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.

misspelling of my name in the article

Resolved

– Article moved to correct name. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am Ennis Esmer. My name is misspelled in my article as Enis Esmer. How do I go about changing that? It didn't give me that option in the editing section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.120.121 (talk • contribs)

- quick looking around, the name is spelt both ways at different locations so we are going to need something WP:RS to sort it out - Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where there is a mispelling, it is always good form to use a redirect for the 2nd name, as people searching for the person are then aided.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Zamarripa

Dking1952 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My bio has been taken over by one Donald A. King, known in Georgia as DA KING. Mr. King is a paid representative of multiple anti immigrant organizations that has a long and established history of writing and posting content designed ridicule and disparage leading hispanic officials and organizations. His writing appear regularly on site that are associated with well establish hate organization. In addition Mr. King is a convicted felon. His comments on my personal bio pages are both inaccurate and sourced (reference) from his own web site.

Suggestions?

Sam Zamarripa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samzam2 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I left the user that has been adding article expansion as seen here - a note to come discuss here - on first glance that addition if full of inline externals and a fair few of them don't look reliable, , User Samzam2 has removed it and as he is claiming to be the subject of the BLP I left him a note and informed him of WP:COI. On second glance the addition violated multiple policies and I warned the user not to replace it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tazeen Ahmad

Contributors 94.193.126.45 and 'Plebwarrior' (probably the same person) are repeatedly posting libellous material. There seems to be a religious hate element involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.211.216 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the unsourced attack material and some coatracky stuff as well. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And was reverted by Plebwarrior in minutes. I posted a notice on his user page advising on BLP and RS standards and also including a 3RR warning.Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have done the trick, great. I'll keep watching it. Rosenkreutzer (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Village Leadership Academy

New Village Leadership Academy is a school partially funded by Will Smith. Although the school denies that it is associated with the Church of Scientology, it apparently uses methodology developed by L Ron Hubbard. The article contains a statement made by an anti-Scientology protester:

"Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, an admitted Scientologist, have opened this private school as a front for teaching the L. Ron Hubbard principles of 'Study Technology, his creation, and the school employs Scientologists. Our goal is to ultimately have the tax exemption status of the Scientology cult end, and the criminal deeds of Church leader David Miscaviage [sic] be exposed and prosecuted."

According to our articles on Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith, neither of them is a Scientologist. If David Miscavige has been charged with any crimes, I have no doubt that it would appear prominently in his bio here. Leaving aside the NPOV issues in this article, quoting an individual with such a clear agenda is a poor idea to begin with but quoting them without correcting their false statements is completely unacceptable. The quotation was introduced to the article by admin User:Cirt. Although editors have twice attempted to remove this section from the article, it has been replaced, once by Cirt and once by another editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a problem, but my question is, what does "Educational methodologies used by the school include "Study Technology" developed by Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard" mean? Does this mean that the school is based on a Scientology method - or does it mean that it happens to use something, among all the things schools use, which was originally developed by Hubbard/Scientology? The article is about "the School and Scientology" it is difficult to decide what weight is correct without establishing how important this is.--Scott Mac 23:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This content seems to be a bit attacking and if its still there I am going to boldly remove it as per coatracking and weight. I trimmed a bit of weight out as per the report here that a quote from an opponent of the group is being asserted to support a claim that is unsupported in the articles of the living peoples biographies here. Also - after reading the article it seems to be unduly focused on Scientology. Off2riorob (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified of this thread at BLPN, by Off2riorob (talk · contribs). I defer to the judgment used by Off2riorob in his recent edit to the page, which seems appropriate. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, do you think that adding that quotation (and restoring it after another editor removed it) was in keeping with our policy relating to living people? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above, where I said that I defer to the judgment used already by Off2riorob (talk · contribs), and agree with the recent edits and changes made by Off2riorob to the article. Going forward, I will continue to defer to the judgment of others about this article page. -- Cirt (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand, but that is not an answer to my question. You made the edit a long while ago and before you became an admin. I don't mean to badger you, but I'm curious if on reflection you feel that the edit was in keeping with our policies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more important, now, to move forward, and focus on improving the quality of articles on this project in the future, rather than dwelling on the past. -- Cirt (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, I ask in the interests of moving forward. Given that I have pointed out probably dozens of BLP violations that you have introduced in articles related to Scientology and/or Scientologists, I think it is important to know that you are not going to do so in the future. While you have removed many of BLP violations yourself once were brought up in public fora like this, I cannot recall a single instance where you acknowledged that your edits were in violation of policy. So I'll ask again - do you think your edits were in keeping with WP:BLP? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As related to this, I agree with this comment by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs), in this thread. FWIW, I will be avoiding any significant contributing to this particular article in the future. I had already removed it from off of my watchlist some time ago. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, Study Tech is one of the methods the school uses, alongside Montessori, Bruner and Gardner methods. But because Scientology is so controversial, this aspect of the school has attracted particular media attention.

As explained in Scientology's own publications, key principles of Study Tech are: (1) When learning about a physical object, like a tractor, a student should ideally have an example of it (or a reasonable approximation) there, so they can relate to it and the topic will engage their attention; if this is lacking, and discussion is purely abstract, learning success is poor. (2) A student shouldn't move on to the next stage until they have understood the previous one; if they do, they will feel disorientated. (3) It asserts that many problems in understanding (i.e. "losing the plot") are due to a misunderstood word somewhere along the line that the student moved past without understanding it correctly; the student needs to go back to the point where things stopped to make sense, identify the misunderstood word, look it up in a dictionary ("word-clearing"), and then read again from that point onward.

Critics say that the use of Study Tech makes students regard Hubbard as an authority, making them vulnerable to joining Scientology later on. See e.g. [1] (LA Times article on a critic's site). --JN466 10:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which means the whole add-on stuff about ST which is already multiply wikilinked in the article, should be substantially condensed. Would adding a "see also" link be overkill? Collect (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No more or less overkill than adding Montessori method to the "see also" section. That section is currently populated with Church of Scientology-affiliated schools, which would lead the reader to believe that this school is a Church of Scientology-affiliated school, despite what the school itself says. Coupled with the now-removed quote from a very partisan source (which directly stated that Smith and/or Pinkett-Smith was a Scientologist) and the "Scientology portal" badge and the link to a Wikinews story entitled "Scientology ties at New Village Leadership Academy stir controversy for Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith", I think this article is being used to suggest that Will Smith is a Scientologist. The content actually involving the school is so eclipsed by this that it contains out-of-date references to it being "set to open September 3, 2008". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I think this thread is resolved. The original content issue has been removed and a couple of other edits and there are no objections, the addition was historic and policy and guidelines have been strengthened a lot since then. If there are any other issues they would be better discussed at the Wikipedia talk:Neutrality in Scientology - Off2riorob (talk)
- Rob, I'm still hopeful that Cirt will answer my question about introducing BLP violations into Scientology-related articles. Those who are puzzled by my question may wish to read through this ANi thread or this request for arbitration enforcement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - eyeroll Either collect them some where off wiki and make a case an Arbcom or cut the drudging of it all up every time Cirt does something. YOu really crossing the line here into WP:HOUNDING territory. This is BLP board where problems are brought up achieve consensus and are fixed. Not where we put people on trial for violating such things. You made it clear here you have no interest in improving the topic area. Scott, Rob, Jayen, Griswaldo, get it and are working to solve problems. YOu are only agitating the situation by dragging Cirt through the mud. Cirt has proven to be more than capable of learning and improving from criticism. You very clearly are unable to as I have talked with you twice already on backing off from Cirt. Cut it the next time you turn content dispute into a kangaroo court of Cirt bashing I will take you to WP:AE and seek remedy under the the creation of hostile "Editing environment (editors cautioned)" clause. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have asked Cirt a very straightforward question about whether or not they feel their edits in this particular case were in keeping with our BLP policies. I did so not because I am "harassing" Cirt, but because this is just the latest in a long string of BLP violations I have uncovered in looking at Cirt's edits of Scientology-related articles. I think it is a reasonable to seek some assurance here that this is not going to continue. Cirt has chosen to be evasive rather than answer. If you feel there is cause to start an AE request, please go ahead, but there is no need to turn a simple request into some kind of drama. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Cirt's past ani and AE threads have no bearing on a content board. If you can back it up take it where they deal with conduct issues. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - This issue is resolved, any other issues can be solved by editing. User:Cirt has answered well enough imo also. Are you going to edit within policy? is a have you stopped beating your wife type question. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Off2riorob, when one is asked a question such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?", answering either yes or no implies that you are or have beaten your wife. There is no "good" answer. Asking if Cirt intends to edit within policy is not at all like that, since there is an obvious "good" answer. Regardless, that isn't the question I was asking. I am asking if Cirt believes that their past edits (in this particular case) were within policy. I ask that in order to gauge Cirt's understanding of the BLP policy and to seek some assurance that they will in future be editing within policy. I believe this is quite common in cases where editors have made repeated copyright violations. Cirt has made repeated BLP violations (which I have previously linked). This is the BLP noticeboard. I do not think it should be a necessary question, but it is not an unreasonably difficult one to answer, is it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaida guest houses, Faisalabad

The article has a lot contentious material about living persons that is completely unsourced or poorly sourced. I tried to remove the material but people keep reverting this unsourced or poorly sourced material back into the article. IQinn (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the talk page and agree with you that WP:BLP would apply to any poorly sourced contentious assertions about living people on the page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for your input, we surely take BLP issues very serious at wikipedia and anybody is welcome to put it back together with the necessary sources. Regards IQinn (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mailer

The article is misleading and highly inaccurate and may constitute libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.62.231 (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could be more specific.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just on a cursory glance: BLP issues aside, it is generally good editing practice to expand upon the lead in the body of the article. However, in mailer's article, the lead also mentions his political affiliations and campaigns, yet the article body focuses entirely on his "crimes" including one he (if I am reading the source right) was never put on trial for, much less found guilty. In the first section no less. Looks to be a little wp:undue, or, if nothing else, the critical parts should be balanced with information about his activities in politics and governance. I really don't know much about this person, but I'll watch list it and go through the refs tonight if nothing is done before. David Able 17:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I am not attempting to respond of behalf of ~~User:Bbb23~~ the IP address that started this section. I too am curious to his/her specific complaints. David Able 17:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started to look for some sources to balance this article, and realized I simply do not have a good enough grasp of political conventions "across the pond" to be of any real use. This article definitely does need attention, though. David Able 18:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first section about his arrest without any subsequent charges, let alone a trial and conviction, should either be eliminated or, at least, put somewhere else and condensed. As for his politics vs. his conviction, my guess is he's probably notable more for being a convicted politician than for being a politician. But I'd have to do research to confirm my guess.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then the lead should probably be adjusted accordingly. I think a quick improvement might be flip flopping the first two section in the order they appear in the article, and reducing the lead to indicate what the article is actually about. The sources seem to back up the "fraudster" claim (if I'm understanding correctly the UK use of "fraudster, which is apparently a little more widely used and understood than in the the U.S.) I'll take a look. David Able 01:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reordered and revised the article per my own comments above.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also done some substantial edits and reduced the "Conviction" section to the basic elements. I also took care to remove the specific family relationship involved, as well as the name of the former employee, as I don't think that info was crucial to the understanding of an article that is about Mailer. David Able 02:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat what I wrote on the discussion page:

It's a comparatively small party, so someone who has been a candidate in local, national and European elections is a leading member. He also held official postitons in the party at regional level (and possible nationally), but have no reference for this. In all similar articles, the electoral information comes at the end of the article; it is, after all, not the raison d'etre for the subject's article but supplemenatry detail, presented in a standard format.

All judges (and magistrates) are required to give their reasons when pronouncing sentence. In this case, the judge's remarks add important detail to the bare bones of the story and make it clear that this was not a minor one-off event but a deliberate and prolonged fraud against a statutory body (the Land registry) for personal gain and against his former employee. The judge also indicated that there had been an ongoing deliberate perversion of justice (itself, a criminal offence!).

As to the public order events, it was clearly stated in the article that the CPS did not charge him - this may have become less clear in recent editing. Mailer himself published these facts and details can be found on a variety of fascist and extreme right wing websites, who no doubt got the information from Mailer himself. His page within the BNP's website has been removed (surprise) but a diligent search will no doubt reveal that the BNP itself publicised what it saw as the victimisation of one of its activists. In any case, the details included are reliably sourced.

Incidentally, I thought it was common practice and good manners to inform the creator and major contributors to an article that such a discussion was going on. Apparently not.Emeraude (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the IP that started this thread doesn't have a grasp on proper Wiki-etiquette. Also, I'm not sure notifying the major contributors is required unless it's an AFD (which looks to be about to happen) or if you are named specifically in a discussion. Still, I agree it is good practice to do so, and I should have done so. My apologies. David Able 18:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to notify here, although if a users edits are claimed to be BLP violations we try to notify, as in this case that doesn't seem apparent, and no editor was named, its more a case of weight and notability creating a basic blp related discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Mount

I was the controller and Chief Financial Officer of MCA Theatrical Division from 1979-1983. In this capacity, I was the CFO of Universal Pictures as well as Universal Theatricals and several other subsidiaries, of which Universal Theatricals had but one production: "The Best Little Whore House in Texas" (BLWHIT). At the time, the head of Universal's production was Ned Tannen who had nothing to do with BLWHIT. Thom Mount reported to Ned.

BLWHIT was run by Stevie Phillips, who didn't even know Thom Mount or even Ned Tannen. Stevie (a woman) only dealt with me, Sid Sheinberg (president of MCA at the time) and Lew Wasserman, the later being the Chairman of MCA.

Point is, as far as I know, Thom Mount had nothing to do with BLWHIT!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.203.42 (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say that he did, exactly. It says he "created and headed MCA/Universal's theatrical division which helped produce such Broadway shows as The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas (1979) and Nuts (1980)." Here is a 2000 profile of Mount in the Durham, N.C. Independent Weekly that pretty much says the same thing: ". . . Mount, who during his presidency of Universal even helped create a division that developed Broadway productions, which led to, among other things, The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas and Nuts."[2] Now, that article appears to be based largely on Mount's own recounting of his career, but in the absence of a reliable source taking an opposite position, I don't see any discrepancy in the verifiable material. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the article is rubbish, weakly cited and weakly claimed bla di bla - I stubbed it back. Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not clear on the rationale for wholesale deletion of inoffensive content not violating WP:BLP merely because unsourced, instead of adding "Citation needed" tags. See WP:BEFORE. Subject has significant Google books coverage. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you have expressed a desire to improve the content I have moved it to the talkpage for you. Talk:Thom Mount#content for improvement and replacement - Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, the onus is on you to make a good faith effort to fix this kind of content before deleting it. If you want someone else to do it, add one of the numerous available tags such as ^{[citation needed]}, rather than removing inoffensive but unsourced content. WP:PRESERVE is official policy which says: "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a 'finished' article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary." Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tag - moved to the talkpage , its crap - replace it at your responsibility. Off2riorob (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the stub you left: "Thom Mount is the former President of Universal Pictures and one of America's well-known independent producers"--now the article in its entirety. Here are some of the assertions you deleted as "crap": "Born in Durham, North Carolina....graduating from Durham High School....Mount went to CalArts to earn a Master’s Degree in Fine Arts...In 1973, Mount was hired at Universal Pictures as an assistant to then Vice-President Ned Tanen." You deleted standard biographical material inoffensive to the subject, because it was unsourced I assume (or would you have deleted all this even if sourced?) Yes, the article was written in an overly chatty style ("sleepy southern town") but it should have been saved. Again, WP:PRESERVE is official policy: "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a 'finished' article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary." I can understand stubbing an article that violated WP:BLP but this material didn't.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likely too far - but WP:BLP supports removing any unsourced material - even if favorable to the person. "Preserve" specifically states deference to BLP. Collect (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP says only to remove unsourced offensive content. It states, "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified" if not contentious. We remove unsourceable material after a good faith effort. Also see WP:ANYBIO which states, "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources...Look for sources yourself". Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:BLP says at WP:BLPREMOVE "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" - not only "unsourced offensive content". It's open to debate as to what extent "contentious" means the same as "offensive" here. Someone (the OP) is challenging the content of the article, without saying which parts exactly, and anything challenged can reasonably be seen as "contentious", so the reaction has been to remove everything that is unsourced. This has been a standard approach for quite some time, and is also supported by at least one Jimbo quote where he says that poorly sourced BLP material should be removed right away, not have citation needed tags slapped on it.

Having said all that, I can see Jonathan's point that such sudden stubbifying of an article, when much of it is innocent-seeming material, is rather drastic. But, there are time limitations on how much each of us can do to fix problems like this. Presumably Rob (or whoever stubbified the article) didn't have time to go looking for sources for each of the many unsourced or poorly sourced statements, on this occasion. But he invited whoever did have the time and inclination, to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- note - anyone that wants to own that content in that state can also boldly replace it. We have a duty of care to our living subjects (and to the not living ones also) not to host awful uncited low quality articles about their lives, the content had been like that for over two years without any effort to improve it and mirrored all over the world wide web. If you want to improve it then go for it, if not then as I said, its time for less is more. Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf al-Qaradawi

There is a dispute at Yusuf al-Qaradawi, regarding this material. A user is inserting material that says Qaradawi has called for a Holocaust of the Jewish people at the hands of Muslims. While Qaradawi is an extremely conservative figure, this claim comes across as a red flag.

The user quotes on MEMRI as a source. Qaradawi has previously disputed MEMRI's translation of his statements (see Yusuf_al-Qaradawi#Fatwa_controversy_with_MEMRI). MEMRI's translation accuracy, especially with respect to statements regarding Jews, has been challenged by mainstream sources (see Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute#Translation_inaccuracy).

Since, Qaradawi is alive, and since the claim here is quite bold (that Qaradawi has called for a Holocaust), I think there should be some mainstream news source that must have picked up on this. But I haven't found any, not even Israeli ones: Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post and Ynetnews are mainstream Israeli sources, but don't mention this incident.VR _talk 03:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been substantial concern about MEMRI on the reliable sources noticeboard, though I'm not sure it reached consensus. You are probably right it should be avoided for violent or controversial assertions--but its not hard to find such quotes from the subject in better sources, such as the Times of London: "According to BBC Monitoring, Dr al-Qaradawi said last year: 'Oh God, destroy the usurper Jews, the vile crusaders and infidels.'" Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to insert everything he has ever said along these lines -- but omitting it entirely would not be NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathanwallace: indeed Qaradawi has prayed for the destruction of Jews (and others whom he doesn't like), as well as made antisemitic remarks. This, however, is different from calling upon Muslims to perpetrate a Holocaust. (Consider the difference between Christian fundamentalists asserting that God destroyed Sodom vs. Uganda executing homosexuals) VR _talk 23:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a full-colour real-time video of Qaradawi's statement is insufficient? MEMRI provides the original videos from which it obtains its translations. How is that not a reliable source? (you have to register for free to see the video on MEMRI's website, but if you don't want to, you can view a copy of it on youtube at Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: "Allah Imposed Hitler upon the Jews to Punish Them!". With regard to the criticisms of MEMRI in Wikipedia, they consist of a grand total of 3-4 mistranslations (out of thousands) and the opinions and insults of several anti-Israel figures. This is certainly not enough to conclude that every translation done by MEMRI is inaccurate.

Finally, MEMRI's translation has bee cited by many websites, not only in this article by the Jerusalem Post but also a number of other websites. (e.g. [3], [4] [5] [6]. However, not a single website claims that his words are mistranslated. Until a single piece of real evidence can be provided that MEMRI is a "dubious" source that has mistranslated the video, this material should remain on Wikipedia, as it has for several months already.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The above link that you provided is precisely what I asked you for. I asked you to find a link that quotes MEMRI's translation of Qaradawi calling for a Holocaust. Can you provide one that says that?

As for media sources using MEMRI's translation: there are media sources that have disputed MEMRI's translation. You may call them "anti-Israel", but they are mainstream (CNN, The Guardian). Can you find a "high-quality" source as WP:REDFLAG asks?VR _talk 17:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the video on YouTube, the Clips are clearly spliced, and taken from different shows. We aren't given any kind of time stamp. Even if the translations are accurate we have no idea what he said during the rest of the sessions. This can hardly be taken as evidence especially in such a grave matter.

In addition I also have statements from him where Qaradawi explicitly repudiates prejudice against Jews. Qaradawi writes,

"A question which troubles some people and which is sometimes discussed openly is the following: How can we show kindness and affection and good treatment to non-Muslims since Allah Ta'ala Himself prohibits Muslims to take non believers as friends, allies, and supporters in such verses as the following:

O you who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as friends; they are the friends(only) of each other. And whoever among you turns to them(for friendship) is certainly one of them; indeed, Allah does not guide the people who do wrong. Yet thou seest those in whose hearts is a disease racing toward them...(5:54-55(51-52))

The answer to this is that these verses are not unconditional to be applied to every Jew,Christian or non-Muslim. Interpreting them in this manner contradicts the injunctions of the Qur'an which enjoin affect and kindness to the good and peace-loving peoples of every religion,as well as verses which permit marriage to the women of the People of the Book..."(Qaradawi 339-40.).

It is clear that he does not have hate for Jews or any other religious group simply based on their beliefs. I think VR was simply referring to sources independently documenting this claim, not simply just parroting MEMRI. The fact is MEMRI has been disputed, and especially in this case can not be considered a reliable source.

References: Al-Qaradawi, Yusuf. "Meaning of Friendship with Non-Muslims." Trans. Kemal El-Helbawy and M.Moinuddin Siddiqui. The Lawful And Prohibited In Islam. Trans. Syed Shukry. Plainsfield: American Trust Publications, 1999. 339-40.

(Yster76 (Talk) 12:32, 20 February 2011(UTC))

Have you considered the possibility that Qaradawi may express different and contradictory views depending on which audience he is speaking to? (He wouldn't be the first person to do this). Political and religious figures often tailor their statements based on which audience they are talking to. Simply citing another quote doesn't mean that all of his recorded statements to the contrary should be ignored or dismissed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

With regard to your claim that the video is spliced, please note that the video contains clips from several programs (it even states this at the beginning). However, Qaradawi's first speech, where he praised Hitler, is not spliced at all (note that there is no interruption on the messages moving across the bottom of the screen). This is more than enough to be considered a reliable source.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hyperionsteel, Youtube videos are generally not reliable, and especially not "high-quality" sources that WP:REDFLAG asks for.VR _talk 17:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was only citing youtube for convenience. The video is available on MEMRI's website but you have to register for free in order to view it. However, since some people might not want to register, I offered an alternative. Also - the youtube video isn't cited in the article as reference. Please read other users comments more carefully.

Also with regard to the 3 or 4 translations that have been questioned, the blog and editorial comments (which mostly consist of insults) from a Guardian columnist (Brian Whittaker) is hardly convincing evidence that all MEMRI translations are inaccurate.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not judging the translations of these particular clips since I'm not qualified to do so. My point is that the sessions that these clips were taken from were probably well over half an hour long as they appeared on television, so it is not unreasonable to say that there is content that MEMRI does not want us to see.

We should consider this when we make accusations against individuals, especially for glorifying genocide.

With regard to the source I cited, it is a book originally published in the year 1960 in Arabic

(Yster76 (talk) 21:20 (UTC))

Anu Haasan

An editor claiming to be the husband of the subject is adding some info that apparently contradicts media reports on their marriage; I've removed the entire section as it was currently sourced (by the editor in question) to an internet forum post allegedly by the subject. I'd like some fresh eyes on the article (especially since I've lost my computer to a yoghurt spillage incident and am struggling with this old one that seems more like George Washington's axe). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is around the web blogsphere,google results but I didn't see anything reliable, please don't clink on any of the search results as I got a trojan virus attack from one of them. We need a WP:RS or it shouldn't be included, I added the article to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was an earlier discussion on User talk:AtticusX/Archive 1#Anu Haasan which didn't get anywhere -- reason I brought it here -- and the edits continued, but around the time of this post we had another discussion on my talk page and it appears that the content won't be added back. Part of the problem apparently was that the media was late in picking up this tidbit by a few months. The other issue is I'm not entirely comfortable with the "personal knowledge" edits, which may or may not continue, but the editor seems to understand the verifiability standards now. —SpacemanSpiff 17:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Genpo Merzel

Please, take a look at this page. There is an editing war going on there. Knowing one of the editor heavily involved there and his actions on other pages, this is rather clash of ego's. Again the case of Misconduct, but perhaps not many reliable sources accepted in Wiki to include. These people are absolutely not sensitive what is appropriate or not, what is acceptable or not.Spt51 (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mailer discussion request

See previous thread. As a result, some changes were made, then undone, then restored, etc. I posted some concerns on the talk page because there was a lot of editing, but no discussion happening. I'd appreciate opinions there. David Able 16:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been nominated for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Cosgrove

Hi, we represent Miranda Cosgrove at ID-PR and someone inaccurately added a date of death to her Wikipedia page (on the right hand side, under the photo) this morning - she is indeed, not dead (we just got off the phone with her family) if someone could please remove that, it is very unsettling! Thanks for your prompt attention before this becomes a larger issue. We love Wikipedia and appreciate the work all volunteers put into the site!

Sincerely, Natalie Lent, ID-PR (http://www.id-pr.com) nlent@id-pr.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.229.130 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the report, uncited death claim has been removed. If the vandalism is repeated we will raise the level of article protection. Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Gonzalez

The biography of Bobby Gonzalez is objectionable on a number of levels. He and his family are seeking to know who submitted this, and why edits are not being allowed on something that is so brazenly discriminatory. The information in this biography is unauthorized and controversial. it is malicious. It is clear discrimination and bias. Not one of the 1,000 or more division one coaches have such a biography written with such a derogatory slant. Bobby Gonzalez has been singled out by a malicious writer. I can tell you that all the references to and from the New York Times are not usable and are the subject of an impending defamation lawsuit. I can tell you that the legal incident mentioned was dismissed and is in the process of being expunged. You have no right whatsoever to allow that to be in there. This biography is written as tabloid trash and it needs to be deleted. I can submit a proper one. If you choose not to allow this and want to continue to run this, then I need to know that quickly. We have had dozens and dozens of complaints regarding this and warnings to have it changed. My edits were changed twice which is odd to say the least. Kindly inform us as to what you can do about this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindag3333 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 18 February 2011

I've looked at the Bobby Gonzalez article, and, at first blush, the material all seems to be backed up by, or readily verifiable in, citations in reliable sources. As the head coach of a Division I basketball program, he is a notable figure, and Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy means that the facts should be described, fairly and neutrally, as they are related in the reliable sources. The legal incident was also reported fully in the press, and while some consideration might be given to cutting or removing that material on the basis of WP:WEIGHT (and I have already moved it out of the lede section, where it probably did not belong), that should be a matter to be considered by neutral editors. Other opinions are certainly welcome on this, of course.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being a division one coach, he is almost undoubtedly notable by Wikipedia standards and will have an article about him here on this site. In this case, I think you should be very specific as to exactly what information is offensive. I think that if you foster a discussion here and on the article talk page, you'll find people willing to help, and, hopefully, a satisfactory resolution. Just changing things in the article yourself is not going to accomplish much unless you have a pretty good understanding of the policies, which, in my experience, `can be frustrating to say the least. This is especially the case if, as you say, you are being reverted by an editor with an ax to grind. I will take a look and see what I see. David Able 00:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of the fellow in my life, but I've just trimmed his bio slightly. It's yet another case of ... actually I'm not even going to say that here. We write conservatively about living people. There is WP:NORUSH. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, the sources cited to support this largely negative bio include an opinion piece (is it?) that talks about how the bio subject's sister allegedly puts pressure on journalists?? Uh... wait... what?? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... "an assistant at the University of Arizona who has known Gonzalez since his days as a high school assistant 20 years ago. “He uses that as a mechanism to act the way he does. It’s his gift and curse. When I’d recruit against him " ... is this reliable source very reliably sourced? They are certainly not at all independent. What is going on here? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, a BLP issue arises and there has been no discussion on the talk page what-so-ever. I opened a discussion on the talk page at Talk: Bobby Gonzalez#BLP Issues. Perhaps the focus can move there to resolve any issues. David Able 00:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the individual raising the issue at this noticeboard, had already received a warning for COI, and was advised to come here. Don't blame the victims. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No blame intended. Since notability is obviously not an issue, and this person will have an article in one form or another, I simply wanted to make sure a discussion took place on his talk page, instead of being lost in the BLPN archives. Anyway, this looks to be resolved for now. I wonder if the person who started this section could weigh in if he/she agrees. David Able 16:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari

Kawthari recently made an appearance at the University of York as part of Islam Awareness Week. Some people at the university were offended by Kawthari's views and lodged a formal complaint with the university, and there was a mild hubbub about it in the local press. I had never heard of Kawthari, so I visited his wiki page and found it to be more of an advertisement for his publications than a proper encyclopedia article. Assuming good faith, however, I edited only those bits which seemed wantonly POV. Darul iftaa not only reverted my edits, but erased my comments from the discussion board, as well as removing another user's (accurate, well-documented) additions regarding the York controversy.

Darul Iftaa is the name of the Institute of Islamic Jurisprudence, which is repeatedly linked to as a reference in the article. This is a clear conflict of interest, as an organization associated with Kawthari is taking it upon itself to maintain his wiki. I get the feeling that anything remotely unpleasant regarding Kawthari will continue to be censored by his supporters.

I'm a longtime Wikipedia user, but I'm not a very active editor, and I'm not exactly sure how this is dealt with. I figured the best thing to do would be to draw people's attention to it here. My apologies if I've broken protocol in some way.TremorMilo (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Greenstein

Slanderous and negative rumor-based edits have been inserted in paragraphs 2 and 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwedMusicFanz (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contents removed, if it is replaced please report back and we can look at semi protection, the content was in the article for two weeks, low number of watchers. I added it to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbert Rideau

I hope you will be patient with me as I am 63 years old, unfamiliar with the editing or resoluton process here. An editor, Whisper To Me, has made scores of changes to the Wilbert Rideau page, vitually all of them to cast Billy Sinclair into a role in Rideau's overall life that is disproportionate. Sinclair was one of several co-editors Rideau had at The Angolite (for 6 of the 25 years Rideau edited the magazine). During the time Sinclair was co-editor, the magazine won two journalism awards that were jointly awarded (the Kennedy and the Hillman). The amount of space and attention Whisper To Me wants to give to Sinclair's co-editorship is simply disproportionate. The magazine and other co-editors and associate editors -- some as long-serving -- both before and after Sinclair's tenure, also won equally prestigious awards. The fact that Sinclair's wife testified against Rideau's at his 2005 trial is a detail that has no more importance in this BLP than the fact that several wardens and judges testified for him. Nor is Sinclair's role in the Angola pardons scandal, which I have not bothered to correct for accuracy, relevant to this BLP. Wilbert Rideau's writing career spans more than 35 years. In Whisper To Me's edits, his "post-Sinclair" achievements read like a footnote. Again, it is a matter of proportionality. That Sinclair filed a lawsuit against Rideau, corrections officials and a university professor in 1989 that was dismissed is, again, not relevant in the overall tapestry of this BLP. And the fact that Sinclair wrote something about Rideau in his autobiography would seem more relevant to Sinclair's wikipedia site. Sinclair is included in Rideau's memoir only to the extent the story demands it. Rideau is not Sinclair's enemy. He has had no contact with Sinclair for a quarter century. Sinclair is a part of his past, duly recognized on Eye Smith's edits, as a co-editor. Apologies from Eye Smith for any irregularities in formatting on account of my ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye Smith (talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the merits of your statements, but in editing the article, you severely messed it up. I've restored it to be properly formatted, but I've lost a few of your changes. Be careful when you edit the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking at just the recent history of the article, you've removed an entire section added by Whisper To Me. I suggest you take this to the article Talk page. It certainly sounds like some of what you're saying constitutes original research, which is not permitted as a basis for article edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Smith has persistently edited the article destroying the formatting of the article. I've reverted three times (and now stopped). I've posted warnings to his Talk page. He apparently doesn't get it. Off2riorob now made the last reversion, but Eye Smith reverted yet again.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I reverted again and asked the editor to move to discussion and I requested some protection for the page at WP:RPP - Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's still reverting. I've reported it to 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like for Eye to begin editing at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Wilbert_Rideau - In the meantime I explained on Eye's talk page why I believe in my position. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I would appreciate having other editors review my and Eye's proposed versions of the articles, and of the references that discuss Rideau in relation to Sinclair. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the claims that the article is about Rideau and not sinclair, the later version add sinclair to the lede, gives him his own section and alters the content about Sinclair quite dramatically - Sinclair went from being mentioned twice in the article to being mentioned thirty times. Billy_Sinclair has his own article which I see you have written completely, so you must be interested in the topic and have knowledge about it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in the topic. While the article is about Rideau, the main group of journalism awards that Rideau is known for were joint awards with Sinclair. The sources that I found throughout the 1970s and 1980s discussed the partnership between the men. The sources state that the two men and the newspaper under the leadership of the two men won all of those awards (George Polk Award, RFK Award, ABA Silver Gavel). Then I found various sources talking about the dissolution of the partnership (the NYT called it a very "bitter falling out") and the various legal and personality conflicts between the two (Sinclair's lawsuit against Rideau, Sinclair saying that Rideau was advocating against Sinclair's release, Sinclair criticizing Rideau in his book, Sinclair's wife testifying against Rideau at Rideau's 2005 trial). While the article is about Rideau, I argue that his partnership with Sinclair and the falling out and subsequent conflicts are important elements regarding Rideau's life and career. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its a matter of weight and I don't know anything about the two men to assess that, but this is the complaint that the increased coverage of Sinclair in Rideau's bio is undue, I am a fan of there is no smoke without fire and that a stable article is a good one because it compromises with all interested parties. Apart from that I am out of my comfort zone regarding these two people. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the substance of Eye Smith's complaint since he made it clear in the edit summary at 22:45, 19 February 2011 and the edit summary at 22:45, 19 February 2011. I am now awaiting further input so we can decide what weight Billy Sinclair's relationship should have in the article.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must add: "Sinclair is included in Rideau's memoir only to the extent the story demands it." - Articles are based upon the total sum of secondary sources, not solely on a single memoir. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read a previous version of the article that includes all the stuff about Sinclair. I think it's far too much. Even if the awards were given jointly and/or to the newspaper, it's still too much. This isn't an article about Sinclair or about the publication. It's an article about. Here's how I would word it (using the "Sinclair" version as a base) (I've also reordered it and removed content):

In the early 1970s, Rideau wrote a column, "The Jungle", for a chain of black weeklies in Louisiana. He freelanced articles to mainstream media, including The Shreveport Journal and Penthouse Magazine. A headline referred to him as the "The Wordman of Angola," saying "Wilbert Rideau is Angola Penitentiary's Birdman of Alcatraz. He is a prisoner who has transformed the dark, drab, terror-filled life of prison into a greenhouse for the flowering of his talent." Rideau had not gone beyond the ninth grade in his formal educations before his arrest and incarceration.

In 1975, a federal court ordered the Angola prison to be reformed, and the outgoing warden appointed Rideau editor of The Angolite. The incoming warden ratified the choice and, with a handshake, gave Rideau freedom from censorship and thus created the nation’s only uncensored prison publication. Rideau became well known during the 25 years he was an editor of The Angolite. He was the first African American prison newspaper editor in the United States.

In 1979, Rideau and co-editor Sinclair won the George Polk Award for the articles "The Other Side of Murder" and "Prison: a Sexual Jungle." Rideau also received the award for "Prison: a Sexual Jungle". In addition, the magazine won the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award and the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award. The Angolite was the first prison publication ever to be nominated for a National Magazine Award, for which it was nominated seven times. Rideau traveled the state as a lecturer accompanied only by an unarmed guard and was permitted to fly to Washington D.C. twice to address the nation’s newspaper editors on the subject of prison journalism.

Rideau and co-editor Wikberg were named "Person of the Week" for their journalism on Peter Jennings's World News Tonight in August 1992.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright - One thing is that "In 1979, Rideau and co-editor Sinclair won the George Polk Award for the articles "The Other Side of Murder" and "Prison: a Sexual Jungle." Rideau also received the award for "Prison: a Sexual Jungle"." - Sexual Jungle has been mentiond twice. What is "the award"? If you said "Rideau received the award for "Prison: a Sexual Jungle" in absentia" then it makes sense.

I what you are getting at, though, in relation to the journalism section. Now, how would you handle the content/sections discussing the falling out between Rideau and Sinclair?

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the awards, I frankly didn't notice they were the same title. The cite for the "in absentia" award is to Life magazine, and I can't read it. Perhaps you could explain the point to me so I can better understand whether it even needs to be said. As for the falling out, I removed it. I don't see how it matters to the Rideau article. The section already has sufficient content. It doesn't need to digress into peripheral areas of relationships betwween Rideau, Sinclair, other editors, etc. If the article were about The Angolite, it would be different.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the in absentia thing, what it means is that Rideau was not at the ceremony while the award was given out. It was content that Eye Smith had added to the article.

If the content about the falling out belongs at The Angolite (after all the lawsuit did concern work at the Angolite), that would work

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was the absentia award separate from the other award for the same article? In other words, was one given to both him and Sinclair and then a separate one just to him? As for the falling out, yes, by all means, put it in article about the magazine (I didn't even know there was one - you've done a lot of work in this area).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't separate. It's the same award. It's just that Rideau couldn't show up for it. I do not know whether Sinclair was able to show up for it either. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I'd leave out the in absentia sentence altogether, just the first sentence mentioning the award for the two articles. It's not important that he and/or Sinclair didn't show up to accept the award.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty :) - BTW I added the sentences about the Sinclair vs. Rideau lawsuit to the The Angolite article. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so How is this version? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Smith is now disputing other aspects of the article now.

"Restore Summary to what Rideau is now known for, his memoir, and correcting misleading impression that he was simply released rather than release by jury verdict."

"Rideau won his own Polk Award. And his own ABA award, for the articles, as cited."

"The focus of this article is Rideau, his life and work."

The second and third edits completely cut out any mention of Sinclair, and they alter what Bbb23 had proposed

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He said "Rideau won his own Polk Award." - But the text of the "Press: Jail Journal." says "Last week Rideau, 38, and Sinclair, 35, both convicted murderers serving life terms, won a prestigious George Polk Award for special-interest reporting. One article cited was Rideau's chilling account of homosexual rape and subjugation behind bars. Another story submitted to the Polk judges was an investigative report by Sinclair raising the possibility of misfeasance in the murder of a prisoner five years ago. As a result of Sinclair's story, the inmate convicted of the crime may win a new trial." - It sounds like both of them won one award. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.liunet.edu/Brooklyn/About/News/Press-Releases/2011/February/BK-PR-Feb7-2011.aspx says that the Polk award was a shared award. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Smith here. Forgive me if I do not have time as a self-employed individual to try to learn the ins and outs of wikipedia editing and argumentation. I am plain spoken. In the edits I made, I offered documentation that Rideau won the Polk award for his article "Prison: The Sexual Jungle." Sinclair also won an award, in a shared category, for an article he wrote, but that belongs on his own wikipedia page, not Rideau's. (By the way, argument over this will soon be moot as Rideau has been invited to receive, in person, this April, the award the Polk Committe gave him for his 1979 article and to recognize his 35-year body of work in journalism. But we can fix that later.) I also offered a documented source for the fact that Rideau was the first prisoner to win the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award. It is an unfortunate reality that journalists sometimes make errors in their reporting; but those errors should not be the basis for rewriting history. As to the "falling out" between the men, even Whisper to Me sees that this is basically Sinclair positioning himself in an adversarial role to Rideau, and not vice versa. And, if necessary, I will document the real source of Sinclair's apparent discontent, which is a statement by the Secretary of Corrections that he put in jeopardy the lives and safety of other members of The Angolite staff by his behavior. But, again, in the overall tapestry of Rideau's life and work, this is insignificant and unnecessary. Wilbert Rideau may at one time have been best known for his 25-year editorship of The Angolite, but he has since become better known for his memoir, In the Place of Justice, and his award-winning work in radio and television. The work on The Angolite that Whisper to Me wants to put front and center is more than 30 years old; other people have moved on with their careers, to bigger and better things. The collaboration with Sinclair is just not that central to Rideau's life or work, in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye Smith (talk • contribs) 02:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In the edits I made, I offered documentation that Rideau won the Polk award for his article "Prison: The Sexual Jungle." Sinclair also won an award, in a shared category, for an article he wrote, but that belongs on his own wikipedia page, not Rideau's." - So is there one award, or two? The impression I got from the sources above (you cited the same TIME document, but I looked at the specific wording of it) is that there are two articles involved (with each person responsible per article) - but there is one actual Polk award total, with both sharing that award. One of those sources was from Long Island University, the university which gives out the award. It says "including the Polk, which he shared with his associate editor, fellow prisoner Billy Sinclair." - It says he shared one award with Sinclair.

About Rideau being the *first* to win, I notice you cited " "Angola Inmate Cited by ABA," Morning Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA,July 17, 1979, 7-A" " - Unfortunately I cannot find that article. But what I'll do is I'll make a resource request for it, and hope somebody finds a copy of the article.

The main criterion for inclusion, and criterion for documenting material, is what is included in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. WP:Verifiability states that truth is not the main criterion for inclusion. It is verifiability. "What can be verified?" is the question to be asked. If you say one source is wrong, you need another source, or two or three, to correct whatever deficiencies are in other sources. And you need to quote from those sources so we know the wording.

"Wilbert Rideau may at one time have been best known for his 25-year editorship of The Angolite, but he has since become better known for his memoir, In the Place of Justice, and his award-winning work in radio and television." - So you are saying that he is now better known for his memoir and his work in radio and television (what awards did they win?) than for his original work. So the questions would be: How do sources around 2010 present Rideau? What do they mention him as being notable for?

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To state what Rideau is best known for, you need to examine contemporary reliable sources. So, without further ado:

Lee, Dave. "Wilbert Rideau: 'The most rehabilitated man in America'." BBC. 17 February 2011.

It talks about what is written in his memoir, but it doesn't say anything to the effect that he became famous because of the award. The only time it mentions the actual memoir is "Mr Rideau has written about his experience in his book, In the Place of Justice"

Shackle, Samira. "The NS Interview: Wilbert Rideau, former death row inmate." The New Statesman. 10 February 2011.

Only one line about the memoir, and it is at the very end of the article: "2010 Publishes memoir, In the Place of Justice."

In order to say first "He is well known for writing a memoir" he or she has to become famous because of the memoir. Instead, Rideau wrote about experiences that he was already known for. Rideau is not primarily known for writing a memoir. He is primarily known for his incarceration in Angola and his activities during his incarceration.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At User_talk:Eye_Smith#Edit_warring_at_Wilbert_Rideau Eye Smith posted more material about his revisions

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Bryant

There is a section in the article that I've been attempting to delete because it contains libelous, inflammatory, licentious material about a living person that is based on an unreliable primary source and has not been corroborated in any secondary source. The section in question is entitled "Sexual Rites." I am a child of Bryant's and the false information in the article is damaging to the entire family. According to Wikipedia, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. The entirety of this source and the complete basis for this section of the article is a quote by an angry former wife of Bryant's, who had a vendetta. No other people were asked to corroborate this claim by the author of the book, nor were any other sources cited. This is clearly an abuse of a primary source. Furthermore, it breaks my heart that people would restore this harmful information without considering its verifiability or the damage that its content causes. It is included strictly because of its sensational nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You only needed to post this once, don't spam. The content has sources, go to the talk page and present evidence that the source is not good according to Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Also, please read our policies about editting with a conflict of interest, which you admit to having. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the user has a conflict of interest, but his claim is that the quoted material is libelous, which must be taken seriously. The article carefully quotes the wife and attributes the quote to a secondary source (a book about Mormonism), but, nonetheless, this is a BLP, and accusations of this kind that are uncorroborated except by the primary source (the wife) are problematic. See WP:PSTS ("Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people").--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source in the article is a secondary source ( Richard S. Van Wagoner (1989, 2d ed.). Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books) pp. 214–216 ), which is quoting a primary source. It's not a primary source proper. Her claim that it's a primary source is untrue. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already said that. In this particular instance, I think it's a distinction without a difference. Unless the book comments on the allegations, it's simply a quote from a primary source. So, because the book is a secondary source, we can assume the quote is accurate, but the accuracy of the quote is not the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor in good standing, Good Olfactory, believes the quote is being used fairly, and has the book. Perhaps we could ask him to elaborate? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that there is no need to rush to replace that content, a claim of incest is extraordinary indeed and as such requires extraordinary reliable reports which I am not seeing there at all. Off2riorob (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, Good Olfactory, like any editor, is welcome to contribute to this discussion, although I'm not sure what you mean by "fairly".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an attempted compromise, Good Olfactory eliminated the entire disputed section and replaced it with the statement "Bryant had six wives," with a citation to the Van Wagoner book. However, the book does not make mention anywhere that Bryant had six wives and with the exclusion of any other citations or sources, it appears that this entire article has been created as a vehicle for one singular source. The faulty citation also leads me to believe that Good Olfactory doesn't actually have the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, with Good Olfactory trying to reach a consensus on what should be included in the article, you would do better to keep your comments on the article's Talk page. Also, there's nothing wrong with asking GO if he has the book. However, it's not constructive to draw nefarious inferences ("this entire article has been created as a vehicle for one singular source") - just stick to substance.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, GO didn't try to reach a consensus. He proposed the change and then immediately made it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sharlto Copley

Ongoing dispute over whether the subject's father, Bruce Copley, should be mentioned. Initially, an anon was removing this claim, which I noticed (having dealt with the now deleted article on Bruce Copley, created by same single purpose account pushing the connection). I take that removal to mean the claim is contentious, and even if true, is a private matter. No reliable source explicitly states Bruce is the son of Shartlo. It is confirmed by sites controlled by Bruce (not Sharlto). We do have a source to say Bruce has a son Donovan. And one can source the brotherly connection of Sharlto and Donovan. So, given that connection, along with the same last name, one could reasonably guess Sharlto is the son of Bruce . But, I feel that's technically original research. More signficantly, we're violating privacy, by reporting something not directly reported. In interviews, Sharlto discusses his family, but not his father. I don't think Wikipedia should fill in the blanks, as obvious as they may be. I feel that if no source directly connects Bruce to Sharlto, then we should not. --Rob (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and reverted the last edit to the article. The other editor is pushing a complete synthesis of available information to postulate the relationship. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor immediately restored the content but has substituted a new source which states Bruce is Sharlto's father.Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Cronin

The subject is not a public figure and the article is supported by two self-written documents and a single BBC news article, whilst the external links are to the subject's various social networking profiles. A blatant case of self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.29.180 (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:PROF, Cronin seems to meet one or more of the notability criteria - and he only needs to satisfy one.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Geller RfC

An RfC that may interest some readers of this page, as it involves BLPN issues, is taking place currently here. The subject is a living person.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion#Category:Persons convicted of fraud

Since it has been previously discussed here, and has BLP implications, I am simply flagging this with people who watch this board.--Scott Mac 23:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 20#Category:Persons convicted of fraud--Scott Mac 00:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Alvarez

The entry regarding Julia Alvarez states quite plainly that she has 4 children. This is factually inaccurate as Julia has no biological children. She does have two step-daughters through her marraige to Bill Eichner. please research and amend this fact. Rachel Lieu (Julia's niece) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.114.164 (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. Someone has already removed the information. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn Tigers football#Toomer's Corner

In regards to Auburn_Tigers_football#Toomer.27s_Corner, I was wondering if editors here have an opinion on mentioning the name of the arrested person. Is Wikipedia following US guidelines, where anyone who is accused of something can be mentioned by name? Drmies (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We deal with the arrest of a notable individual when the information is crucial to their biography, and tend to veer away from disclosing names and details about less notable people. I can't say there is a clear, easy to apply rule which has been proposed here, but there have been a number of situations here in which editors raised WP:BLP concerns under WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP etc. about mentioning an arrest. Right now, the content has been deleted from the article by an editor who left no edit summary. A good solution would be to include a shorter version of the material about the trees being poisoned and mention that an unanamed individual was arrested. This is a newly breaking story, and later if there is more extensive, reliable coverage of the incident, we could consider adding more information. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I could live with that; do you care to write that up? There are plenty of sources available.

There is no doubt that it is a notable event (at least in the state), and that some of the information is worthwhile--but crucifying a subject (someone called this kind of thing "name and shame" a couple of weeks ago, somewhere, a very apt description), no matter how despicable their act, that should not be done on Wikipedia. And if the suspect is convicted, it's still a matter of BLP1E, and naming him in a different article is simply creating a backdoor for information that in my opinion ought not to be allowed. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Conflicting sources

A new essay has been written which, I believe, is of interest to those who care about WP:BLP. I have started a discussion about how BLP fits into the essay here -Wikipedia_talk:Conflicting_sources#BLP.2C_and_other_comments. Other comments would be welcome.Griswaldo (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

prince musician 2010 to now section.

Someone is referencing article 113 as a source for misty copeland being .romantically involved with Prince. This info is speculation and gossip with no proof and is poorly sourced. It should not be included as it does not reflect facts about Prince. It is also included on the new profile for Misty Copelands wiki page. Thank you for your attention to this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.152.227 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Both have been removed by User:Falsewords333 - claim was very vague - "Word has it, the music superstar is totally enamored with American Ballet Theatre ballerina Misty Copeland," - a claim from Bill Zwecker in this gossip piece http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/3040518-421/hefner-hef-playboy-harris-source.html in the Chicago Sun-Times - Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Wheeler (politician)

The article doesn't even mention Dr. Wheeler is also a law school graduate and an attorney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.135.43 (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any WP:RS that support your claim , such article improvement is not technically part of this noticeboards remit. You are however encouraged to WP:BOLD and update the article yourself, I have left you a template of handy links on your talkpage that may help you with this, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hagan

The comments over Racial Controversy in Bob Hagan article include an article from the Youngstown Vindicator and contain quotes that show the subject in a negative light and do not contain the entire article's comments. The quotes are taken out of context and are done with using propaganda only. Comments are being written in a politically motivated context and are only including negative comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.126.78 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have said it better myself. Rather large controversy section all cited to the web page of The Vindicator, addition seems a bit undue and tabloid-esq in style, at the very least needs a rewrite and a trim, just someone that doesn't like him coming to add attack content. I trimmed some of the weight out of it as a start and moved a comment to another section, perhaps the content about the assault on him is not worthy of reporting here, he got punched in the mouth in a restaurant and needed four stitches, attack content was that he has a big mouth and deserved it... and the buckweat comment on facebook is also imo likely not worthy of reporting here either, but I left the basic detail in. Off2riorob (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.vindy.com/news/2010/feb/14/bad-could-become-good-for-lemon-grove-in/

- http://www.vindy.com/news/2010/apr/11/youngstown8217s-hagan-seeks-to-legalize-/

- http://www.vindy.com/news/2011/feb/20/facebook-remark-wasn8217t-racist-hagan-s/#c119291

note - Contents being repeatedly replaced by this IP:71.68.32.227 I left them a note and requested them not to replace the content without discussion and support here, but they as yet are not moving to discussion and they have replaced it again, I am signing off and have reverted them once to no avail. I left the IP a 3RR warning as they have replaced all the content and have already more than three reverts. I would appreciate someone else having a look, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you have a clue what you're talking about. The person is a family member of Hagan and looking to only post positive on him. The racial comments were a hot radio topic in Youngstown all this week. All radio personalities agree Hagan has ruined a chance at the Youngstown Mayor election with the negative comments. Look at Bob Hagans facebook, the person complaining is saying she's a family member of Bob and changing constant info. What a farce! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.32.227 (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writers and Editors War Tax Protest

In 1968, in response to budgetary and inflationary pressures caused in large part by the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson proposed a 10% surcharge on income taxes. Following that proposal, but well before the surcharge was approved, 448 editors and writers signed a pledge to refuse to pay the tax. The pledge appeared in an advertisement in the New York Daily Post titled "Writers and Editors War Tax Protest". Copy of ad The New York Times ran a short article about the pledge, repeating some of the names, and explained that they and eight other newspapers had refused to print the ad because it advocated violating federal law. I am not aware of any source which says that any of those who signed the pledge actually failed to pay the tax surcharge.

User:Moorlock has added all of the notable signatories (about 100 people) to a section in History of tax resistance#Vietnam War, 1968–72. In addition, he has added a sentence to each article that says:[7]

In 1968, he signed the “Writers and Editors War Tax Protest” pledge, vowing to refuse tax payments in protest against the Vietnam War.
- “Writers and Editors War Tax Protest” January 30, 1968 New York Post

In addition he has added each person to Category:American tax resisters. Tax resister is defined in the WP article as "the refusal to willingly pay a tax because of opposition to the institution that is imposing the tax, or to some of that institution’s policies."

It appears to me that there are two distinct problems. First, adding these people to that category makes it appear that they have committed the crime of refusing to pay their taxes. Second, adding the sentence based on a primary source to what are often very short biographies gives undue weight to an apparently symbolic protest that received little attention. For those reasons, I think we should delete the category from any article that lacks a source saying the persons actually failed to pay their tax as a protest, and remove the sentence from articles about people for whom we do not have a secondary source mentioning their involvement. Moorlock has indicate he believes that the stated intent of the signatories is sufficient evidence that they failed to pay their taxes, and sufficient reason to include them in the category. Thoughts? Will Beback talk 01:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I see that the "Writers and Editors War Tax Protest" is slightly notable in and of itself.[8] At least one biography of a signatory says he withheld tax payments and the IRS seized his car,[9] so it is separately verifiable that at least one person from the list was a genuine tax resister. However I still have the same general concerns. Will Beback talk 05:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've had a back-and-forth about this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moorlock#Writers_and_Editors_War_Tax_Protest and most of the points I would make here I have made there. To correct W.B.'s summary of my position: I wouldn't go so far as to say that signing the ad is sufficient evidence that the signatories followed-up on their pledge by failing to pay taxes -- some did and some probably did not. But I do think that making the pledge meant by that signature amounts to the very refusal (the "refusal to willingly pay a tax..." quoted above) that defines tax resistance. In addition, it's worth noting that there are both legal and illegal methods of tax resistance, so calling someone a tax resister is not tantamount to accusing them of criminal conduct. —Moorlock (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signing some worthless pledge is not a notable thing to spam all over, it is only notable if they actually did anything about it. We had a similar discussion here about some rich list of people that said they would give away half of their wealth, the outcome was that unless they actually did it it wasn't worthy of reporting. So, I support wills position on this. Off2riorob (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Any other views? Will Beback talk 10:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm largely in agreement with Will beback. There's a world of difference between refusing to pay an actual tax (an illegal action) and threatening to refuse to pay a proposed tax (a political gesture). Nothing must be done to imply that people doing the second have (or would) do the first. perhaps what's needed is an article on the tax protest, so that if it merits mention in any bio, it can clearly be linked to an article explaining what actually happened. Categories are fairly minor things, and ought always to be avoided if they create any ambiguity which might unfairly relect ont he subject.--Scott Mac 11:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hina Rabbani Khar

I have been trying to edit the article "Hina Rabbani Khar" to reflect the facts correctly. Hina Rabbani Khar has been apointed as Junior Minister i.e. Minister of State for Foreign Affairs - Paksitan, in February 11, 2011.

The article, instead, shows her as Foreign Minister, which is a federal ministry. Currently that ministry is with Prime Minister and there are hundreds of verified sources about this fact.

There is a user "Therequiembellishere" who perhaps is a die-hard supporter of Hina Rabbani and does not believe in neutrality of articles. I have made edits twice but he has reverted my edits. I have even given links to prove my edits but he is not ready to agree. Its funny because this is not even a controversial fact we are talking about. She has been appointed as Minister of State - period. I don't know why "Therequiembellishere" is doing this. Is he being stubborn or what? I believe his account should be closed or atleast he should be warned that he is misleading readers and should stop doing it anymore.

Thanks mjzafar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjzafar (talk • contribs) 04:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notified User Therequiembellishere about this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Les Stroud

Resolved

– article WP:PENDING one month.

There's a vandal at Les Stroud who is rather persistant. For a period of years he's been using a variety of accounts to add the name "Chad Stroud" to the article as an offspring. He'll do it every day, several times a day, indefinitely. The article was recently protected for six months as a result. Within two days of the article coming out of protection he's started again. Les Stroud probably needs some kind of permanent protection. SmashTheState (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left the last administrator that protected the article a note about this. Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking maybe we could try pending changes? -- œ ^™ 11:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well as he will never get the reviewer right that will keep his false additions out of public view and will soon get him to realise he is wasting his time, however they are discussing turning the tool off. Off2riorob (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah, plus I'm not sure I trust other reviewers who come along to not know the past history and accept the edits out of good faith. Protected for 1 year. -- œ ^™ 12:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt attention. Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although, now I'm starting to think maybe this 'vandal' is actually doing this on purpose in order to have long-term protection on the article? ie. Gaming the system. Considering this theory, maybe Pending Changes would be better after all.. -- œ ^™ 12:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go for it, pending is not restricted to apply, at least not yet - I have occasionally though that this occurs, if I had a wikipedia article I would keep coming adding some nonsense until it was indefinably protected. I don't quite understand the dispute, seems to be about children's names but whether the names are correct or not or someone wants to keep the correct names out of the article is unclear.Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we'll see how it goes with pending changes for a month, I'll keep it on my watchlist. -- œ ^™ 13:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Blanco

I think, the information about Blanco's brother Carlos, is irrelevant in the biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.1.10.104 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its only two (reliably sourced) sentences, and mentions that Blanco was personally involved in the negotiations. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Allen Davis diplomatic incident#Davis' background

I wonder if editors with a little more experience w/BLP issues could take a look at this section. It seems to be largely a synthesis of local reports, and, in some cases, downright OR. My concern is mainly with all the speculation that is occurring, even in the valid sources. By the nature of this incident, it could have real world consequences if the person identified in the article is not the person involved in the incident. But then again the sources are saying this, not Wikipedia. So I'm not sure what action, if any, is appropriate. Fascinating story though. I put a notice on the articles discussion page as well. David Able 20:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a case of BLP1E in any case ... already is an article at the National Enquirer level for WP. Does nayone else think this? Collect (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Today's New York Times reports he is CIA and confirms a lot of the details about his background. According to the article, his arrest and detention have "inadvertently pulled back the curtain on a web of covert American operations inside Pakistan, part of a secret war run by the C.I.A." This is a big deal on many levels: the capture of a CIA operative at work (even if truly a contractor, at the agency those distinctions are never very clear); American-Pakistan diplomacy; the far reaches of diplomatic immunity; the ethics of using embassies to run spies; among other notable issues. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the incident is definitely notable. Davis himself may not be, aside from one event. I was mainly concerned that the focus of the article remain on the incident, and not the person. I removed his wife's name from the article (it ~~listed~~ still lists the State she lives in and place of employment), and asked for discussion on the talk page before reinsertion. She (if she is indeed his wife) could face real life consequences over this, and I don't think WP should be facilitating the availability of her personal info to millions. The other stuff is, I suppose, debatable. David Able 03:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonin Scalia

Resolved

– vandalism reverted

not born a buddhist, did not serve prison time in Cleveland, not named most corrupt republican of the 20th century —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.93.60.1 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Rabinowitz

This dude seems to have written the article by himself. He's included a comprehensive list of all his publications, which I don't see why, is required. There's a lot of self-lauding going on. I believe that the whole article is a CP job from his personal website. Someone care to check and add warning signs to this?

Thanks.--Sshzp4 (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - full lists for authors like Twain make sense - but he is not in that league. Deleted the laundry list. Collect (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metin Sitti

Why is this guy's name on Wikipedia? I believe this is an act of self-promotion. There are quite a few labs around the world that work on similar projects but their principal investigators' names are not on wikipedia. I believe he's done nothing of Wikipedia-significance yet. Thanks. --Sshzp4 (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found some sources such as New Scientist which support his notability, and removed a PROD from the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Bridges

Resolved

– Content added to article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Film "Your 3 Minutes Are Up", 1973, is missing from the list of his movies. Info on the movie is available on line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.76.124 (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the movie to the filmography. Some friendly advice. You could have added it yourself, or if you were uncertain how to do so, you could have raised the issue on the article's Talk page. This forum is intended for problems with articles about living people, not simple content suggestions.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Santorum

I'd like to get additional opinions about the articles on Rick Santorum and santorum (sexual neologism), as well as the dab page, Santorum. The history is quite complicated; I can provide details if there is a need, but it may be enough to summarize the current state of affairs.

The sexual neologism, as you'll see if you click on it, is a very explicit reference to gay sex that was coined in a (successful) attempt to embarrass then Senator Santorum. There have been failed AfDs; it seems fair to say that there is consensus it's notable. At one time Santorum took you to the article on the Senator -- that was the result of an AfD, since reversed by discussion on the talk page. Recently someone has added the definition to the dab page, and reinstated it when I removed it.

There are multiple issues here, but the one that concerns me most is the difficulty of assessing good faith. The coinage was an act of political activism, and it's fairly clear that of the many people who dislike the ex-Senator, there are some willing to dissemble to extend the sabotage. For example, several editors have supported making santorum go to the dab page, where (now) the definition can be seen: no doubt some of these editors are acting in good faith, but it would also be entirely consistent with the Googlebombing campaign that successfully placed the slang term as the first result in Google if some of these folks were making comments in the hope of increasing the visibility of the definition. I am pretty sure this has in fact happened. For example, several people have said that they know the term but have never heard of Rick Santorum; this just seems unlikely to me, though it could certainly be true of a couple of people. People have indicated that the term is in wide use, but no usable citations have been given -- all the citations are about the original coinage and the successful Googlebombing. So it seems reasonable to be sceptical

I think the way to address this sort of concern is both to give the question as much visibility as possible, so that experienced editors outnumber any !vote-stacking, and also to make sure that decisions are reached in accordance with policies and not with number of voices.

Given the above background, here are the questions I think we should be concerned about.

Should santorum lead to the ex-Senator's page, or to a dab page?
Should any mention of the neologism be made on the Senator's page?
Should the definition of the neologism be given on the Senator's page?
Should the definition of the neologism be given on the dab page?

There have been multiple discussions of these issues on those pages, but for the reasons given above I feel that's not a sufficiently broad group to get true consensus. If this page is the right forum for this discussion, I'll leave a note at those talk pages to let those folks know. I could also post an RfC instead if this is not the right forum.

I should make it clear I am not expressing any political opinion about Rick Santorum, and I hope nobody could detect my politics from my comments; I am solely concerned with WP's policies. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Santorum should redirect to Rick Santorum, undoubtedly the most popular meaning. However, in such cases it'd be normal to place a hatnote that said something like This article is about the U.S. Senator. For the article on a sexual neologism, see Santorum (sexual neologism). Having that at the top of the biography might not be ideal either. The dab page, if it's kept, doesn't need that much detail. I'm not sure the best way of resolving the overall problem. As for mentioning it in the bio, it does seem noteworthy. The subject has discussed it as a factor in his future political career. However it should be a short, neutral discussion, like it is now. Will Beback talk 00:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's a third entry in the dab page, the hatnote in the Rick Santorum article can just point back to it. Will Beback talk 01:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, don't you see inclusion of such material in a BLP as a major BLP violation? A pundit involves himself in activism to try to humiliate a political opponent and that activism is rewarded by inclusion in a BLP? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my guess is that you would have serious problems in including in BLPs the designations given to certain public figures by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin (who by the way have many times the listeners that Dan Savage has readers). Drrll (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drrl, I think the cases are much different, here you have a substantial body (not a couple, but a metric ton) of reliable sources discussing the controversy over the neologism and its political ramifications. It would be NPOV to exclude the discussion, I believe, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding your suggestion here.

Will, and everyone, I do agree that it doesn't make sense to have "Santorum" point to the Senator, although I think it's less clear-cut (someone searching for the Senator is likely going to be searching for "Rick Santorum", not "Santorum"). However, I don't support having the hatnote go to the dab page, though, as two of the three entries in the dab page return you to Rick Santorum, the hatnote should go to the only other possible target page of the query. I think "sexual neologism" is fine for the hatnote. --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 02:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I did a search for "santorum" & "dan savage" in Lexis-Nexis on 'major world publications' and only 4 results mentioned the controversy--3 of which talked about Santorum's 2006 Senate opponent returning a contribution from Savage (and one of those from the Washington Post gossip column). I bet I could easily find examples in that neighborhood of results for monikers that Limbaugh assigns to various public figures. Does that mean that they merit a mention in the BLPs of those public figures? Drrll (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same search on "All News (English)" returns 207 articles. Gamaliel (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drrrl, I'd be with you if the numbers I found myself doing other searches, and I don't have N/L access, were of the order of "4." Instead, when I look for sources myself I get results closer to Gamaliel's (although those 207 surely include some unreliable sources.) But I agree with your approach here if not your numbers, it's a matter of sources, of reliability of sources, and weight of sources. BLP doesn't prevent us from ever saying anything negative, it does restrain us to speaking of things with due weight based on those sources. And measuring the number of real sources and their reliability is the right approach, in my opinion. Note too that I don't think the Rick article ~~should be the target of "Santorum" or~~ should define the term, something like textual treatment we give the somewhat different cases of Tricky Dick and the coverage of Billary at Hilary Rodham Clinton (note that Billary Clinton goes to a page that doesn't actually mention the term, whoops.) For me, what's persuasive is that the term is something that the candidate himself has had to answer questions about, that it's being raised in news coverage years past--it's that effect, not really the specific and I'm sure troubling definition that's pertinent, I feel. And it's an effect that is, as near as I can tell from sources, more significant than the effect of either "Tricky Dick" or "Billary" in terms of political force. --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 05:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Meh. That's hardly everything out there, but it's representative. Fewer than I expected, broad enough that I'd still support a mention in the article. *shrug* --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 05:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, that's a fair point about the effect that the term has had on Santorum. Can't we agree, though (Gamaliel included), that giving the explicit definition directly in his BLP is a little over the top? The term is already wikilinked within the BLP. The 200+ figure does represent many non-reliable sources, sources that discuss Savage and Santorum without mentioning the coined term (the two of them do have a history with each other), as well as opinion pieces in reliable sources. Opinion pieces may be questionable within BLPs in general (they certainly are for facts in a BLP). Drrll (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drrrl, we do agree on that! See my response below, but yeah, I do not support the inclusion of the definition of the neologism in the Senator's BLP, merely a tidy recap of the controversy and its political effect. What the term was defined by Savage's readers as is utterly unimportant, save that we convey it was pejorative/sexual or such.--j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 05:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, to answer your other three questions, I'd say "yes, the neologism should be mentioned on the Senator's page". It's a substantial weight around his ability to run for President, it's sourced, it's inappropriate to consider not including mention of it. However, I don't think we need to give the definition of the neologism on the Senator's page, I don't think the specifics of the definition are relevant to the Senator, I'd mention that the term was sexual and considered offensive, or something to that effect, using words taken from reliable sources describing the neologism. (In short, the existence of the term and the history around it tells us a lot about Santorum's life, the specific definition of the term, not so much.) No strong opinion about defining it on the dab page. --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 02:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Per WP:Neologism: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. If you are interested in writing an article on a neologism, you may wish to contribute it to that project instead."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to send it to AfD again, but before you do, I'd recommend reading all of WP:NEO. The relevant sentence, I feel, is To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. Pretty much all the interesting coverage of this meets this test. I'd be hard pressed to find a reliable source that uses the word with it's made-up definition, it's the whole story of the pattern of usage of the word that's notable. I would support a rename of Santorum (sexual neologism) to Santorum neologism controversy or some such. --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 05:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like a virtually one-man campaign by opinion-meister Dan Savage to promote use of the neologism. I'll leave it up to others whether to do another AfD. It looks like WP:NEO was not mentioned or recognized in the previous AfD.

My inclination would be to reduce and merge into Dan Savage.

But regardless of whether the article about the neologism remains (I don't think it should), santorum should lead to the ex-Senator's page, instead of a dab page, because most users by far will be looking for the Senator's page. The neologism can be briefly mentioned at the Senator's page but not in a hatnote (that would be undue weight), and the definition of the neologism ought not to be given on the Senator's page (nor in the dab page if the dab page is retained) for the same reasons; defining it in the article about the neologism is more than adequate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted notices of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Talk:Rick Santorum, Talk:Santorum, and Talk:santorum (sexual neologism). I picked those WikiProjects because they are listed on Santorum's talk page; if there are other projects that should be notified please go ahead. Mike Christie (talk – library) 10:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blatant attempt to whitewash the ex-Senators article. Politics can be dirty and Rick Santorum chose to jump in the mud. Joe Decker's comment at 02:20, 23 February 2011 sounds like a pretty neutral treatment: mention it on his page, don't define the term, discuss the controversy. That the Senator and his aides have to spin it as his "google problem" show it is quite clearly a notable obstacle to his future political aspirations. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I don't you see inclusion of such material as a BLP violation. I see big problem with the overall tone of the articles that sound that Santorum said something bad about gays but no problem with inclusion information about Santorum (sexual neologism). It is notable information about some of his political enemies and their behavior. Of course, it should be included in unbiased and "un-UNDUE" version. --Dezidor (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sexual neologism article as notable but, as Joe Decker and SchmuckyTheCat suggest, reference it in the Rick Santorum article without giving the description. Anyone who wants more info can follow the wikilink.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Vidal Streich

Philip Vidal Streich is in his second year at Harvard as an undergraduate. He performed very impressively in high school science fairs, winning a large amount of prize money. He has done some interesting and unique research, but no more interesting or unique than the work of many other undergraduates at Harvard. He is not notable enough for a Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.5.172 (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search found this Scientific American article, which reports he was a homeschooled high school level student in spring 2009, so he presumably still is in college as you say. I didn't see any direct confirmation. For a college student, he does seem to have attracted a large amount of third party coverage. WP:PROF wouldn't seem to apply, but WP:ANYBIO says: "1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. 2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." He seems to have met those criteria. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Hassani Sorkhi

This BLP is a doozy, including the following unsourced statement: "He is officially the leader of hypocrites living in Iraq and is commonly outrageously accorded the status of Grand Ayatollah." Maybe Wikipedia can help start a war! :-) This Wikipedia article also labels the subject as a "criminal"....perhaps someone can spare a few moments to fact-check that assertion?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is plain and simple vandalism....following the history it is easy to see that an IP that posted that one time only vandalised the article. They didn't even, it seems to me, change the sourcing from the previous version. Gingervlad (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went to change it back to the pre vandalism version and don't know how to do that. Yes, I know I need to learn how... Gingervlad (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Reverted back to pre-vandalism version. I used Twinkle. VQuakr (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cox_(footballer)

Dear Sir/Madam, please be aware the comments relating to this article are inaccurate and potentially defamatory. You will notice the wording, "...his contract was cancelled by Steven Tweed three months later following disciplinary problems on the park." This particular paragraph has appeared in several match programmes of Scottish Football League clubs during the 2010/11 season. Presumably, the contributors to these programmes have used Wikipedia as a tool for research. This is unacceptable as it may affect David Cox's chances of enhancing his career due to malicious rumours that are wholly untrue. I would like to request the above quote be removed from his profile with immediate effect. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Yours sincerely, S.Lovell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambaben (talk • contribs) 13:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Stone

Has offensive reference to bacon for a Jewish politician. Underlying reference does not exist. Apparently invented by Hugo D.

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