specific and worthy of reporting in the BLP then a cat reflective of that can be added, if beneficial to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the category has been just been removed from John Taylor, Baron Taylor of Warwick, along with a referenced quote to support its inclusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I left you a note on your talkpage to explain, please allow discussion here to resolve before replacing the cat under discussion and please don't replace the attacking content addition again without consensus support to include it. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As long as a crime is specific and worthy of reporting in the BLP then a cat reflective of that can be added, if beneficial to the article. note - adding Category:Fraud is not my idea of specific for a politician that had to repay 700 pounds on his over claimed expense account. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "idea of specific" would be more relevant if you had done some fact-checking, and didn't try to dismiss this as a £700 issue. Chaytor was convicted of "false accounting totalling just over £20,000." Taylor was convicted of false accounting totalling £11,277. Illsley fraudulently claimed more than £14,000 in parliamentary expenses.

All three have been convicted by a court.

As to whether it is "worth reporting", just try a google news search. The crimes and convictions of all three of three criminals have been extensively reported. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV may have some personal definition of "Fraud", but "fraud" is the term widely used by the news media: see e.g., Gnews hits for "David Chaytor"+Fraud. You removed a ref which specifically used the term "fraudster", and now you appear to claiming that your unreferenced view of the meaning of a word shoukd override its usage in dozens of reliable sources. Please stop this POV-pushing, and start using reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its neither, please focus your comments in a more consensus forming manner and a less attacking way, thanks. - my comment was non specific and clearly presented as such - an example. The only POV I have is to protect the living subjects of our WP:BLP articles from attacks and desired additions that fail our WP:UNDUE guideline and to check that such contentious claims are well cited and WP:RS as a minimum. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing three specific cases. You stated a set of facts which doesn't match of these cases, and you did not label it as a hypothetical example. Please try to discuss this in a a more consensus forming manner by checking your facts and not introducing red herrings.

As to WP:UNDUE, just look at the massive media coverage of these convictions. This is not some sort of obscure triva: it's the stuff of prolonged frontpage new coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Category:Persons convicted of fraud and added it to the three articles in question. Will Beback talk 23:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That seems wise.--Scott Mac 00:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will now nominate Category:Persons convicted of fraud at CFD for merger to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Fraudsters. It appears to me to be a duplicate, and no evidence has been offered in support of the claim that a person convicted of fraud is not necessarily a fraudster. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a mainly British usage, and has been defined as "con man", http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fraudster It is a slang term, with no precise legal meaning, unlike "murderer" or "burglar". It is not widely used in the US and sounds pejorative, and in fact it tends on a Google search, to pop up in highly politicized and judgmental usages here, as in "Scott was best known as a record-setting fraudster whose bilking of Medicare reached cartoon-villain proportions", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/04/florida-welcomes-rick-scott-fraudster-king_n_804123.html So it is completely inappropriate for a Wikipedia category name. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe but given the number of categories at stake (seeCategory:Fraudsters_by_nationality) that is something that should be decided by the wider community.©Geni 00:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that "fraudster" is slang,[9] or that it only refers to career con men. Will Beback talk 00:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Merriam-Webster isn't very helpful here. It is very short and unnuanced. It simply does not address the semantic range in the type of depth needed to settle this debate. It does say the term is "chiefly British" and gives the example of a "phishing scam" - it doesn't answer the pertinent quesiton of whether the term is neutrally used to describe expenses fraud etc..--Scott Mac 00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't accept a dictionary as a source for the meaning of words then please provide a better source. So far all I've seen are Wikipedia editors saying what they think the word means. Will Beback talk 00:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "not accepting it", I'm simply saying it doesn't address the issue. This argument is about the nuance or semantic range of a term, which is not something an entry as short as that addresses. I'm looking for something that might help here (either in supporting or contradicting what I'm saying) unfortunately I'm not finding it. I agree that simply resorting to my interpretation of the word's range, or that of those who say "it is to fraud what murderer is to murder" isn't idea. Hopefully we can find some detailed sources to solve this one way or another, otherwise we'll need to go with people's impressions.--Scott Mac 00:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"..otherwise we'll need to go with people's impressions". I see. So you disagree with the standard reference works, and you think that instead of using verifiable definitions we should use the "impressions" of Wikipedia editors. I could not disagree more strongly. We don't make up our own definitions of words to suit the editing situation, and we don't reject respected sources simply because we disagree with them. Will Beback talk 00:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, is it impossible to have a civil discussion with you. Stop twisting my words. I don't disagree or reject the source at all. It simply doesn't address the issue one way or another. It is far to brief to help either case.--Scott Mac 01:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FFS? What does that mean?

The dictionaries directly address the definition of the word "Fraudster". You disagree with their definitions, right? You're not suggesting any replacement sources, right? Lacking a non-dictionary source you've suggested using "people's impressions", right? I don't see how I twisted your words. If you can find a source that's more reliable than the OED then I'm sure we'd all be happy to use it. Will Beback talk 01:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Will, "FFS" stands for "For Fuck's Sake," a more perjorative version of the expression "For Heaven's Sake."

@Scott, there was nothing in Will's comment that was uncivil. A bit brusque, but not rude. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 26#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's unhelpful. We're having a discussion of particular articles here, and you go make a pointy nomination of a category created an hour ago. What does that achieve? If you merge the categories, I'm only going to re-remove the fraudster cat from those BLPs and we are back to square one. We need to continue this discussion until we've got consensus. Please wait until some more people comment. We've only been here a couple of hours. What's the hurry?--Scott Mac 00:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's unhelpful, Scott, is that is you have raised all of this without offering any evidence to support your interpretation of the word, and that you have chosen to remove articles from a valid and long-standing category rather than propose renaming the category.
    If you have some evidence to support your interpretation, then you can post it at the CFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree, Brown, that Scott is the one being unhelpful here. The BLP policy is clear that we must err on the side of caution with BLPs. If that means creating a category title that is less pejorative, then so be it. I fully support Will's and Scott's creation of the new category and intend to help them populate it if necessary. Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll add that I think that, unless a person has actually stated "I am a fraudster", all applicable BLPs should be listed under the "persons convicted of fraud" category rather than the "fraudster" category. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fraudster" means someone who is guilty of fraud, or as the OED says, "One who commits fraud, esp. in a business transaction." Why is it a BLP violation to say that someone who is convicted of fraud is a fraudster (one who has committed fraud)? Will Beback talk 01:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, by what policy of Wikipedia are convicted criminals to be allowed the privelige of self-identification in respect of their criminality, when our normal practice is to follow reliable sources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly because of the exceptions that the BLP policy give. The new category exactly describes what you just said above, "People convicted of fraud." Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see anything in BLP to require that, so you'll need to be specific.

The logic of your position is that someone convicted on multiple counts of any given crime X, even in muktiple counts over over a prolonged period, should not be described as an "Xer" or "Xist", unless they self-identify in that way. How many of the people in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Rapists by nationality are recorded in reliable sources as having described themself as a "rapist"? The logic of your position is that Peter Sutcliffe should not be described as either a "rapist" or a "serial killer", because he hasn't applied that term to himself.

If your view stands, we'll have to rewrite most articles on criminals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean check the appropriateness of categories placed in other BLPs? Sounds like we should be doing that anyway. Will you help out with it? Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another angle on this (and more than a little bit tongue-in-cheek): It seems to me that including these politicians in the "fraudsters" category has the effect of diminishing the meaning of the term "fraudster." Having contributed to several articles about big-time professional fraudsters, including at least one for whom "fraudster" is an apt description of his entire career (although I, as an American, would have preferred to use the term "con man"), I don't think the fraudulent acts of these politicians come close to the accomplishments of a genuine career fraudster. As I understand it, "fraudster" is a criminal occupation, whereas fraudulent activity is merely a crime. I like the idea of reserving the fraudsters category for people who can be considered to have engaged in fraud as a criminal occupation, and using Category:Persons convicted of fraud for the rest. However, because the distinction is arbitrary, it might work better to subdivide fraudsters by type of fraud. Let's see: we have people convicted of falsifying expense accounts, people convicted of mail fraud or wire fraud, operators of fraudulent business schemes..... Does anyone have a good resource on the taxonomy of fraud? --Orlady (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you have a mistaken definition of "fraudster". No source says that the term applies only to career criminals. Someone who steals something is a thief, etc. This is standard English. Note that there is already Category:Confidence tricksters. Will Beback talk 01:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I have a mistaken definition of the term, it's because "fraudster" is not standard American English. My only experience with the word is in Wikipedia. Furthermore, the U.S. English comprehension of "con man" is broader than the explanation provided in "confidence trick." Sorry for not being British.... --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will: Your Merriam Webster definition was very helpful. Alternate def was "cheat" and synonyms listed were: bilk, bilker, cheat, cheater, chiseler (or chiseller), confidence man, cozener, defrauder, dodger, fakir, finagler, trickster [chiefly British], hoaxer, scammer, scamster, shark, sharper, sharpie (or sharpy), skinner, swindler, tricker. So it IS slang and category "fraudster"= category "scammer" or "shark". Brown and Will: Why is it so important to use "fraudster" instead of "Person convicted of fraud"? It would seem like the latter is a good faith compromise solution. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that "fraudster" is slang? Slang words are specifically marked as such in most dictionaries. Simply having synonyms does not make a word slang. I don't see anyone proposing renaming the category at CfD. Will Beback talk 01:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Jonathanwallace Mike Watson, Baron Watson of Invergowrie is in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British arsonists, because he was convicted of arson. One episode, while drunk; he did not make a career of arson. For any type of crime, there will be many more people convicted of one incident of it that of those who made a career of it, but AFAICS none of the other "Xists" criminal categories are split between "Xists" and "people convicted of X". Those seeking such a distinction in this case have been repeatedly asked for evidence to counter the dictionary definitions offered, but none has been forthcoming.

Since there's no general distinction in categories, and no evidence offered to justify making fraudsters an exception, the selective concern shown for the politicians convicted of fraud amounts looks rather odd.

I don't have a particular objection to having "people convicted of X" categories, but I do object to having a duplicate category tree or having people omitted. There have been huge discussions on this at CFD over the years, and the "people convicted of X" formulation has been replaced because it cannot include criminals who died before conviction, such as Robert Maxwell. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can one be called a criminal if one has not been convicted of a crime? As far as I can see,Robert Maxwell is merely "alleged", and the name is not linked to any criminal category. Bielle (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only under unusual circumstances. For example, Lee Harvey Oswald was never convicted of assassinating John F. Kennedy because he died before the trial, but he is still categorized as an assassin. Other than those sorts of cases, people who are merely alleged of committing a crime should not be included in criminal categories. Will Beback talk 02:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me try this another way. Regardless of which dictionary entries identify "fraudster" as slang (or not) the -"ster" suffix has a strong suggestion of colloquialism and casualness about it that seems unencyclopedic. We would not apply a "trickster" category to living people (though we might to Loki, Coyote (mythology) and other mythological figures). The issue about people who have not yet been convicted (or die before trial) could be resolved by calling the category "People Accused or Convicted of Fraud". Or just "People Accused of Fraud". (Wondering if what we are experiencing is a British-U.S. disconnect like a conversation about trousers?) Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"People Accused of Fraud" is asking for trouble (to start with you would have to include pretty much every politician ever) and probably lawsuits.©Geni 19:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I meant "People Indicted for Fraud", not "People who Some Wikipedia Editor Thinks Told a Lie" ;-) Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathanwallace - do you have any source that backs up your assertions about the connotations of the "-ster" suffix? I see editors making claims about language based purely on their own perceptions, and that is not encyclopedic either. Will Beback talk 19:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A source, you want a source, just read and accept - WP:BLP. Willbeback, there is clearly a lot of good faith opposition to your desired position, do you accept there is a lot of good faith opposition to your position? I suggest you forget about it. I know you are a old user, and in the past, wiki was more attacking, bur we are now advised and requested through BLP to err on the side of caution, a fraudster is a career criminal person notable for that or a major single event like that pyramid seller, Maddoff- adding all and sundry is a BLP violation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Off2riorob, you're claiming BLP for the "connotations" of a word's modifier, without backing up that assertion. I'd say Will is well within his rights to request sources, especially given the dictionary definition given above. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a google search as I do, what are you wanting? I am sure you can google and find as much content attacking living people as you want. As for me I support WP:BLP and erring on the side of caution in regards to living people - even dead ones for that matter.Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support BLP too. It's a bit much to say that requesting sources is an indication of a lack of support for Wikipedia's policies. Do you support WP:V? Will Beback talk 21:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a bit much to have to constantly discuss such issues as this that are clearly , so clearly veering in the direction that the project is attempting to move away from.I support WP:V as much as you support BLP. Just because you have a citation does not make it a gold star guaranteed inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will: So glad you asked! "1.a person who is, does, or creates (something specified): often derogatory: oldster, punster; rhymester, trickster" http://www.yourdictionary.com/ster-suffix "It is to be noted that the suffix -ster is not uncommon in English, and it usually carries a deprecatory significance" (Wow. H.L. Mencken. Excuse me a moment while I am speechless, savoring that I just quoted Mencken in an etymological argument on Wikipedia. That may be the high point of my month.) http://books.google.com/books?id=XbZIAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=the+suffix+%22ster%22&source=bl&ots=YVi56g6Df7&sig=-mMLrfJJvjvnWLJgwaPRdAG8BEQ&hl=en&ei=SINATcOGIMbUgQeJlrzwAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCTgo#v=onepage&q=the%20suffix%20%22ster%22&f=false Here are some more common, derogatory, slangy uses: jokester, huckster, prankster,...Can we please just compromise on some other CAT name?? Why are you guys fighting so hard for "fraudster" in particular??Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a term is derogatory doesn't mean it's inaccurate or slang. "Criminal" is derogatory too, but it's an accurate term to describe someone who has committed a crime. Will Beback talk 21:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they are a career criminal and famous as a criminal I remove that on sight as well. Just because someone has been convicted of a crime does not make them a criminal at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion does seem to be revolving around some large differences between our national versions of English, and we are further misinformed by the implied meanings created by some Wikipedia redirects. Fishing around in some print dictionaries (as well as a few online dictionaries), I find that the word "fraudster" does not appear in standard dictionaries of American English. On the other hand, the term "confidence man" (or "con man") is identified as an Americanism (and yes, the dicdef of "confidence man" is broader than "confidence trickster" -- a "con man" is a person who defrauds by means of a confidence game, wherein a confidence game is a swindle in which the victim is defrauded after his confidence has been won). The best standard-English synonym I have found for my impression of the meaning of "fraudster" is "swindler", roughly defined as "someone who practices fraud as habitual means of obtaining money." Here in Wikipedia, Swindler is a redirect to Charlatan, which does not mean nearly the same thing as "swindler" in either my mind or my dictionary. Regardless of its precise meaning, the word "habitual" in the dictionary definition of "swindler" would apply to Ronald Pellar and Bernie Madoff, but not to those British politicians who were convicted of fraud for falsifying their expenses.

So, is "minister" also derogatory?

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minister? What are you talking about? Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not set on fraudster. Looking for a word or phrase which embraces "convicted of fraud" and Robert Maxwell who would surely have been convicted of it had he lived to face trial. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fraudster" is plain English; it describes people who have been convicted of the criminal offense of fraud. This entire discussion attempts to turn subtleties into battlegrounds. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Fox Piven

Currently an edit war regarding criticisms/attacks made by Glenn Beck. One editor feels there are quotes from unreliable sources being used to attack the subject of the article, while the other feels these are legitimate and that the article is being censored. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in the lede is completely non-neutral and has to go: "Her writings have long been controversial due to her calls for protests and bureaucratic disruption." As does the reference to "commonly referred to as the 'Cloward-Piven' strategy". A quick Google search reveals that she is mainly controversial, and the name "Cloward-Piven", is mainly used, on sites like www.infowars.com, which contains the following in an article with "Obama" and "New World Order" in the title: "In addition, the bankers have supported 'communism' in the United States. Considering this, it should come as no surprise the anti-capitalist 'Cloward-Piven Strategy' was published by The Nation, a magazine with a well-documented connection to the CIA..." Not NPOV, not RS. I see you reverted Flyboy again a few moments ago, however, and would suggest you both look at the 3 revert rule. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I wouldn't go above one or two reverts, but this is a BLP, an contentious information should stay out until the conflict has been resolved. That's right at the top of the BLP policy. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." I take BLP issues seriously, and if I were to be blocked for the 3RR, then I'll accept that as the consequences for doing so. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 01:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP normally trumps 3RR anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but sometimes admins don't really look at the actual conflict when stepping into a situation. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted the page. There seems to be a clear consensus on the talk page that the edits in question by Flyboy121 (talk · contribs) violate WP:BLP. I would have already blocked Flyboy121 (talk · contribs) for edit-warring and BLP violations, but he has not edited the article since the consensus was clarified on the talk page, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he will respect it. If there are continued issues with BLP violations being inserted on this page, please feel free to leave me a note or bring it back here. MastCell ^Talk 17:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we are on the topic, Cloward-Piven Strategy seems very problematic to me. This is an article about a conspiracy theory favored by Glenn Beck, www.infowars.com etc. which postulates a Piven-ACORN-Obama conspiracy to bring down the US via uprisings and conversion to a socialist welfare state--its pretty wild stuff but the article never puts it in context. Part of the problem is that whenever anyone (typically a true believer) tries to reference the wilder theorists, someone more like me comes along and deletes it properly as non-RS. I will take a hack at editing the article to add the context, sourced to sites like Glenn Beck's which at least are RS for their own opinions.Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the Cloward-Piven Strategy article appears to be based more on the conspiracy theorists. I only recently found out about all of this (as in a couple of days ago), but what I'm reading suggests that the "Strategy" is actually a conspiracy theory, and that Cloward and Piven were only theorizing how something could happen. Beck and others have now taken that original theory and made it out to be a huge conspiracy called the "Cloward-Piven strategy" that supposedly was the reason for the US economic problems of the last few years. I'm trying to research more, but I'm starting to wonder if the article should be completely rewritten to show it as a conspiracy theory, rather than the supposed fact it is now. After some Google searching, everything I'm finding so far indicates that before about 2007 or so, there was no such thing as the "Cloward-Piven Strategy". Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a meta-issue, it appears that Piven has been spotlighted as an "enemy of the Constitution" by a specific right-wing talk-show host, and has consequently received death threats and such ([10]). While we should cover anything encyclopedic here, we should be careful that we don't become a vehicle or unwitting enabler of harm to a living person. That means we need to avoid amplifying or echoing a focus on this "strategy", which appears to exist as a discrete concept only in the minds of certain right-wing polemicists and conspiracists. At present, I tend to view the existence of an article on the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" to be undesirable on BLP grounds, even if rewritten to reflect the conspiracy-theory-driven attention the subject has received, but that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 22:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose a PROD but doubt it would succeed. My heart goes out to Frances Piven for the way she has been targeted. But this article as it stands implies there is a "Cloward-Piven Strategy" when in reality it seems an invention of the wild-eyed based on an obscure forty year old article in the Nation--which by the way, advises people to pursue their legal rights to claim benefits. I am neutral as to whether the article should be corrected or should go, but don't think it should stay as is. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Cardella

The Phil Cardella page currently contains the following sentence: (redacted)

This is obviously unsupported libel. Please remove it immediately.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.15.143 (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear to be vandalism, which you successfully reverted yourself. I will keep an eye on the article for awhile, in case it happens again. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it from here as well, since it's best to avoid repeating problem material here. I've also left a caution for the IP responsible for adding the material, and I've watchlisted the article myself too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits REVDEL'd at the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Gluckman

Hello, I’m Ron Gluckman, a journalist/writer who has been based in Asia for two decades, and the subject of a wikipedia page “Ron Gluckman” that is under dispute. I’m sorry, I don’t know the codes, or how to properly respond, but I wanted to write that the initial information included on the page was correct. Some journalism student interviewed me some time back, and said he was going to perhaps submit to wiki. Originally, it had a lot of linked pages, including many from wikipedia pages. The articles now linked on this page (at bottom) are only for recent stories that I did; there are much more substantial items in more extensively linked stories I’ve done on people like the Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi, Arthur C. Clark, Leonardo Di Caprio/The Beach, and topics where I’m a major source like the Maglev train in Shanghai, Tibet train, Burma boycott, and Shanghai Jewish community. I realize I’m not a person of special significance – it’s the stories and the people in them that matter. But I’m happy to correct any information on my page or answer questions from your editors. I just don’t know how to code in this material. I can be contacted at [redacted] Many thanks, and thanks for the wonderful online reference material — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rongluckman (talk • contribs) 10:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. It's fine for you to avoid editing the article about you, as this removes any concerns about a possible conflict of interest. A good place to add any extra information you think may be useful would be at the talk page for the article - just click New Section at the top, put in a suitable Subject, and then put in four tildes (~) after whatever comments you add.

At present the article has been proposed for deletion, which you may or may not want to avoid. Things that would be particularly useful in avoiding its deletion, would be any links or even references to anywhere that mentions the awards you've won; and also any links or references to books, newspapers, journals, magazines, news organisations, reputable independent websites etc., that specify they have used you or your work as a source. For that latter category the links to other Wikipedia pages are no use even if Wikipedia does use your work as a source (because Wikipedia can't reference itself as being proof of someone's notability.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you know of any published articles about you this would be very useful for resolving the sourcing problems. January ^(talk) 20:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is imo not wikipedia notable, - the article should be deleted. The prod was removed so I sent it to AFD . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Gluckman - Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Lefkow

This judge was involved in a case involving white supremacist leader Matthew F. Hale and the World Church of the Creator. Presumably on the basis of this she has been added to Category:Creativity (sect) (a racist religion). I'm not convinced we should be doing this with a BLP. --Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should not. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Griswaldo (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added it because she judged the case, had supposed really threatened her or planned to assassinate her, and then when her family was murder people believed it was the work of the cult. I feel that her inclusion in articles related to the sect is justified because of these incidents--Dudeman5685 (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamedou Ould Slahi

Mohamedou Ould Slahi is a detainee at Guantanamo. An editor is claiming that BLPPRIMARY#Misuse_of_primary_sources prevents using U.S. District and Circuit Court opinions issued by Federal judges as primary sources. This is a ridiculous reading of "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." While this section is poorly written, "assertions" clearly means "allegations" not proven in a court of law. The factual findings of Federal judges in habeas cases are the single most reliable sources of information about a current detainee that I know of. They are as far away from unfounded adversarial allegations as is possible. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that whole area is awful , just as you say, primary cites, awful, its like so undue and obsessive , wikipedia is being used through that whole section of articles. Mostly there is only a couple of user identities that have created them. Hundreds of them should be deleted straight away -When I nominated one - User DGG said something like . I thought we had decided all these are notable - just like tittie models. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mnnlaxer and have taken this same position in the past. Trial transcripts and pleadings may contain wild unsourced allegations, but a court's decision is in effect a secondary source, a synthesis of the raw material and should not be treated the same way. I think the best practice is to look for reliable sources such as newspaper articles which discuss the ruling, but in the absence of those, I would freely use court decisions as sources rather than leaving out the information. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no reliable independent report has been written about the verdict then its just not wikipedia notable at all and likely, as no one has written about it in a WP:RS then the whole story has no place being here in the first place. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A federal court opinion is a reliable independent report. I can't imagine anything more reliable and independent. Or are we to delete all quotes of Supreme Court written opinions? Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its just not an independent secondary report that asserts any notability to the content at all. Such primary reporting is not what we are supposed to be doing here - why not get a blog and primary investigate and report there. - the best thing about this whole section that imo is like a third grade school project is that most of the articles are unread or have low viewing figures - this is because the articles are not notable and no one has reported about them. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very next citation in the article, http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=2988, is an independent secondary report. The fact that the American mainstream media could only manage this, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/09/AR2010040905050.html, is immaterial to the notability of the decision. There are still Americans who care, http://www.aclu.org/national-security/mohamedou-ould-slahi-challenges-guantanamo-detention. And thanks, but I already have a blog. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob--I respectfully disagree on this one. Published court decisions are authoritative, public syntheses of facts which, unless disturbed on appeal, stand as permanent outcomes. Their notability should not be completely dependent on newspaper coverage, though most will have at least some. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, right. Most will have some. Give over. - if its not been reported on it isn't notable and shouldn't be here, get a blog.Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has not addressed the relevant issues of this specific case. Very large sections of Mohamedou Ould Slahi‎ have been written based on the interpretation of REDACTED court documents. Like for example this 32 pages long one. (redacted). This is not about picking out a single fact like the courts decision of the case. Mnnlaxer has written whole sections about this individuals life based on the linked document and similar court papers. This is clearly against WP:BLP and WP:BLPPRIMARY and if someone wants to change policy there are other places. The article Mohamedou Ould Slahi‎ is a mess and violates BLP by any standard. I have removed the worst cases of BlP violations and have added ^{[citation needed]} tags but found myself just reverted what is also a no no in case of negative information in BLP's. Have just a look at this section Mohamedou_Ould_Slahi#Germany where he extensively uses these REDACTED court papers as source for his own interpretation of these REDACTED documents. This gross violation of original research and adding of poorly sourced negative information to BLP's is a mess and needs urgent fixing. IQinn (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that any of the uses of the habeas opinion are against any WP and also that they are negative. Please list the specific sentences that you feel violate any particular WP. What WP forbids the use of anything at all in a redacted court opinion? See the talk page for more Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please get yourself familiar with our core policies and stop writing biographies based on redacted court papers what is a no no. I think WP:BLP, WP:BLPPRIMARY specially WP:OR would be a good start. As said here in the discussion you might start a blog or use another place on the web to publish your opinion on what is written in these redacted papers or not. IQinn (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of "redacted" in any of the three WP you cite. And it is not my opinion on what is written in the habeas court decision. I use direct quotes and very close paraphrases. Again, please provide an example of how any citation has violated a WP. If you haven't provided any, and still oppose their use in the article, I am going to request a Third Opinion on this dispute. Mnnlaxer (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please get yourself familiar with WP:OR I have pointed you to Mohamedou_Ould_Slahi#Germany. To cherry pick sentence for from this redacted document without understanding the document and context is WP:OR. Feel free to find a mentor on WP who can explain the policies in more detail to you. IQinn (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to cite a particular sentence I wrote and the original document section to show that I have "interpreted" the judge's ruling outside of a common sense understanding of his writing. If I am "cherry picking" then every other quotation or citation of material that doesn't quote the entire document is "cherry picking". Again, redacted documents are not mentioned anywhere on WP:BLP or WP:OR. You cannot decide who has understanding of the document and context and who does not. I have tied all of my citations to a particular page of the habeas ruling, while you have generally spoken in no-no's without once referring to any particular sentence or issue. Claiming that citing a judge's ruling is OR is ridiculous. I wasn't involved, wasn't there, didn't write anything, or had any other experience which differentiates me from any other person on the planet who has read the ruling. Why can't you be my mentor and explain the policy that you are citing in more detail to me? You haven't even attempted it. But worst of all, you have deleted a common practice that has been in use for years without convincing one single person that you are right. You can't remotely claim that your actions are at all related to a consensus. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if we could take the tone down a notch. We are arguing an issue which is not really clear under Wikipedia policy. I took a quick look at the court decision in issue, and I don't think that the fact that it is redacted prevents it from being used, carefully, as a primary source. Policy here is that primary sources can in fact be used under certain circumstances. WP:PRIMARY says: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Under WP:BLPPRIMARY, a judge's decision is not a trial transcript or court record. It may fall under the ban of "other public document", but that is way too vague to give guidance and needs clarification. To me, a "record" or "document" indicates a filing such as a complaint or motion, or a docket sheet. A decision or opinion of the court is the result of processing and evaluating these documents, and indicates a higher level of reliability and notability. In other words, a judge's decision is a synthesis with authority, and in my opinion should be citable, carefully, for assertions along the lines of "the judge stated...." This discussion has so far not led to any consensus, so it would be great to hear from other editors.Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds exactly right. A decision establishes (for example) that someone is guilty of a crime (or not), in a way that testimony by itself does not. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a judge's decision is a secondary source for facts relevant to the case, because it is a third-party synthesis of the evidence presented to the court. It would be a primary source for courtroom events in which the judge was an actor (e.g. decisions on what evidence was admissible). Whether the redactions introduce a non-neutral POV is a separate issue. --Avenue (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I have attempted to use the opinion carefully and am very willing to discuss changing or deleting any particular use. However, I strongly feel the need to defend the ability ("may be used") from blanket condemnations. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree that a judge's decision in a court case should, under most conditions, be considered a reliable source of information about the result of the case, or for issues of fact that were adjudicated in the case. By definition, a judge is expected to listen to all sides of the argument, weigh them impartially, determine their credibility, and issue a fair and neutral decision based upon facts. That's consistent with the highest ideals of Wikipedia policy. It's also a far higher standard than the editorial policy of almost any "reliable source" newspaper one could name today. Although decisions are sometimes overturned on appeal, those overturns typically hinge on one or two narrow procedural issues or matters of fact; it's rare that there are wholesale errors in a judge's findings of fact. Moreover, when there are errors, there's a procedure to catch them and publish the mistake. A judge's findings of fact and decision are legally considered to be the truth once issued. To interpret Wikipedia policy in a way that prevents editors from citing the best, most legally solid, and almost certainly most accurate source of information about a legal issue would be a perversion. I'm with Jonathanwallace and the others on this one. As for redaction: editors must be careful when dealing with redacted material; it's usually apparent when a clear statement is likely to be altered by the context of an adjacent redaction. In those cases, I think the material should rarely be used, and then only with caution, to avoid an error of omission due to the redaction. However, there's often plenty of material in redacted decisions whose meaning wouldn't be meaningfully affected by the redactions; there's no reason to toss that baby out with the bathwater. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malmö shootings

I don´t know if this is right place but I want to ask another users to watch this article. Anonymous vandal repeatedly inserts false claims about Björn Söder [11] [12] [13]. Source writes that he denounced Swedish media for mass covering the shootings against immigrants but not covering and not refusing violent attacks against members of Sweden Democrats. He did not support the shootings but expressed his dissatisfaction with the unbalanced reporting. --Dezidor (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lang Lang (pianist)

I don't know if this is the right place to ask questions, but here goes... Lang Lang the painist was recently involved in a controversy in which he played a Maoist era propaganda music at White House. Although there is no hard evidences that the song was used as propaganda in China today or his choice is connected with Chinese government, a lot of opinion pieces accused him that he is anti-American aimed to please his "Chinese master" and brainwashed by Chinese propragada. It is permissible to generate a list of opinions that accuse him in his article? Jim101 (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article as of this diff seems to present both sides of the issue, and achieve neutral point of view. Addition of any more negative opinions might create weight problems. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been raised again at the article. In the absence of solid evidence, is it permissible to accuse Lang Lang as anti-America/Fenqing with negative opinion pieces and balance it out with positive opinion pieces? Jim101 (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't accusing Lang Lang of anything, since the article makes it clear who made the accusations and it presents his rebuttal towards these claims. Seems pretty NPOV to me. It may be argued that the event is too trivial for publication in an encyclopedia article; in that case the reason for removal wouldn't be for BLP reasons but rather standard editorial discretion. Them From Space 15:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Forsyth

Resolved

– Two weeks semi protection - User:Keith D Protected Bruce Forsyth: Persistent vandalism: High level of IP vandalism

In the first Paragraph under the heading PERSONAL LIFE it states that Bruce Forsyth was married to Peggy Mitchell whom he had 3 children with, named Grant, Phil and Sam Mitchell. This is obviously not a true fact at all!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.105.110 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously for Brits and others familiar with EastEnders, but yes. Actually, someone deleted the entire section, but ~~I've~~ attempted to restored it, but User:Off2riorob did a better job. Ian.thomson (talk)

Thanks Ian, I just reverted right back to the start of the disruption - there has been a attack on this BLP all day from a mass of different IP addresses and as Ian said, is no one watching.. I have added it, if it continues some protection will need requesting. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Mardell

Persistent attempts to label this person as dead, despite no evidence, and indeed, plenty of evidence to the contrary (blog post http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2011/01/obamas_space_race_strategy_thr.html, twitter messages www.twitter.com/markmardell). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.124.61 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 3 attempts by a single editor--it's almost certainly just run of the mill vandalism. I have warned the editor, and consider it a final warning due to the BLP violation. In the future, be sure to leave a message on an editor's talk page informing that this type of info needs sources, and continuing to add it can result in being blocked. In other words, the best way to deal with vandalism from a single source is revert, warn, and ask for a block at WP:AIV if it continues. Even if it isn't vandalism, this kind of info always requires reliable sources, and adding it w/o sources is disruptive editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.124.61 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Baker (producer)

This is a biased post with non reliable sourced information and links Many secondary sources from somebody who is relatively unknown. Self serving and name dropping un-necessarily long and not reliable sourced for a low profile individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bissey66 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, where rappers, college professors, and episodes of the Simpsons get automatic notability. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look. The individual is named in the BBC and New York Times sources and may meet notability requirements. The best way to test this if you disagree is to propose the article for deletion and see who defends and improves it. It certainly can use some clean up. I worked on the lede a bit, as it seems to have been mangled by a badly done edit. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had to smile at the apparent expression of annoyance that the article is using "many secondary sources" :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Agnes Heller

The opening paragraph about Agnes Heller, especially this addition "the Hungarian public is expecting her to give explanation how the "moralist" philosophy department was involved in embezzlement of public monies. [2]" This text reflect local government politics and a political witch-hunt with no factual ot legal background. It should be removed from her bio. It is a disgrace to wikipedia if a temporary political agenda can find an entry to a prominent philosopher's bio page. Whoever posted the text is part of the inquisition against the group of philosophers who openly criticize the totalitarian tendencies of the present government (2011). The "Hungarian public" should not be used as a synonym for political watchdogs of the government.

Please remove the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archive2 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this issue. I've removed that text and also a little more, as it's inappropriate for the lead of the article (or possibly anywhere else in it), and unsupported by any English language sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can be in every language not only in English. Information about her scandal is notable but the wording should be more neutral. --Dezidor (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not a gossip and scandal rag. If the "scandal" (see WP:LABEL, "use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally, with in-text attribution if in doubt"), is noteworthy for the article (and in particular, the lead) then it would have received widespread and persistent coverage in independent reliable sources. (And agreed, they don't have to be in English.) If this person is subsequently arrested, charged, and/or convicted, as opposed to merely being "investigated", then that would be a much stronger case for significant coverage of the incident in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. sorry for the rather harsh wording, I think we are basically in agreement really. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andjelka Mihajlov

Resolved

– wrong location - please see WP:Articles for creation

Mrs Andjelka Mihajlov – As the Minister for The Protection of Natural Resources and Environment in the Government of Serbia, she had a prominent role in leading the Reform Agenda of Serbia in Environmental Sector from 2002 to 2004. By UNEP, in 2006 she has been acknowledged as the women environmental leader of Western Balkan. She is the member of the UN global network of Women Environmental Ministers and Leaders. She was for five years (2005-2010) the member of EBRD ESAC (Environmental and Social Advisory Council). Mrs Andjelka Mihajlov is “Environmental Ambassadors” President. University Professor, Promoter and Scientist. By education she is chemical engineer, with PhD in Technical Sciences. Have more than 300 scientific references. Member of National Committee for cooperation with UNESCO, as well as co-chair for Sustainable Development & EU Integration Advisory Board of Serbian Ministry for Environment and Spatial Planning and member of Committee for Environment and Sustainable Development of Serbian Chamber of Commerce (from 2004). For 20 years she has being working for Environmentally Friendly and Sustainable Future, initiating Environmental Cohesion Process of Western Balkan as a tool for development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.236.53 (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asking for the creation of an article that does not exist. This is the noticeboard where we discuss problems with existing biographies of living persons. If you believe this individual meets Wikipedia standards of notability and can be documented with reliable sources, you can submit your article idea at WP:Articles_for_creation--or sign on for a free account and start writing the article yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph D. Scurfield

Article is getting edits relating to firings at subject's company, obviously from people involved as detail is being added which isn't in the source, including naming a person involved not named by the sources. Article was semi-protected yesterday but there have been further edits by an autoconfirmed account inactive since 2006. Help watching the article would be appreciated. January ^(talk) 07:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits look justified to me. I watchlisted the page. I also made a couple of edits, changing the second mention of Calgary Herald from an inline external link to a reference, and revising the language of the sentence to reflect better what the article actually says, as I don't think the statement that they were speaking on behalf of other employees was supported. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a closer look at the overall article, it's based almost entirely on primary sources which makes me question the notability. Sunshine Village, which he is CEO of, is notable but I wouldn't consider that necessarily makes the CEO notable. January ^(talk) 22:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yelena vaelbe biography

Resolved

– cited and corrected - thanks

She didn't tie with Stefania Belmondo in Trondheim World Championships of cross country skiing in 10 k pursuit free-technique. They obtained the same time, but Yelena Vaelbe won the gold and the italian skier silver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.48.141.183 (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source for this, please consider editing the article yourself, or, if you are not comfortable doing so, posting something on the article talk page asking other users to do so. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to sources, the IP is correct, so

Done decltype (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hardy (ice hockey)

I'm in a bit of an editing dispute in regard to some BLP concerns on the Mark Hardy article. The quick version is that he was charged with sexual assault but never faced court - the charges were reduced and then later dropped. It made a bit of a fuss at the time, and we have a brief version of the event in the article. However, one editor wishes to insert the name of the accuser. The alleged accuser is not notable in and of herself, but is claimed to be related to the subject. Originally this was done without a source, and was therefore reverted. Now a source is being added, but the source is TMZ.com. All other sources that I can find either don't mention the claimed accuser by name (in at least one case deliberately) or refer the source of the name back to TMZ. I and other editors originally reverted on the grounds that there was no source, but I also question the reliability of TMZ for this sort of information, and, per the policy on names, the suitability of including her name at all given that only one source reported it (even if some others repeated it) and her lack of notability otherwise. However, opinions either way would be much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the consesus here in similar cases, is not to mention the name of the accuser, in order to protect her privacy, even if reliably sourced. With a nod to WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:1E, WP:NOTGOSSIP etc. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, the not notable name adds nothing of value anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting, however, that any future notoriety for the accuser would change this opinion. Collect (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the others editors in this storm, I would like to further add that the problematic editor who keeps reinserting the disputed details does not seem interested in reading up one various guidelines that have been presented to her (?) by myself and others, and rather blithely brushed off the criticism of TMZ as a non-reputable source, and keeps reinserting the info, including following a Third Opinion request was requested and received. In other words, I have my doubts that consensus will have much of an impact on her. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I left the user a note with a link to this thread and asked them not to replace the content against a clear consensus here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vedantha hemmige

Resolved

– wrong location - please see WP:Articles for creation

Vedantha Hemmige is a Wellknown Socialist,Freedomfighter,Follower of Ram manohar Lohia,Jai Prakash Narayan,municipal corporator for 30 years,Town Planning Chairman,Member Of legislative Assembly was born on 28-12-1928 in a small village called Hemmige in T Narsipur Taluk Karnataka.A rebel from chilhood left his rich landlord father came to Mysore,studied in Dalvoys Middle School,Then went to Maharajas High School and college and did his Engneering in National Inistiute of Engneering(NIE). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.58.161 (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asking for the creation of an article that does not exist. This is the noticeboard where we discuss problems with existing biographies of living persons. If you believe this individual meets Wikipedia standards of notability and can be documented with reliable sources, you can submit your article idea at WP:Articles_for_creation--or sign on for a free account and start writing the article yourself.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Forster

Resolved

– reverted to the original cited Flanker

Jason Forster was an open-side flanker (no.7), he did not play on the wing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.61.60 (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not really an issue for this page but I added it for you as it was in the citation, you can also easily go and correct it yourself. I have left you some handy links to get you started, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelio Sommaruga

Resolved

– updated

In my biography in Wikipedia correct please following points ° present main task (2010): Chairman of the Board of Directors of the FOUNDATION FOR THE FUTURE, Amman <www.foundationforfuture.org>; honorary President of Initiatives of Change International, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.151.252 (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.foundationforfuture.org/en/search/node/Sommaruga - detail appears correct

http://www.foundationforfuture.org/en/node/1526 - Dr. Cornelio Sommaruga (Switzerland): Chair of the Board of Directors

- honorary President of Initiatives of Change International - Initiatives of change International - search results - Sommaruga

I hope that is ok, thanks for the update. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew H. Clark

Resolved

– content removed

See this link for the current version of the article. My query is about the last paragraph of prose in this article, and whether its lightly-sourced claims ought to be removed under our BLP policy. Powers ^T 16:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that comment and the support appears to nor be a WP:RS, more a blog, and the comment is so opinionated and unverifiable, presented as fact that he has driven away hoards of catholics. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, its not reliably sourced and way too vague. A controversy could be included with a brief description in accordance with WP:WEIGHT if specific assertions are cited to reliable sources such as local newspapers. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as the content violated at least one policy , probably two, I removed it and left the IP that added it a list of beneficial links and a note asking him or her not to replace it without discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Schapira

Y

This user is a member of
Generation Y.

has been persistently adding this ethnicity claim to the infobox and article on Schapira, despite there being nothing in the article itself about this. He's also added it to the article's lede and to other articles. For some background, here is Unitrin's first edit using this account, and here are some others:[14][15]. Is this material appropriate for this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Jewish references in the article (infobox and cat). There's no support for either, let alone that it has anything to do with her notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's added it again, insisting the material is sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw, and I reverted, this time citing three different category-related policies that are applicable.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it's highly problematic for editors to yellow badge biographies of living people, particularly people they quite obviously disagree with. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, see the yellow badge in the infobox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Enderlin Unitrin (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel some other article is violating WP:BLP in some way, remove the material, or bring it up on this board, in its own section. We're discussing BLP violations in the Esther Schapira article here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, you persist in not understanding others. The edit was done in good faith to make Esther Schapira's infobox consistent with Charles Enderlin's. Your quip about "yellow badging" is a mean-spirited and BAD FAITH accusation, and shows you lack understanding about the edit. You should avoid Israeli topics if you cannot be fair and/or consistent.Unitrin (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I understand you all too well, and what happens in that other article is irrelevant here. Also, Schapira is German, not Israeli. Anyway, I'm just acting administratively and enforcing policy here; unsurprisingly, every other editor who has commented here agrees with me. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not consistent, please see infobox for Charles Enderlin.Unitrin (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not responsible for administering every single article on Wikipedia. As I've stated above, If you feel some other article is violating WP:BLP in some way, remove the material, or bring it up on this board, in its own section. We're discussing BLP violations in the Esther Schapira article here. Don't waste our time bringing up other articles here again, it is disruptive. I am increasingly concerned that this new account of yours is behaving in ways no different than your many previously banned accounts. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop attacking others. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks, please review this policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia! Thanks.Unitrin (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop insisting we amend articles without providing proper sources. If you continue to do so, you may be ignored... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is insisting anything, please stop persisting in using the word insisting. Thanks.Unitrin (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And he's added it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source being cited, israelinsider.net has previously been rejected as WP:RS, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_28#IsraelInsider. I'll revert, and point this out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well found Andy - it is often a quick guide to reliability I use to check the usage - if an external is is only used two or three times o]n the whole of the wiki then its very likely not a WP:RS - Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know this discussion was occurring, Jayjg..... It's relevant. She did 2 documentaries on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's only fair that people know what her religion/ethnicity is, as is done with Arab/Muslim sources for the conflict. Why hide it? She won a Buber-Rosenzweig-Medal, because of her Jewish contributionsUnitrin (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you were to provide a reliable source for her supposed ethnicity, as you were asked to. As for why she won the Buber-Rosenzweig-Medal, our article says it is awarded "to individuals, initiatives, or institutions, which have actively contributed to Christian-Jewish understanding". Can you explain how this relates to the statement you have made about 'Jewish contributions'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders if Johann Baptist Metz, Henryk Muszyński and Johannes Rau also won Buber-Rosenzweig-Medals because of their "Jewish contributions"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, please stop wasting our time. Do you have a source that shows she won the medal for being a Christian or has ever done any documentaries related to Christian topics, please show your source.

Andy, I provided a source where it's clear that she self-identifies as being Jewish. She won the above Buber-Rosenzweig-Medal for contributing as a Jewish person from that perspective. It's relevant to her life, she's also spoken publicly on behalf of B’nai B’rith. I see no reason why this info should be hidden or censored. I do understand that the israelinsider source is deemed questionable, and I did read through the discussion link about whether israelinsider is a reliable source (it was inconclusive overall). There is no reason why her infobox shouldn't be consistent with others' on Wiki (i.e. Charles Enderlin, and many others), but I accept that we could use a better, Reliable Source and all Wiki editors could work on improving the source. Thanks. Unitrin (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unitrin, I'm not wasting anyone's time here. However, I'm rather concerned that you've begun editing Wikipedia again, and in the same way, considering how many of your socks were previously banned. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request that a reliable source is provided for a statement about someone's ethnicity isn't censorship, as you should be perfectly aware. As for the rest, again provide proper sources, and we can make a sensible decision on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Among the distinguished speakers we had the pleasure to welcome were Mrs. Simone Weil and Mr. Arno Klarsfeld from France, Mrs. Esther Schapira from Germany, Chief Rabbi Bent Melchior from Denmark and Rabbi Awraham Soetendorp from the Netherlands." http://www.bnaibritheurope.org/bbe/content/view/1022/120/lang,en_GB/ Would Jayjg like to maintain that Ms. Schapiro was invited to speak with the other Jewish speakers, to Jewish youth, because she's Christian, atheist, or not self-identifying?Unitrin (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this state that Esther Schapira is Jewish? No. Find a reliable source that does. Wikipedia doesn't rely on guesswork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could help us find the source to help Wikipedia. She stated to Channel 2 new in Israel that she's German-Jewish, maybe we could locate that video and/or report? That would clear it all up. Thanks.Unitrin (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic group images RfC

Editors may be interested in this RfC about the use of images of notable individuals in ethnic group article infoboxes, where BLP is being cited. Input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Gray Gubler

According to the article right now, he is "terrified of snaowmans"? I would guess that this is potentially libellious (though humorous). Anyway, I would guess someone might want to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.190.202.95 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've fixed this and watchlisted the article. Note that you can edit articles to fix problems like this yourself, since the article isn't protected. Incidentally, since the subject of the article apparently makes self-mocking mockumentaries, the snowman issue might have been based on something like that, but of course that doesn't count as a reliable source or excuse the spelling. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Foundation Wiki feedback

There is some incorrect information re: Marlene Danielle longest running performer in Broadway history.She replaced Wendy Edmead and was Bombalurina for Eighteen Years. She has also not been included in your list of American dancers. I am her mother and can provide a biography approved by her.Moved from FWF by PeterSymonds (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marlene Danielle hangs up her whiskers - sept 2000 "for 18 years ... Marlene Danielle, the last remaining actress from the original cast of "Cats"" - Cats (musical) - Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Caplinger

Justice Nancy Moritz needs her page updated - I get in trouble with moderators because apparently I don't know the rules for retitlting and redirecting pages. Her former name is Nancy Caplinger and I have a discussion on that page with info. Thanks for your help Alphachimera (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a major revamp of the article to incorporate most of your concerns. The only thing I haven't squarely addressed is the issue of her name. I've updated her name within the article but not changed (moved) the name of the article itself. It's not clear to me what to do because her name is apparently Nancy Moritz Caplinger. I'm assuming Moritz is her maiden name but don't know for sure. According to the Kansas court website, she is using Moritz as her name, but I'm not sure for how long that's been true. It would be good to find a source that explains all this. I haven't looked for one, though. I just concentrated on bringing the article up-to-date.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts. Her name is Moritz now - she started going by Moritz Caplinger last fall, preceding the switch back to Moritz (maiden name). The Kansas Courts website (http://www.kscourts.org/kansas-courts/supreme-court/justice-bios/moritz.asp) has the most up-to-date information. The news articles and the Washburn Law website reflect the transitionary period back in Novemeber; news articles that appear on Google as recently as a couple weeks ago call her Moritz Caplinger but they seem to be just quoting the older articles. Aside from the Kansas Courts website, there isn't a source directly confirming her name as Moritz. Does anyone know if there's a rule for handling name changes with marriage/divorce? Alphachimera (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know why she switched back to her maiden name? Did she divorce? It would be helpful to have a source on the issue (other than the Kansas court website). If we did, we should be able to accomplish a name change in the article and then redirects in case someone enters the Caplinger name.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she and her husband (Mark?) divorced. It's not exactly something that goes in the paper, though, so there's nothing to meet WP:RS. Alphachimera (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul D'Ambrosio

This page was most likely authored by the article subject. The bio is straight from his website, with the exception of some edits. The moniker of the author ends in 221. D'Ambrosio's twitter alias also ends in 221. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.204.118.6 (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People creating and editing their own bio is frowned upon, WP:AUTOBIO. An editor who is active here has already done significant clean up on the article. If you think the article still does not belong here, the solution is to propose it for deletion. I believe you would need to create a free Wikipedia account. However, I think the assertion he was a Pulitzer finalist, and won other significant awards, if correct, would be enough to make him notable.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Mubarak

Suzanne Mubarak, Egypt's First Lady, seeking asylum in London? Not so sure about that

The page for Suzanne Mubarak says — in two places — that she is reportedly seeking asylum in London. Given the current unrest in Egypt, this is not outlandish, but I haven't seen any major news organizations reporting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfrench39 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still not seeing reliable sources for this--just a lot of blogs and non-RS cites citing Twitter feeds and saying its "unconfirmed". It would be better to delete the information and wait a day; if its true it will be in the Guardian, the Times etc. shortly.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have reverted so the assertion is not currently in the article. Note that all the gossip is based on her supposedly having been seen arriving at Heathrow. There is a big leap from "X took a plane to London" to "X fled the country". Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/104960/20110125/suzanne-mubarak-of-egypt-has-fled-to-heathrow-airport-in-london-unconfirmed-reports.htm - from a few days ago - according to a post on twitter. Yes, its just nothing reportable and as you say, even if it is true, fled is just an opinionated claim, you wouldn't blame her if she has decided this is a good time to go shopping somewhere outside of Egypt. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nargis Fakhri

Incorrect information about the living person. birthdate is wrong real date 10/20/1987 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusrite21 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the article was a cut and copy violation from http://www.usnewstime.com/nargis-fakhri-hot-photos/2379.html which shows the incorrect date of birth, I can't yet find a WP:RS for a dob so I have presently removed it.Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marine le Pen

This article is written in rather poor English, and is ridiculously praising of Le Pen. To quote: Marine Le Pen is described as the « revelation of the 2010 year » : « a political phenomenom first », « a media phenomenom secondly » As Marine Le Pen is popular among workers, political analysts speak of « social marinism » Opposed to the accession of Turkey to the European Union, she prefers the option of a « privileged partnership » As well as the superfluous vanity shots like this one: Chess photo Could we have a neutrality banner on this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myster Pacific (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, reports like this are better reported on the article talkpage, at least in the first instance. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and many of the assertions given as fact are sourced to the National Front site itself or to sites which appear also to be right wing nationalist in nature and therefore not WP:RS. I deleted the statement "As Marine Le Pen is popular among workers, political analysts speak of « social marinism »" for that reason and will give the site some more attention.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

jacques fresco

Resolved

– semi protected and watchlisted

Repeating defamatory phrases was inserted in article, i was edited and removes some of phrases. please, watch this bio and protect them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzaloon (talk • contribs) 14:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted. Scott MacDonald has also protected it to autoconfirmed editors only. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Falk

Moved to article talk page per Bbb23's suggestion

I came across Richard A. Falk through a discussion on another site; I'd never heard of him til a few minutes ago. I found an overstatement in the lead paragraph that I was about to fix, but I saw on the talk page that he is wound up in the Israel/Palestine conflict, a traditional Wikipedia battleground, so I'm bringing it here I don't want to mess with it myself at this point.

A 9/11 truther,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] Falk has been condemned by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and others for suggesting that the George W. Bush administration, rather than al-Qaeda, was responsible for the September 11 attacks.^[11]

I have looked at all 11 of those footnotes and not a single one of them labels Falk as an actual 9/11 truther. They establish pretty well that he has expressed truther sympathies and gotten criticized for it, but that's not the same thing. Falk himself writes, in one of the editorials that drew the criticism:

It is not paranoid under such circumstances to assume that the established elites of the American governmental structure have something to hide, and much to explain. What has not been established by the “9/11 Truth Movement” is a convincing counter-narrative – that is, an alternate version of the events that clears up to what degree, if at all, the attacks resulted from incompetence, deliberate inaction, and outright complicity.[16]

That seems to say: there are gaps in the official report, but the truther 9/11 conspiracy theories aren't supported either.

The sentence also says "Falk has been condemned... for suggesting that the George W. Bush administration" sourced to the Jerusalem Post. The Jerusalem Post article uses the word "questioning" rather than "suggesting", which comes across slightly differently IMHO.

I'm also not sure how to assess the neutrality of the various sources cited. I.e. I have to wonder to what extent Falk is being attacked by proxy because of his role in the I/P conflict, using this 9/11 stuff as a pretext. Falk replied on his blog (http://richardfalk.wordpress.com) but that is not mentioned.

Anyway, I think the sentence should be rewritten. While writing this post, I found there was also an NPOVN thread January 20[17] and there has been some edit warring related to the sentence (that's why there are so many footnotes now), so I figure bringing it here is still the right thing.

71.141.88.54 (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better place to bring all this up first is on the Talk page of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that but decided it was better to bring it to uninvolved editors, given the edit warring and that the article is already under sanctions. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'll put it on the article talk page per your suggestion. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Grammer

There have now been four different birth years given for Camille Grammer, covering a span of nearly a decade and a half. Discussion on the article's talk page has failed to produce any progress. All of the sources seem remarkably coy about mentioning the piece of information in question. Can anyone with a bit more experience in dealing with such things, discover a plausible year backed by a WP:RS ? Thanks --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP changed the birth year from 1968 to 1964 without any explanation or source. I've restored the 1968 year. I've also changed the birth place. That was changed much longer ago, again without any explanation or source. Theoretically, if challenged, both the place and the year would require sources. I've found sources for both, but they aren't the most reliable, e.g., IMDb and gossipy web pubs that caused my browser to go a little haywire. :-) I've also removed Caucasian from the infobox. Completely unnecessary. As well as her height, same. I've responded to the birth year issue on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vundavalli Aruna Kumar

Appears to be an attack article, complete with accusation of "malicious targeting intentions in vendetta politics." I'm kind of busy right now, but someone might want to confirm and correct this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have ruthlessly hacked out most of the "Career" text, which seemed to be half unsourced attack material and half unsourced positive puffery. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Brody

Resolved

– added a couple of citations and removed some cut and copy text

This bio entry has extremely few cited sources and reads like a press release. In fact, I just attended a talk by Leonard Brody, and his introduction read almost word for word like this entry. I propose deleting this entry on account of notability, tone, and lack of citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elpuma70 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bio definitely needs proper sourcing if it is to stay. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few externals with mentions of him, he appears to be kind of noteworthy - I also ragged it around a bit as I discovered the content was a copy paste from here - I added resolved but if you still think what is left is not noteworthy you can either WP:prod it or open a WP:AFD - Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Burnett

71.33.195.86 (talk · contribs) added some information to the controversy section of the Erin Burnett article saying that critics say she implied the U.S. must support dictatorships to keep oil cheap. This is was removed by MarnetteD (talk · contribs), and then re-added by the same IP address. I removed it, thinking it was a BLP violation. The article itself says nothing about what people think she implied; the only thing that mentions it is the title of the source story. I'd like to get another opinion on this, but I'm not sure if this is the correct board for this. Also wasn't sure if I needed to notify people as is done at WP:ANI. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't have to notify as at ANI but I find its often a good idea and allows for both sides of the story and helps to move the issue from reverting to discussion. That addition was a bit close to the blp bright line, what happened or what it looks like to me is that the editor used the title of the article and included it in the addition. As I understand it, article titles are not wikipedia reliable and reporters are given a degree of leeway with what they title their pieces with - a title is by its very nature a dramatic header with the attention of titillating and drawing readers in to read the piece... also .. "critics argue" a claim like that even when cited would need a more specific attribution to a couple of the notable people that have claimed she was doing that.Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, what you've said basically echoes my own feelings. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 50 Most Loathsome Americans

Resolved

– deleted - as per comments at the AFD

Sourced only to The Beast, I doubt this site meets the sourcing requirements for Wikipedia. Ought it be deleted? Tentontunic (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without even looking at it, I would say "yes" asap. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the list is commented on by other (mainstream) sources, I'd think it should go. It is a new article though, with a single editor (User:Limulus). ~~Perhaps he/she just needs reminding of this: I'll leave a note on their talk page.~~ Rob has notified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creation has doubled the number of externals to www.buffalobeast.com - clearly not independently notable and not very encyclopedic and clearly has BLP issues, I would suggest speedy as an attack page is worth a try. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was going to speedy G10 but an admin User:Nancy has rejected one speedy request already, G10 says -- These "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met.....seems to fit the bill apart from it has a exzternal to a source - perhaps AFD and snow delete it... Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 50 Most Loathsome Americans - if anyone wants to ~~pile on.~~ comment. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gottfried

IPs are inserting various Jewish categories into the Paul Gottfried article, based initially on this website, and more recently on this blog. I've warned them that if they continued, I will be protecting the article. Is either source adequate or reliable enough for the insertion of these categories? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They can't add cats unless there is content cites reliably and discussing the issue in the article, as I see you told them, WP:BLPCAT. The Jewcy article is self written, I think we can accept that, as pretty certain? As a WP:SELFPUB if there is confirmation that it is , then a comment about himself might be acceptable. He seems to write quite a bit there http://www.jewcy.com/author/paul_gottfried and he says in the article -"in my early thirties, I belonged to a synagogue in Westfield, New Jersey," .. and talks about his parents generation of Jews and says "my fellow jews" - the other link is not a wp reliable source for anything. The other one http://www.jewcy.com/ we have only around 20 to 25 external links to BLP articles. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not its accurate, or the source reliable, since the article says nothing about it, it doesn't appear to be in any way relevant to his notability, does it? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next source that is written by profesor: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Gottfried.html and another by far left group: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/summer/irreconcilable-differences?page=0,1 --Dezidor (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty rich. The "professor" you refer to is none other than Kevin B. MacDonald in the Occidental Observer - quite obviously not a source one can use for BLPs about anyone, particularly alleged Jews. As for the SPLC, it only says he has "Jewish ancestry", not that he is Jewish, and regarding it being a "far left group", please take your irrelevant POV battles elsewhere.[18] Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Jayjg says, its not related to his notability, if it was there would be reliable sources discussing it, he has written about Zionism but there is nothing reliable discussing any connection to that and his ancestry, adding and he has some Jewish ancestry is a pretty worthless vague statement. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH that is pretty much the same with all these stupid categories and associated stupid lists. For example List of Jewish American biologists and physicians] hardly any are notable because they are Jewish. But you could just as well pick on List of Jews in sports or , it seems to be enough that they self identify as such to be included in the nonsense. Are we to assume that different rules apply here: that when someone that identifies as Jewish, opposes Neoconservatives, and writes about Jews critical of Zionism that his Jewishness must be denied? John lilburne (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised that Jayjg likes SPLC and doesn´t like MacDonald. The next source is article written by Gottfried: The chance that such radicalized Protestants, who live in their own social bubble, would have picked up their lunacies from any Jew (me perhaps?) is next to nil. [19] --Dezidor (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised either that Jayjg likes SPLC and doesn't like MacDonald who, despite the hate directed towards him by some Jewish people, is a tenured college professor at a notable public American university. Paul Gottfried is Jewish, that's a fact, and it shouldn't be hidden. It's relevant and instructive in his positioning vis-a-vis Jewish Neoconservatives who he often writes about. This is helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_and_paleoconservatism#1987:_The_Catholic_University_of_America Unitrin (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Harris

Someone who's sign-in is Astockradio keeps posting a photo of me with a python on my site,and I keep removing it. Can you stop that from happening?

Heidi Harris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obzervant (talk • contribs) 21:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "on my site", I assume you mean on the article about you? I'll go over to Wikimedia Commons (which actually hosts the image) and get it deleted, because the copyright claim of it being public domain is clearly wrong. But it would help enormously if you could provide and free-license a more acceptable photo of yourself: it is much easier to defend keeping an appropriate photo on the page than keeping the absence of one. - Jmabel | Talk 22:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to point out that we don't actually know that you are Heidi Harris, but then I realised that we don't know whether the photo is of her/you either. On that basis, it shouldn't be used in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Marshall (sociologist)

Through another user I have been told that the subject is unhappy with this article. Prof. Marshall is the Vice-Chancellor of Reading University, and during his term of office a number of departments have been closed on economic grounds. It is reasonable for this to be mentioned in his article, but I agree that the present text gives it undue WP:WEIGHT. The University of Reading article, in the penultimate paragraph under "history" describes the closures in a much more neutral way, and ascribes responsibility to the Senior Management Board, the Senate, and the Council, not personally to Prof. Marshall.

It is apparent from the article history that there has been a slow-motion edit war since 2006, mainly by IPs, with these passages being added, tagged POV, taken out again, and re-added. I think they should be replaced by a more neutral paragraph, perhaps linking to the University article, saying that during his term of office the University decided for economic reasons to close several departments and that this caused controversy. I invite comments and suggestions for wording. JohnCD (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Dix

Ongoing activity by a WP:SPA of a COI nature at this article has introduced deliberately defamatory material intended to attack this leading New Democratic Party leadership candidate; the recently-added material tonight is skewed and "victimizing" and likely does not represent what the linked sources actually say, or focuses only on the most negative wordings possible, including the phrase "bags of cash". The news media cited are notable anti-NDP organs, also famously pro-BC Liberal ones. The SPA also removed the POV template I'd placed, as well as attacked me for being allegedly an "NDP fanatic" on the talkpage, and also added Category:Forgers, which is for people convicted of criminal forgery, not accused of it as is being attempted here. A previous addition by this SPA, User:Sirjohnhackett, attempted to introduce defamatory material about former Premier Glen Clark suggestive that he was guilty of conflict of interest, when in fact he had been acquitted and exonerated in court. The same SPA has also on the Christy Clark bio, which is for a major BC Liberal leadership candidate, tried to (repeatedly and well over 3RR) tried to remove material on her relationship to the BC Rail Scandal. After re-placing the POV tag, I have also added the COI tag given the obvious partisan and biased nature of this SPA's work on this article and given his history on the other article....he will probably try to remove it, and the POV tag, again, and also re-instate the Forgers category and make some kind of accusation against me in the process.....BC politics is a can of worms on both sides of the political polarity that typifies the place; all BC leadership candidate articles, NDP or BC Liberal, should be placed on more watchlists than my own....I'd rather recuse myself rather than be repeatedly accused of hypocrisy by someone who refuses to read BLP, COI, POV or SOAP, and also because I am in the real world a fairly notable "anti-Liberal" blog-participant (though without my own blog - because of Wikipedia I just don't have time). I'm also, for the record, anti-NDP.Skookum1 (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note also my commdents on WP:CANTALK's noticeboard.Skookum1 (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has since re-added the Forgers category with this note on the talkpage at the saem time, and in the meantime has undertaken to attack-edit the Glen Clark article, adding legitimate material at the same time as BLP-attack materials.....he has also continued to remove material from the Christy Clark article, restored by me, which someone else has added, accusing me of adding it.....Skookum1 (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Berlinski

The article says he is a critic of evolution but not a believer in intelligent design, in fact an agnostic. However the opening sentence says that he is "within the intelligent design movement." This does not seem to make sense. When I removed the phrase it was put right back. There might be a possibility that being known as an intelligent designer could affect his career.Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the material a second time. Jaque Hammer (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaque Hammer would have us believe that David Berlinski, a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, author of Deniable Darwin & Other Essays, co-star of Expelled, is not a leading member of the intelligent design movement (of which the CSC is the hub). It is bleeding obvious that he is, but to satisfy Jaque, I've provided an explicit citation for the fact. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ID is an argument of form 'not(evolution) therefore intelligent designer(i.e. God)' (a false dichotomy), with most of the emphasis on the 'not(evolution)' bit. Berlinski explicitly agrees with the 'not(evolution)' bit, but has never stated a preferred alternative. Therefore he can quite happily join in with the IDM's evolution-bashing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the "therefore intelligent designer(i.e. God)" bit is so vestigial that Berlinski's 1996 Commentary (magazine) piece The Deniable Darwin, was described by Ronald L. Numbers as "a version of ID theory". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, being a "member of a movement" does not necessarily mean believing everything we assume one ought to believe in order to be a member of said movement. Of course with BLP this might get tricker. Does the subject have to identify themselves with the movement? This is an innocent question as I do not actually know. I'm not sure how often people do self-identify with social movements. A social movement, after all, is an informal collection of people.Griswaldo (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, Berlinski has never disavowed the movement (which he has prominently participated in on many occasions), just ID's alternate conclusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a sociological perspective I'd say he's a member of the movement, even if he's not as strongly connected to it as others may be. I'm just not sure of the BLP requirements here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I've got a citation for that -- Giberson, Karl (2002). Species of Origins. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 202. ISBN 0742507653. explicitly names him as one of the leaders of the movement. And as a CSC Fellow he is definitely "strongly connected" -- so the claim is hardly controversial. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

marley watkins

There is a section in the page which has obviously been put in as a joke by a friend.

Under 'Personal life' the last three sentances should be removed as they are joke comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamberini8 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the vandalism. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sante Kimes

This article about an American convicted criminal attracted a new SPA with the unpromising username of Sktruth (talk), who came in with all guns blazing and was swiftly blocked. Following talk page assurances that he/she now understands Wikipedia's processes and will discuss on the talk page and not edit-war, I have unblocked: the article does indeed seem unsatisfactory, with unsourced statements like "are thought to have committed the brutal killing.." More eyes requested. JohnCD (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran Broadbery and Michael Cox (clergyman)

Can others take a look at these BLP articles about some sort of Independent, splinter Catholics? I came across them as a posting on on NORN [20]. Both have been edited by an editor called User:Ciaranbroadbery, who disputes some of the material.[21] I am pretty clear that Ciaran Broadbery does not meet the notability guidelines; I can find only one (opinion) piece in a secondary source that mentions him briefly.[22]. I will Prod it, but I don't even really see a claim of notability, so perhaps a speedy is in order? Michael Cox (clergyman) looks more notable, but has lots of unsourced information, some of which is apparently disputed. Some others taking close looks would be desirable. --Slp1 (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[NR012511-1] Shaffer, Matthew (25 January 2011). "Amb. Susan Rice Condemns Prof. Richard Falk". National Review.

[2] ttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369122,00.html

[atlantic012511-3] Goldberg, Jeffrey (25 January 2011). "Not The U.N.'s Most Helpful Employee". The Atlantic.

[4] ttp://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5056-911-more-than-meets-the-eye

[5] ttp://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0111/Rice_blasts_UN_rapporteur.html?showall

[6] ttp://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/25/republican_congress_to_un_drop_dead

[7] ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8281125/UN-human-rights-official-claims-911-was-US-plot.html

[8] ttp://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gWCTbMwqBJ_I-srVglLLJsX1hoTg?docId=CNG.148a6c382024ebbebe64021de441dac9.631

[9] ttp://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70O56420110125

[10] ttp://www.nysun.com/news/foreign/un-official-calls-study-neocons-role-911

[11] Falk's 9-11 remarks are 'condemned' by UN sec.-gen., Jerusalem Post 25-01-2011

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

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