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.

Ray Lewis

Section 4 titled Arrest for Murder uses speculative information and a testimony as factual information. References 25 specifically. The section suggest Ray Lewis is guilty and presents him in a negative light. The section should read like this:

Lewis gained infamy through his involvement in a much-publicized tragedy in Atlanta after Super Bowl XXXIV. Lewis, along with Reginald Oakley and Joseph Sweeting, were charged with two counts of murder and four other felony counts in the deaths of Richard Lollar and Jacinth Baker, after a street brawl left two young men dead outside a nightclub. [12][25]

On June 5, a plea bargain was struck, and murder and aggravated assault charges against Lewis were dropped in exchange for his testimony against his companions. He pled guilty to one count of obstruction of justice and was sentenced to a year of probation. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue fined Lewis $250,000 for conduct detrimental to the league, a penalty aimed at the obstruction of justice. [12]

Lewis' testimony didn't help the prosecution in the four-week trial, which ended in acquittals for Oakley and Sweeting. [12]

The following year, Lewis was named Super Bowl XXXV MVP. However, the signature phrase "I'm going to Disney World!" was given instead by quarterback Trent Dilfer.

In 2004, Lewis reached a settlement compensating then four-year-old India Lollar, born months after the death of her father Richard, preempting a scheduled civil proceeding. Lewis also previously reached an undisclosed settlement with Baker's family. [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnsy1627 (talk • contribs)

Andrew Chenge - missing source

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

Missing reference for the last sentence ("UK's Serious Fraud Office has however confirmed that... have closed the file for investigation."). Also a citation would be better here.

Aelita Andre

Hello, I'm writing here because I want to clarify a few things regarding a recent series of edits made on an article that I wrote and am maintaining, Aelita Andre. Earlier today, User:Cramyourspam made four successive edits to the article, the end result of which was:

(1) The addition of critical information about the article's subject sourced only by a private blog.

(2) The addition of an autobiography tag justified with a statement that I, the article's author, "seem" close to the subject because there isn't really anything negative about her in the article. I contested this on the article's talk page, because it isn't true and because nearly every sentence of the article is followed by 1 to 3 inline citations from reliable sources, so the accusation was sort of ridiculous.

Because this user made four uninterrupted edits in a row, I undid them with four uninterrupted edits in a row. I'm afraid now that someone might see this as more than 3 edits in a 24-hour period, but this was actually a single edit in 4 parts (since the other user did not edit between my 4 edits). Additionally, these edits were done in order to remove contentious material in a BLP. Curiously, this user's page explicitly states that edits to the user's personal talk page are not welcome. Because I wanted to draw the user's attention to the article's talk page so we could have a discussion, I simply reverted the next edit that he (or she) made with an edit summary stating "Cramyourspam, I undid this only to let you know I want to talk about this on the Talk Page since you don't want messages on your page." If anyone here is interested in the full chronology of events and in everything that was said on the article's talk page, please take a look. I hope for two things from you:

(1) I'd like some form of confirmation that the situation is understood in case anyone sees, at a quick glance, that I made the three uninterrupted reverts in a row, and in case that person doesn't notice that these are all really a single change undone in the same consecutive steps in which they were created in the first place. Moreover, I want to point out immediately that the motivation behind the edits was to remove contentious, poorly sourced information in a BLP. I strongly encourage anyone interested to view this page in detail.

(2) Although an uninvolved rollbacker chanced upon the page, reverted it to its original state (what it was before Cramyourspam's first edit), and helped to resolve the issue by now, I would like some feedback on how I handled the situation so I can improve my response in similar situations in the future. Of course, if you don't have time to do that, I understand.

Thank you for your time, Armadillopteryx^talk 02:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3rr has an explicit statement in it somewhere to the effect that consecutive reverts are all counted as one - you won't have any problems there. The other user's talk page looks pretty weird - it's not something I've seen on a talk page before and seems pretty strongly contrary to the spirit of collaboration. I'm going to notify them that there is an ongoing noticeboard discussion about them - which would normally be polite but will probably be interpreted as rude in this situation but seems a good thing to do anyway. Kevin (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. I'll check this page regularly to see when more information is added. Thank you! Armadillopteryx^talk 02:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did well. (Incidentally, any statement on a user talk page that comments in general aren't welcome may be freely ignored. After all, "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user".) -- Hoary (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cramyourspam here. on the article discussion page, arm'x asked for real research. it was already in the article i used originally ("Reports of Art World Acclaim For 4-Year Old Artist Dupe Global Media" http://grumpyvisualartist.blogspot.com/2010/12/blog-post_9002.html ) which you deleted --the article on that art writer's blog. from that article (and i'll just copy the art writer's references):

[blockquote] Wikipedia sums it up well: "A vanity gallery is an art gallery that charges artists fees to exhibit their work and makes most of its money from artists rather than from sales to the public." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_gallery ) According to an article by artist/gallerist/critic Lenny Campello: because a vanity gallery rents out its walls, "the main driver in having a show at a vanity gallery is not necessarily the quality of the artwork, but the artist's ability to pay the gallery to host his/her artwork." ( http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/vanity-galleries/ ) Campello continues, critics and curators ignore such venues "much like book critics ignore most self-published writers, who use 'vanity publishers'." ( http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/vanity-galleries/ )

Lest they incur bad publicity, vanity galleries don't generally admit to being pay-to-play venues, but enough information appears on Agora's website to connect the dots. From Agora's submissions page: "Please note that Agora Gallery charges an annual fee for its representation and promotion services." ( http://www.agora-gallery.com/artistinfo/postal_submissions.aspx ) From Agora's FAQ page: "If I am accepted what is the cost of the annual promotion and representation.... We offer a few options starting from $2950."( http://www.agora-gallery.com/artistinfo/faqs.aspx ) For a solo exhibit, "Please email sales@agora-gallery.com for more information" --note the telltale email address: sales. ( http://www.agora-gallery.com/gallery2/ ).

To split hairs, Agora doesn't officially require fee payment to exhibit, but instead does require purchase of promotional services. No such purchase: no exhibit. It is therefore pay-to-play --just paying for required "promotion" rather than for exhibition. There is little real difference.[/blockquote]

so there's some research. you can see that the gallery's own website explains the requirement for exhibitors to pay promotions fees to be allowed a show; wp and others explain that pay-to-play venues are vanity galleries. if you're going to argue that the gallery's own website doesn't count, you should step out of the loop and leave the article to less biased-looking writers. Cramyourspam (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already described at Aelita Andre as being a vanity gallery, so I'm unsure as to what the point of your post was. I don't mean that sarcastically - please clarify what you meant/what action you were trying to bring about. Kevin (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted this on the article's talk page, but it appears the same reply is relevant here: I don't know why Cramyourspam keeps insisting on using that private blog as a source in anything on Wikipedia, much less a BLP. It's not a reliable source now and will never be, so I would like to understand why there has been so much insistence on blog use here. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Cramyourspam's post here is copied and pasted from the article talk page, I'm also going to copy and paste the second half of my response here:

Listen, I'm a patient person, but I don't take kindly to your repeated personal attacks accusing me of bias, being close to the subject, etc. I would mind less than most people if you actually justified any of what you've said about me, but so far your only arguments have been variants of the fact that the article doesn't include the fact that it's a vanity gallery (which it now does, by the way) or say many negative things. Well, at best, that's a weak argument for NPOV, but nowhere in there is it justified to attack me as a source close to the subject or as a biased writer. Moreover, even your NPOV ideas can't go anywhere because until a reliable news sources publishes a critical story about the subject, we can't put in anything more negative than the fact that the Agora is a vanity gallery. We can't go into criticism of her without explicit sources of the criticism. Please read WP:BLP. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

( ... However, this is secondary to what Kevin noted above, which is that the Agora Gallery is already introduced as a vanity gallery in the article, with the citation being from the gallery's website, as it has been since 01:07 on 17 June.) Armadillopteryx^talk 23:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mohamed faarax aidid

somalia has never had a president since mohamed siad barre (1991) - ali mahdi mohamed was a self-declared one but for a short period of time between january and june 1991. Please remove mohamed faarax aidid and hussein mohamed faarax aidid from somalian presidents' list. There is no somalia central state since 1991. Merci

family kocovic

AS I REMEMBER as a child about my fathers side of the family, Kocovic, my grandparents Savo and Milijana have roots in Monte Negro, now I am not completely sure how long ago was that family Kocovic migrated, however they settled in Ribnica, near Kraljevo. Savo and Milijana had Cedomir, Dragomir, Milijana (Mica), Dusan (my father) and three other kids. My grandfather Savo is killed during WW-II on his doorstep by chetniks, while his two sons where killed in Banjica, concentration camp, during WW-II. Their property has been confiscated by Yugoslavian goverment in 1945. and they are left with small block of land. All of Kocovic family has been fighting against fashist regime, some of them has perished but some of them like Milijana, Dusan, Cedomir and Dragomir survived WW-II. Kocovic Dragomir (nearly blind) and Kocovic Dusan have had carear in Yugoslav army, long time retired before civil war on Balkans erupted.

Clifford Vaughs

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

In 1969, Clifford Vaughs and Lew Irwin were awarded by the Associated Press California, "Best Documentary" for "Berkely Third World or Third Reich". Special award for "The Most Creative Presentation of the News" for "Credibility Gap". Vaughs and Irwin formed VIP (Vaughs/Irwin Productions) and produced the shows at KRLA radio, Pasadena California. "Credibility Gap" went into syndication.

J. Patrick Capps

I am the subject of this article, and while I am flattered someone thinks enough of me to create a wikipedia page, I am concerned it might detract from my work. I will request that my page be deleted as soon as possible.J. Patrick Capps Monday, June 20, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.33.174 (talk • contribs)

Ernesto J. Cordero

1) In the level of PERSONAL LIFE it appears that he dropped out the Ph. D. in Economics. This is false, his current status is all but dissertation (ABD)

2) Controversy: His net earnings are not 200,000 pesos. The correct info is 145, 000 pesos. ^[1]

3)Controversy: This is the transcript with the exact words in page 8. ^[2]

Antonio Arnaiz Villena

Akerbeltz,Dumu Eduba,Kwamikagami and Trigaranus are spoiling Antonio Arnaiz-Villena biography with their opinions as pointed out bu User:Zero .They were apparent linguists that later become interested only just on the false legal accusations that rised against Arnaiz-Villena after publishing a forbidden(!) genetics paper on Palestinians.This is now in the page.They do not let clarify what WP asks for update or references.Symbio04 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symbio4 has no idea what he is doing on Wikipedia. He simply can't edit. I have no idea what his interest is in this article, which has a very checkered history in terms of content and editors, and I don't feel like going backwards to look at all the controversies, including sockpuppet investigations, etc., but Symbio4 appears to be a single purpose account, and although for a while the article was quiet, he's come back with a vengeance and won't listen to reason. At present, regardless of any other editors he accuses of whatever, he is the problem. And I've run out of reversions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23,my friend,if you threaten somebody who is trying to arrange a BLP (which is full of subjective opinions and plain lies), it would be preferable you quit WP. Where is it stated that A-V blamed on a Jewish lobby? Corrupted Spanish newspapers,gossips…? When attack started against A-V.Human Immunology Editor,Nicole Succiu-Foca said in 2002 that many pro-Jewish people had asker her A-V dismissal. I insist if you are not prepared to study a WP topic in deep,please do not touch it.Iberomesornix (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It only gets worse. Now we have another editor adding a quote from Villena complaining that he was the victim of the "Jewish lobby". Of course, the quote is miserably out of context, but that doesn't seem to matter. The cited source is contextual, but the quote is a separate add-on to the sourced article that was Villena's response to a different incident.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Arnaiz puppets has written here many miserable accussations (did you now that according to him I am a secret agent in a conspiracy against him?). He has written here in the WIkipedia that there is a conspiracy of editors working for the Secret Services against him. He has added many unsourced claims even in the article, and, for instance, he asked to delete Prof. De Hoz references accusing him of libel (here, but not in the Court), as he asked to delete any reference which criticised his linguistic fringe theories. For once, there is an accusation of his that it is really sourced and that is EXACTLY in the context of the reason he claimed when accused in an interview in a newspaper for which he had written (it is what HE said when answered on the accusations against him). The quote puts exactly the question in its place, providing Arnaiz's point of view. To disregard this, only because not favourable, would be an editorial intervention. (Besides this, the theory, tall story, that he is a victim of a political conspiration is something that he is repeating here once and again ad nauseam) Dumu Eduba (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've bowed out from editing the article for the moment (although not because of Iberomesornix's absurd comments). I'm awaiting the outcome of the SPI investigation before doing anything else. It would still help, though, if other editors would take an interest in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the SP investigation and precedents of this case (with more on the same) do not forget the "deeds" of user Arnaiz1 who claimed to be Arnaiz, was blocked as puppet and had the same writing ticks in the signing tag: [1], [2]. Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iberomesornix now blocked as a sockpuppet. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a curious case.Even the 2nd Arnaiz-Villena part has disappeared from this Noticeboard.I do not understand how evident oldest information is left in this biography,even annotated.This is my last word in Noticeboard.Saturraran (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Nyiramasuhuko

Her article lacks a date of birth, and there's no right-hand sidebar of vital statistics as all other biographic articles seem to have. Given that an international court has just convicted her, surely her approximate age has been stated *somewhere* ?

John F. Banzhaf III

A second opinion is needed of the article, following my copy-editing. (I have asked also for help at WikiProject Law.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Halstead

It has a weird history, which I can't completely follow. Putting aside a mistaken speedy delete, it was nominated for deletion in 2006 and deleted. It was recreated sometime later and then nominated for deletion in 2010 and kept (for some reason, at least the way I do it, the 2010 discussion doesn't show up in the public logs for the page). I was going to nominate it now for deletion until somehow I saw the 2010 keep, and I don't see that enough has changed since then that the result would be different. Of course, other editors might agree with me, but I doubt the odds are in my favor.

I think it's a really silly article about a a lightweight con man who attracted media attention only because of failed attempts to start airlines that, uh, never got off the ground. Along the way, he engaged in chicanery, but even there, he didn't do enough to warrant criminal prosecution. All in all it's a non-story that, for reasons that are unfathomable to me, the British press enjoyed reporting about. He's not really notable for much of anything. Plus, the same editor who created the Halstead article created the Varsity Express article, one of the failed ventures. Long story short (I know, too late), I don't feel like spending time working on an article that I don't think belongs here in the first instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea to refer to this living person as a "con-man" on any page in Wikipedia unless there's a reliable source to back it up. In any case, if the British press publish articles about him, and that constitutes "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" then he is notable. There's no concept of "really notable". If you think the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia then nominate it for deletion, and make the argument there. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Casselman

I am William Gordon Casselman. ^{[details removed]}

Upon discovering a biographical Wiki item about myself and my works,that contained faulty entries, incomplete publication lists, various mistakes, I corrected them, only to have all the errors re-inserted.

The first report suggested strongly that I was either dead or no longer writing. That is deleterious to my career. That is one of the three requiasites to launch libel.

As the Wiki entry was called a biography of Bill Casselman, I added a publicly attested short biography from my website and from the author copy of all my third-party published books. But some arrogant editor, without so much as emailing me, has removed all the information I added, plus RE-INSERTED his or her mistakes. One of the things I did was merely put in the date of publication of all my books. Those dates were removed.

The utter snotty no-knowingness of the editor who first wrote and then removed all my corrections simply takes my breath away. I would ask you to insert all the edits I painstakingly inserted into a faulty biographical sketch that strongly hinted I was sitting somewhere drooling in a padded Alzheimer's chair, when in fact I am busy correcting my 15th book for American publication.

Therefore what your bizarre Wiki rules suggest is that some editor who has never contacted me knows more about my life than I do!!!

Out-fucking-rageous.

Please put my corrections back into the Wiki piece.

Bill Casselman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.163.48 (talk • contribs)

The main issue here is that as the subject of the article, you would have a conflict of interest. The second problem is of course that we have no way of knowing that you are who you say you are. Any can write in here and claim to be William Casselman. How would we know? I didn't go over the exchange (or lack of exchange) you've had with other editors, so I don't know if they handled this well. The best thing for you to do (and I'll assume you are William Casselman here), is to discuss the issue on the article talk page. Let other editors know what changes you would like, what corrections need to be made. It always helps to include details about published items about you so things can be verfified. Basic biographical information can be gleaned from the published author profiles in your books but because of copyright restrictions we can't publish those biographical blurbs in their entirety. I'm assuming the copyright for that would be held by your publisher. It's better to list what corrections need to be made and where that info is published. Then an editor with no connection to you can make those changes. I realize this seems overly bureaucratic and can be frustrating but do understand that when we all edit anonymously, even if we claim to be someone, no one can know for sure. If ever there is an issue that needs to be addressed, the article talk page is the best place to do it. If there is something in the article that is seriously libelous, I can assure you that anyone is free to remove it without prejudice. Just remove it and explain in the edit summary that what was written is libelous and unsourced. Unsourced biographical information on living people is serious and violates WP:BLP. freshacconci talktalk 14:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, legal threats are prohibited on Wikipedia. Your "launch libel" comment above is such a threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would question whether this person is notable. Are there any sources which make him so? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Flotilla II

A little while ago I scanned through our Freedom Flotilla II article, where I chanced upon the follow -

The flotilla is represented by a coalition of 22 NGOs and coordinated by Amin Abu Rashid, who Dutch media and Israeli Minister Yuli Edelstein accused of being a senior Hamas operative

The following two articles were given as references.

JPost Telegraaf

The issue is, the JPost cites the Telegraaf as the source of its information, while the Telegraaf cites an unnamed "intelligence source". So basically the information is coming from some nameless, faceless spokesperson for the Israeli government.

Thinking this was clearly inappropriate, I deleted it, only to have my revision undone by User:Epeefleche, who insists that since Telegraaf and JPost are WP:RS, the material is actually "well sourced".

I think it should be relatively obvious to anyone who examines the sources that keeping the material as is makes WP a mouthpiece for some unknown "intelligence source", which is pretty clearly not good practice.

On another note, following my edit and Epee's undo, Epeefleche actually started a Amin Abu Rashid page. Epee has a rather long history of tendentious editing on Israel-Palestine articles. Anyone feel that Epee's creative manipulation of sources might rise to the level of arbitration? NickCT (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems extremely premature to claim arbitration issues, more like discussion issues. Lets have a look at the sources and if they are weak then improve and attribution. I think? Hamas is an illegal organization and we should not be asserting someone is a member just by some weak accusation. (disclaimer - I have not looked at the content in question yet) note - I looked at Amin Abu Rashid and removed the opinionated claims of being in a terrorist organization. All of which go straight back to Israeli intelligence. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's relevant discussion on the talk page for this article, as Rob noticed. ( link/snapshot ) – OhioStandard (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find NickCT's above aspersion and personal attack on me to be uncivil. I would ask that he retract it. I've never been sanctioned for tendentious editing in the I-P area. He has. For him to seek to intimidate other editor's in this fashion, with untrue defamatory aspersions, is uncalled for, and on the wrong line of wp:civil. I would have hoped that after his block for an inappropriate personal attack in this area, he would have desisted from such behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the substance is involved, Nick mis-represents it. Included in the referencing (he mis-states the number of references as well) is a quote to an Israeli Minister. That is even apparent from the text of what Nick quoted. And yet, Nick mis-represent this, writing that it is attributed only to a "faceless spokesperson for the Israeli government". That's clearly not the case. As far as Hamas being "terrorist", I don't believe that that was an assertion in either article; nor does it appear to be a settled matter -- for example, the United Nations and nations such as Russia, Turkey, and Switzerland do not classify it as a terrorist organization.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

adding child abusers to LGBT people categories

Resolved

– reported account blocked as a block evading account by User:Dougweller and all the accounts edits were reverted

Sword of St. Michael (talk · contribs) has added a number of catholic priests and others who committed child abuse to categories such as Category:LGBT people from Australia and Category:LGBT people from Ireland. While these individuals abused boys, I don't see anything in the articles to indicate that they identified as homosexual. This seems like an attempt to use wikipedia to make a point. The user has been doing something similar by labeling certain sources he doesn't like as Jewish[3]. GabrielF (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that old chestnut, we clearly don't do that, although I can see where the user is coming from it is undue weight to an uncited opinion of bias, if such a claim of bias is cited and well known/reported in reliable externals (which I don't think this is but if sources are provided I would consider it) there could be a case made for some kind of inclusion at some point in an article but not blindly in a leading way like that. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the adding of sexual criminals to a cat, that is also not something we do here as I have seen. A person committing a rape can go into the rapist cat but a person committing a gay rape doesn't belong in the LGBT cats as they would require self identification with that group as per WP:BLPCAT - or whichever that guideline is. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not only do they have to self-identify as being gay, but their sexual orientation has to be related to their notability. Otherwise, it violates WP:BLPCAT. I think it's virtually impossible to argue that the sexual orientation of an abuser of same-sex children is related to his notability. If that were so, then the sexual orientation of heterosexual child molesters would be related to their notability. The categories should be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think almost all the acconts edits have already been reverted. Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note - this User:Sword of St. Michael account also appears to be making the same edits as this currently blocked one month IP address 90.212.77.171 - perhaps a word with the blocking admin. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. I sent the blocking admin a note. GabrielF (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very good catch. Quack quack. Blocked indefinitely. He clearly doesn't like Jews either. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Off2riorob and Dougweller. Looks like there are a few account edits that haven't been reverted. One is to John Chrysostom diff - I don't know enough about the topic to evaluate this edit. The other is to Nathan Bedford Forrest [4]. In this case he replaces "a reign of terrorism" with "an extra-parliamentary campaign" when referring to the Ku Klux Klan. Terrorism is a very loaded word, but I think its more apt to describe the Klan than "extra-parliamentary opposition", which reads like whitewashing history to me. GabrielF (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note GabrielF - as the user clearly has NPOV issues and was evading an editing restriction and should not have been editing at the time and the edits are questionable in regards to their beneficialness I have reverted those articles to the position they were in prior to the users contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard-Henri Lévy

Recently, the subject Bernard-Henri Lévy has been under attack in the MSM and on blogs because he has stood by his friend, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Somebody in a major blog is citing this article and suggesting BHL is a fraud.

I find a great part of this article is biased and downright nasty. The subsection, "criticism" quotes two author and puts in quotation marks a quite negative statement. Although the book is not referenced, a quick search of Amazon reveals that the English translation is not available, at least in the USA. I have not checked the UK.

Since I am a newcomer to WIKI editing and not an expert in this field, can an experienced editor review this article? I have neither the chops nor the facility to do this on my own.

I do not know the subject and have no financial or personal interest thereon. PietrH (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Bernard-Henri_Lévy#Criticisms - I trimmed the long term uncited and made a couple of small writes for weight, seems a bit less undue now. I also have no financial or personal interest thereon (I just wanted to say that) Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lewinsky (neologism)

I deleted an article that appears to violate WP:BLP and blocked the editor who created it, an account created today with only this one article as edits. Please weigh in here. Dreadstar ☥ 23:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the article name to the heading. Will Beback talk 23:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now at AFD - Off2riorob (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Darbar

Person is posting material based on articles that cite rumors and anonymous sources. I removed once and has been re-added. I do not want to start an edit war. [5]] also on [6] ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 03:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed sections of the article that seemed to be based on rumors and gossip. It seems that there is press attention in India about attempts to manipulate this article. Any editor knowledgeable about reliable sources in Bollywood should take a look and help out. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this article in The Times of India to see how this BLP issue on Wikipedia is being discussed by a major newspaper. Cullen328 (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zvonko Bušić

An editor identified only by IP address (66.151.103.8) recently appeared and violated the BLP policy in several ways, by adding false and libelous statements. See the talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zvonko_Bu%C5%A1i%C4%87 The editor has very deep POV issues and should not in my opinion be editing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowberryhagan (talk • contribs) 15:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the IP's changes to the lead based on BLP. However, that really doesn't resolve the problems with the article, which reads like a rant. When discussing the subject's background, the section header is "Terrorist's background". In the Hijacking section, the word terrorist or terrorists is mentioned so many times I lost count. The only cite for the section is the appellate opinion (which I have to look at to see if it supports the hyperbole). In a later section there is the following amazing sentence: "Freeing this Croatian terrorist from a life sentence and shipping him to his homeland caused the disgust of relatives of the city cop he murdered more than 30 years ago." This article is a disaster.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made substantial revisions to the article and commented on the Talk page. I've already reverted one IP's attempt to undo my changes. There seem to be two IP camps, one pro-Busic and one anti-Busic. Both are causing problems. More experienced editors watching would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had a look earlier and the article clearly required a wikification, well done - adding to my watchlist now. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This group is involved in disqualifying the existed edits and throwing false accusations. On the article talk page I've provided clear proofs that all my edits are strictly supported by the US Court documents, reliable references about terrorism and articles coming from the mainstream media. This way I've provided clear and lawful qualification of this act of air piracy and bombing as terrorism. The above accusations and support to them is some kind of canvassing.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary American court documents ... what do the secondary reliable reports say? Please see WP:BLPPRIMARY - lookinf at the article there are a lot of primary PDF's and a court docket - the only one I can see that is in English and secondary independent and wiki reliable is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/nyregion/19parole.html - and it refers to Croatian independence fighters and you seem to be moving the focus towards terrorist - - Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there will be reliable sources that will use the word "terrorist", but that doesn't mean we can repeat it as a label of a BLP. This particular person is notable for having hijacked the plane. He was convicted of hijacking (air piracy). He was NOT convicted of being a terrorist. Even if the term is used carelessly in the mainstream media, we can't use it - it goes too far. Some people are going to think of him as a terrorist, and others are going to think of him as a political revolutionary fighting for a cause. We can't label him as either.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- There are many of them: mainstream media: Time, New York Times, textbooks about terrorism. Did you read any of thle at all? Far from enough for you to defend nonsense. As a criminal and terrorist, Busic was expelled from the US, no matter which way you are interpreting Wikipedia rules. One of the Wikipedia pillars is the Fifth pillar. Please, learn about it as bit more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.31.183 (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Judge says in the article, During sentencing, the trial judge, John Bartels, stated on the record that he did not consider Bušić "a terrorist or a criminal" and that although his methods were wrong - Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Frankly, I don't care how many mainstream media reports you come up using the adjective "terrorist". The only way it could possibly be relevant is if the article discussed the differing points of view as to who Busic was, what he stood for, etc. Certainly a Pandora's box, but not unheard of on Wikipedia. But that is still quite different from labeling him a terrorist.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, you, Off2riorob, are supporting forgeries. Show us the document containing the quoted text! Moreover, the three other judges are clear: terrorism is terrorism. The US law is clear: this is an example of heinous terrorism.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Bbb23: You do not read the Court document, you do not care about the mainstream media, Pope John Paul VI who publicly codemned this heinous act of terrorism, you do not know anything about scholars point of view about this case, but you still know more than I do. Who are you sir/madam?--71.191.31.183 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the accusations against me looks like that Wikipedia supports forgeries and whitewashing. Now a petty Balkans terrorist cannot be called terrorist even though he was sentenced for an act of terrorism: air piracy and bombing (which was the root cause for a person's death and injuries of others) on the USA soil. Is this Balkans Wikipedia or something else?--66.151.103.8 (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ferial Haffajee

- ferial haffajee biography wiki incl facebook wiki profile

Hello I am trying to make a change to the biography of Ferial Haffajee. I have already amended her wikipedia profile but can't seem to edit her facebook wiki profile. It describes her as 'non-white' which she objects to. I need to change the 'non-white' to Black. How do I do this so that it changes all wiki linked profiles of her, not just the wikipedia one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saritaranchod (talk • contribs) 06:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many different websites choose to mirror wikipedia's content, meaning that they copy the content onto their own site. They are free to do so, under certain conditions, under the terms of wikipedia's license. However, wikipedia really has no control over what version of a given article a particular mirror uses. I'd expect that facebook and other mirrors periodically update to the latest versions of wikipedia and I think your best bet is to wait for them to do so. I don't think there's anything that can be done to *make* them use a different version. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for more information. GabrielF (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Malik

Shahid Malik (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch is suffering from a long standing dispute by multiple parties and really needs a look though from neutral parties. Brandon (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Graham

The Larry Graham article states that Graham converting Prince to Jehova's Witness narrowed his world view and ruined his career... the following sentence: "Larry Graham introduced Prince to his brand of religion and Prince has never been the same since. In fact, the music he has released signals the end of a career that had had so much potential. Larry Graham should no longer be a member of the New Power Generation," is clearly opinion and is not backed up by references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.26.3 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those sentences were added to the article today. You're correct that they shouldn't have been added, per our policy on original research and I've removed them. GabrielF (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Varty

Certain editors purge my contributions to John Varty. Their contributions are defamatory Tigeralert (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this request, I look at the article and the revision history, and saw many unsourced negative claims, and editing warrig. So I stubbed the article to remove the unsourced or poorly sourced content, and protected the article to stop the edit war. This article need some experienced editors to help find reliable sources and do a rewrite. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is fully protected for a few more days, and after stubbing could use a little development by interested wikipedians - I have watchlisted it. Off2riorob (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Gallinagh

I find the opening paragraph disgusting. Andy Gallinagh has never been referred to as 'the spastic one' nor shows qualities of being down syndrome.

I find it appalling that down syndromes have now been referred to as 'spastics'- in this article. This statement is dishonest and is a complete violation of Andy Gallinaghs' profile.

It is a disgrace that this has been given such easy access to world wide viewing.

Andy Gallinagh is in the light of fame and I appreciate that all press/opinions/statements, will differ in style and positivity. However, this prejudice statement not only affects peoples feelings but is invasion of Andy Gallinaghs' rights to honest press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.204.143 (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The disgraceful material has been removed by User:MacMed. If the vandalism recurs then it's likely the article will be locked to prevent changes to it by unregistered editors. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States and state terrorism

- BLP issue is in regard to this quote - "Noam Chomsky's love affair with Nazis"

Chomsky himself has been criticized for supporting Hezbollah, an organization designated by the United States as a terrorist group. "Citing with approval a journalist's observation that Hezbollah 'is not a terror organization,' Chomsky explained that the terrorist who blew up 243 U.S. Marines in Lebanon and murdered untold citizens of Israel was only engaging in 'legitimate resistance' against an oppressor and 'avoids striking civilians except in retaliation for Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians.'"[7]

Does this quote violate BLP? It is sourced to an editorial by David Horowitz in FrontPage Magazine ("Noam Chomsky's love affair with Nazis").[8] Horowitz is the one providing the criticism. Is the source reliable, are the opinions expressed notable, is the wording neutral and is it relevant to the article? TFD (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Chomsky is alive, this is not appropriate. I made some corrections, but it seems User:Scaleshombre, who has been warned some months ago about his behaviour on the same article (but has removed the warning from his talk page) is still busy editing the article, so I got an edit conflict. The bias is not egregious, but the section you blockquote is clearly not appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scaleshombre came back to this article as a result of canvassing by another disruptive edit warrior, User:V7-sport. This type of insertion of random snippets of inaccurate op-eds is unfortunately going to be the norm as long as these sorts of people are allowed to continue to disrupt progress on the article. TFD was doing a rather good job (although I disagree with his removal of the history section) of rewriting the article to summarize the scholarly literature on the subject. Somebody should ensure that we continue making progress writing an encyclopedic article, rather than wasting time arguing about including quotes from trashy op-eds. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)v[reply]

Ease up on the personal attacks, big guy. I came back to the article because I didn't think it was evolving into a balanced treatment of the issue. I don't believe the article (at least in its current form) merits inclusion in Wikipedia, but as long as it stands, I'm committed to ensuring that it's as balanced as possible. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made no personal attacks. Regarding "balancing the article", the way to do that is not to include off-topic quotes from incendiary op-eds, which attack BLPs and misrepresent their views. If you feel that something is being left out from the plentiful scholarly literature on the topic of U.S. state terrorism, then please share it. But please don't continue to try to insert articles by David Horowitz about how Noam Chomsky loves Nazis and the Khmer Rouge. This is not productive. We are trying to write an encyclopedia article about a notable theory that is extensively covered in the scholarly literature. We should stick to using quality sources, and try to write what the sources say about the topic, rather than trying to include quotes that bash the people who hold the views being discussed. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the plentitude of scholarly sources that cover this subject, I really see no need to use op-eds and unreferenced news articles as sources. (And the fact that it is falsely saying that a Jewish BLP loves Nazis is, of course, further reason not to use it per WP:BLP). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing BLP, I realize that the reference may have been unduly inflammatory. Please note I toned it down to better comply with policy. I'd appreciate your feedback. Scaleshombre (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about this?

During a televised discussion about terrorism, former U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett noted that Chomsky is "the man ... who said that the reports of atrocities by the Khmer Rouge were grossly exaggerated. ... Go through the Chomsky work, line by line, argument by argument, and you will see this is a man who has made a career out of hating America and out of trashing the record of this country."[9] (Source: CNN transcript[10])

TFD (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant to the subject of U.S. state terrorism, and why does it merit mention alongside the many scholarly sources cited in the article? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett's remarks speak directly to Chomsky's credibility as a commentator on the U.S. and state terrorism. Bennett clearly shows that Chomsky has an agenda and that his views should be taken with a boulder of salt. If Chomsky is the principal architect of the U.S. as terrorist argument, then Bennett's critique is essential to the discussion. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below, I think you need to address Chomsky's specific ideas about the US and state terrorism. This is an article about a particular idea, not about Chomsky. Chomsky's "agenda" is not relevant here. Find someone who says "Chomsky's argument is wrong because of X,Y and Z."GabrielF (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, part of the problem is that not enough scholars take Chomsky's thesis seriously enough to devote attention to it. So instead of scholarly responses, what's left are criticisms in the media (opeds, tv) of Chomsky and his stance on terrorism. If the article is going to run on Wikipedia, something needs to be included indicating that Chomsky is not viewed as a credible source on the subject. The other problem is that while Chomsky's allegations of specific wrongdoings committed by the US may be correct, his broader conclusion that the US is guilty of terrorism is not supported by the academic community.Scaleshombre (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, plenty of scholars (such as the ones cited in the article, and on the talk page) take it seriously, and discuss it in their works which have been published by academic presses. If you don't have sources that present alternative views, then you are merely presenting original research. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added 2000 bytes of text from a scholar arguing the exact point you just made, that his broader allegations of US support for terrorism are an exaggeration. I agree that many more mainstream scholars don't take Chomsky seriously enough to debate the merits of his arguments, but enough do. GabrielF (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you that many scholars don't debate the merits of his arguments, but I disagree with you about their motivations. I would say that this is because they are unable to formulate a reasoned response (i.e. they would have to say things like "The U.S. doesn't control death squads like the Reds in Eastern Europe. They only support and advise them, which is really not as big a deal as Chomsky makes it out to be.", and most people are not willing to come out and publicly say something like that), not because they don't take them seriously. But regardless, while I think Fishkin's argument is fallacious and unethical your citation is exactly the type of thing we need in the article: It's from a scholarly source, and directly addresses the topic of the article. There are plenty of scholarly sources such as the one you added, and we should continue to write the article based on these, regardless of how repugnant we personally find the views to be (whether they hold similar views to Chomsky's or think his views are incorrect). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, it's a good cite. Kudos. Scaleshombre (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key point is to explicitly address Chomsky's ideas about the US and state terrorism. What's missing in the Horowitz quote is a sentence from the source that explicitly makes that link. Something on the order of: "Horowitz argues that Chomsky's definition of terrorism is biased [or incorrect, or whatever he says], because he sees Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance group rather than a terrorist organization." (I don't know if Horowitz says this exactly, but my point is that this is how it should be framed.) If its framed as a discussion of Chomsky's ideas on the US and state terrorism than BLP is much less of an issue. Horowitz is not the most sober source but I think he's fine if he's used as a way to explain why people might disagree with Chomsky. A more mainstream counterpoint would be preferable but there's nothing wrong with using an op-ed to establish that the writer disagrees with Chomsky. GabrielF (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following arguments have been made: terrorism is something committed by non-state actors, the U.S. does not condone human rights abuses in the Third World and the actions taken are justified as being necessary to prevent greater human rights abuses and causing less human suffering than the alternative conventional approaches. TFD (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nandi Special Jury Award

Resolved

Article about an awared (which may or may not be notable, but that's a separate issue) which lists a number of names of those awarded it but has no references at all. Santosham Film Awards is similar except it is mainly a list of daughter articles which are the articles including names, not all unsourced. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied it under CSD A1. causa sui (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Hoser (part two)

Has had original research added to the effect that he is the sole author of a journal - for which the editor simply examined the onlne journal. I suggest that this is the essence of OR, that any contentious claims in a BLP must be sourced, but I am met with

" WP:IAR - this is excessively strict adherence to the letter, not spirit, of a policy, preventing improvement of an article via incorporating relevant information. If the existence of the journal is relevant, so are the tremendous differences between it and every other journal. Conversely, if we are indeed neglecting these differences, I suggest that the journal itself fails to meet notability guidelines by even the most generous standards. The only thing that makes the journal relevant or noteworthy is the very fact that it's a "vanity journal", and if we don't acknowledge this fact, it's inclusion is misleading at best.

Is WP:BLP now irrelevant when an editor wishes to state that a journal is a "vanity jurnal" but can not find an actual RS making that claim? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the disputed content potentially defamatory? --causa sui (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is decidedly "contentious" at the least. Collect (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How so? If one downloads all the articles in the journal (available here), Mr. Hoser is indeed the sole author to appear in the journal. Note also that the journal lists no editorial board or other trappings one associates with a journal. I don't see anything at all wrong with Mr. Hoser having a self-published journal where he gives his observations of snakes, but we owe it to the reader to make it clear that this is not a scientific journal in the usual sense. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoser is a "living person. A biography of a living person actually falls under WP:BLP. No matter who the person is, how evil or despicable he is.
WP:BLP requires unsourced or poorly sourced contentios claims to be removed.
WP policies state that "reliable sources" are secondary sources making a claim.
Making claims based on an editor's own research is WP:OR and is not WP:RS

QED: Claims based on such OR and not based on a reliable secondary source must be removed from BLPs. That is "da rules" SBHB. Sorry if you dislike them <g>. Cheers Collect (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. How is the fact that the fellow has set up a venue to publish his observations "contentious" or pejorative? Anyway, as far as I can tell the "journal" has received no mention at all in secondary sources, so by your strict constructionist approach we shouldn't even be mentioning it or any of its articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objections there - but where an editor sought to make super clear that a journal is a "vanity publication" it is required that such claims be reliably sourced. The claim which made sense was that he started the journal. The part which is "contentious" is that he is the sole author for it - which is a specific claim which WP requires be reliably sourced. Simple really. Collect (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the cited source says that he started it, either. I think that given that he is the editor and sole contributor, it's reasonable to conclude that he is also the founder, but it's strange to me to say that it's acceptable to extrapolate "he is the founder" but not to observe "he is the only contributor." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short Brigade Harvester Boris; I don't understand. How is the fact that the fellow has set up a venue to publish his observations "contentious" or pejorative?; how is the fact he wrote a book about corruption contentious or pejorative? Yet you removed that despite being cited to an independent source (ok, not perhaps the best source, but it is a pretty detailed one). We can cite that content to a WorldCat listing if need be. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Locane

I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at Amy Locane and give some clarity on whether the level of detail that an editor is putting in is appropriate within the terms of BLP. I've warned a user for 3RR, and I'll watch the page and protect if necessary. Thanks. Ged UK 13:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luciana Berger MP

Some third party views on the recent edit war at the article would be welcomed at the article talk page, to establish consensus. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Groban

24.12.127.43 (talk · contribs) has been persistently adding the unsourced (and as far as I can see unsourceable) name of his alleged girl friend to this article, and alleged past girlfriends to other articles. They have continued this despite multiple reverts by other editors (four times today alone) [11] and multiple warnings on their talk page, including a final warning. Perhaps a short block might concentrate the mind? Voceditenore (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they continued to add the information after the final warning, the place to go with this is WP:AIV. GB fan (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If they try it again, I'll do that. I wasn't sure if that kind of thing counted as vandalism. Voceditenore (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Black Doctors Return to Clarksville TN

Clarksville Leaf Chronicle Twin African-American, Medical Doctors, George Thomas Clardy, Jr. and John Thomas Clardy, who grew up on the Clardy Farm located on Dunbar Cave Road, have returned to their Clarksville homesite to live and practice medicine. They built a new Clarksville medical office on Eighth Street. They have offer General Family and Internal Medicine treatment to hundreds of local residents. They are 69 years of age.

Submitted by (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.214.39 (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you posted this here? This noticeboard is for problems associated with articles concerning living people. GB fan (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tzvi Erez

Resolved

– Article deleted. causa sui (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional review of this new article, with a keen eye towards BLP issues, would be appreciated. The subject was charged with various fraud crimes, but the charges were dropped due to a shortage of court time and judges, so he was never actually convicted of anything. At this time it appears to be a case of WP:UNDUE, with a couple sentences related to his work as a pianist, and the remainder focusing on the ponzi scheme and its fall-out. If the crime is really the notable nugget in all of this, then perhaps the article should be moved to reflect that? Other opinions would be appreciated. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did some minor trimming, but it could use more. Details of the alleged malfeasance are sourced to a single Globe and Mail article. The Interior (Talk) 16:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His claim to notability is that he "released" some CDs (no mention of a record contract, could be self-published) and has "over" four million views on YouTube. There are no third party sources except those reporting on the alleged Ponzi scheme, for which he was never prosecuted. Why don't we just delete this article? causa sui (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the original revisions, I've speedied this as an attack page. If anyone disagrees with this decision, please let me know on my talk page and I will un-delete and kick it up to AFD. Regards, causa sui (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not argue against deletion. It seems there are essentially two questions that need to be answered first:

1) Is Tzevi Erez notable per WP:MUSICBIO? If so, the article should be kept;
2) If Erez is not notable, is this particular Ponzi scheme notable? If yes, the article should be renamed to reflect the crime and the article re-organized/re-written with an eye towards the criminal notability of the case

If Erez does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, and the crime is not particularly notable, then it should go to AfD. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It helps that deleting the article under CSD is not a prohibition against re-creation. While there may be a neutral way to approach the subject, the tone of the article presumed guilt (especially in the early revisions). AFD will find it easier to reach consensus on the MUSICBIO issues once the BLP problems are thoroughly eliminated. Still, if you really think we need an AFD discussion on these edits I will undelete the article, blank it, and AFD it. I'm not clear from your comment whether you think that's necessary. causa sui (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed your note with regard to the speedy deletion when I wrote the above. I was essentially musing aloud about possible solutions and have no issues with the article having been deleted. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

matt damon

someone wrote some really bad stupid stuff about Matt and it should be removed a.s.a.p., I am not a member so I am just informing Wikipedia about this bad information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.133.221 (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that ClueBot reverted some vandalism. IP editor, is the material that concerned you gone now? If not, please identify the "bad information" in a bit more detail. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Severin

I am having problems at the Jay Severin article with neutrality/undue weight issues and a nascent edit war. The original article didn't follow any wikipedia format and seemed (to me) to consist of a bloated lede followed by a list of the subject's misdeeds (he's a recently-fired talk radio "shock jock" from the Boston area). I posted a comment in the talk section of the article indicating an intent to correct the perceived deficiencies, then re-formatted the article in my sandbox to conform to the biography template, pared back the criticisms section, and created the missing sections. In the absence of comments rejecting my assessment, I made the changes about six days later. A possible (likely) edit war is brewing between myself and Xerxesnine over the changes. My opinion is that the original article was well-referenced but placed undue weight on the Severin's tenure in Boston and specifically on the controversies he generated as a radio talk show host. If someone neutral could drop by and evaluate the situation, it could help Xerxesnine and I to reach an amicable consensus. TreacherousWays (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article was under-referenced and puffed (in some cases, negative puff was given undue weight). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time, Collect. All comments are welcome. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The revised article that I wrote has been removed again. I am not reverting because I want to avoid an edit war. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the undue weight tag, which has been restored. My problem has always been with the absurd amount of brand new unsourced material in the rewrite. Xerxesnine (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaadietya Pandey

I have been trying to improve this BLP, lots of dead links and promotional stuff. Other than a few brief mentions in Times of India articles I cannot find any good sources for this person. There also doesn't seem to be an article in Hindi for him, which is strange for an Indian person. How to go forward with this one? MakeSense64 (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Lewis Morgan

I am Adrian's Agent and have removed the details about his Personal Life as these were not added by Adrian and he prefers that this information be kept private. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinorhilton (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that in general the subject's wishes are not the over-riding final factor in deciding what information is kept in a biographical article.

However, in this case the section was totally unreferenced (and much of it not very encyclopedic) so you were entirely right to remove it.

Thank you for making clear your connection with Adrian; some extra notes on this are at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rybka and Vasik Rajlich

In light of plagiarism accusations, do we have a clear BLP policy of assuming innocence until proven otherwise by a court of law (not championship)? Artem Karimov (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an amateur tournament chess player who uses engines to learn in lieu of paying Russian expatriats >$80/hr, I have some personal interest in this subject. You make a good point that these articles should be watched closely, so I will add it to syndication. In general, it shouldn't be problematic for us to cite the ICGA decision and stick to the facts. That way, we don't have to presume anything, guilt, innocence, or otherwise. Regards, causa sui (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Bauer

I hope an admin can look into this, I wasn't sure whether to post this here or at the COI noticeboard or inappropriate username. But there has been an ongoing dispute about the subjects date of birth - year. Now it has been changed by user:fifteenminutespr and a message left on the talk page. There is a Fifteen Minutes PR firm: http://www.fifteenminutes.com/ I have changed the date back a few times, from an IP's edit, but I"m ready to let someone else take a look.Bluebonnet460 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the 1966 date. Normally birthdate issues are easy to resolve as the date can simply be removed until a reliable source is provided for confirmation. In this case however, there is already a source included in the article that supports the date Wikipedia uses. According to the source, Bauer graduated from high school in 1984. If the 1973 date the the PR firm is attempting to change it to is correct, she would have been 11 when she graduated. This Journal Times article also states she was 29 when their story was printed in 1996. Unless a very reliable source is provided that can explain all the discrepancies, the date should not be changed. As a side note, Fifteenminutespr is a username violation. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source does not mention her year or date of birth. I've looked her up in the biographical reference work Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television, and that cites November 26, 1973 as her date of birth. Even if this RS is incorrect, we can't declare it wrong and another date correct based on conjecture. I'll refrain from inserting the 1973 date into the article for now, but I've removed the 1966 date as unsourced. Gamaliel (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if there are actually conflicting reliable sources, then that changes things. Unless consensus to use one date over another can be reached, it may be preferable to remove the birth date entirely, or the conflicting information can be worked in to the article prose with both sources presented. This will help prevent the date flip-flopping back and forth between the two sourced versions. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source for the 1966 date? The citation that I removed did not contain her birthdate. That said I think maybe leaving it out entirely is preferable to creating a "birthdate controversy" that only exists in the article and nowhere in the real world. Gamaliel (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the Journal Times newspaper article. It does not state "1966", it states she was 29 at the time of publishing (February 8, 1996), and that she graduated in 1984, both of which would preclude her being born in 1973. I agree about leaving it out, perhaps with a hidden note to check the talk page for the reason why it is not included. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion in your last statement seems like a good idea to me. Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for looking into it. I agree that not mentioning dob until there is a definitive source for it is best. Bluebonnet460 (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Melchiorre

The statement in Melchiorre's article contains an erroneous statement, namely that he scored 71 points in an NIT Tournament game. According to the Bradley University Sports Information Office, Melchiorre never scored as many as 30 points while playing for Bradley. Also, according to the NIT, the record for most points scored in one game is held by George Mikan. His record is in the low 40's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradleyProf (talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From reading Melchiorre's Hall of Fame profile, it does indeed appear that he scored 71 points in the 1949 NIT tournament. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Mulcaire

This seems like a textbook case of BLP1E, so I redirected it to News of the World phone hacking affair, but I was reverted by none other than Jimbo Wales. I'm a bit surprised by this so I thought I'd ask BLP regulars for their thoughts. Gamaliel (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an American, I don't know enough about this British scandal to speak definitively. However, it appears that Mulcaire was involved in a pretty wide range of hacking incidents in a variety of circumstances. Accordingly, BLP1E may not apply. Also, since he has been convicted of some charges, BLP concerns about accusations are lessened a bit, though we have to be sure to write neutrally based on reliable sources, and not get swept up in a tabloid firestorm. Cullen328 (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's borderline on the BLP1E. I started the article on the assumption that as he was involved in a wide range of incidents that there would be more than one proper profile done on him, giving sufficient context to create a full biography. I've spent a fair amount of time on it by now, and I'm less and less sure there is enough.

I reverted Gamaliel's move because there is a discussion on the talk page and people are working on the article. It seemed premature to cut it off.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a standalone article is justified here (his football career needs to be clarified re. whether he meets notability criteria as a sportsman), but it could be merged to News of the World phone hacking affair and a leaving a redirect would be appropriate in the case, but there already appears to be discussion going on on the article's talk page, so I would suggest joining that discussion. I can understand the redirect being reverted while that discussion was ongoing.--Michig (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP policy requires immediate action, which is why I created the redirect regardless of the discussion. I believe you when you say that he's notable for multiple incidents, but there is zero evidence of that in the article right now. The priority should not be discussion but to put that information in the article to justify the existence of that BLP or redirect it until that information is found. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the BLP issue that you feel requires immediate action here? The only concern appears to be notability.--Michig (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP vandalism testing sandbox

I made this page for testing purposes a while ago and kind of forgot about it till just now. How it works is explained on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hackel

Mark Hackel is an elected official whose father was convicted of a serious felony. I've been having a disagreement with another user about the issue; he wishes to include this information in Mark's article while I think it should not be. The talk page and article history should tell the tale more fully, but in short I believe the conviction is not sufficiently relevant to Mark's notability to be included and is merely inflammatory, which as I understand the policy would make it a BLP issue. Could we get some eyes more familiar with the nuances of BLP than I to see if it actually is or not? Imyourfoot (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Grace

Ridiculous comment posted by someone... In CAPITAL LETTERS under 'Career as Prosecutor' Please Remove!

[1] ttp://portaltransparencia.gob.mx/pot/remuneracionMensual/consultarPuesto.do?method=showEdit&idPuesto=CFGA001&_idDependencia=6

[2] ttp://www.hacienda.gob.mx/SALAPRENSA/sala_prensa_estenograficas/eca_20110221_conf_pib.pdf

[1]

[2]

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