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.

Aaron Saxton

Would any editors be available to have a look at the Aaron Saxton BLP? This includes an embedded video, originally self-published as part of a series on YouTube which has been uploaded to Commons (see Commons category). The YouTube video itself is, as far as I am aware, non-notable, in that no reliable sources have commented upon it. It, and the other videos in the series, make statements about third parties, and I am unsure if the embedding of the video in the article is in line with WP:BLPSPS. Views? --JN466 10:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice how the videoes were uploaded to youtube and uploaded from there to here and now removed from youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgSWH64wmJE - I wonder if the permission we have is actually verified as the subject in question? I was wondering, if it was him , he will be aware they are all now hosted here and why the uploader to youtube removed them? The uploaders channel has basically been blanked - http://www.youtube.com/user/aaronsaxton1#g/c/B1EB614764CFDF0B - Perhaps someone with OTRS at commons could have a look at https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4052753 and see who dealt with the original OTRS and what kind of verification of permission is there. As for the notability of the video itself as its self published and discusses other people that would create serious issues or a violation in my mind in regard to SELFPUB.Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, permissions seems ok, although no extra effort has been expended to ensure the granter was Saxton, but this is normally done only if someone challenges the copyright, or there is some other reason to expend extraordinary effort. So you'd be back to SEFPUB and other arguments for/against inclusion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who dealt with the original OTRS details. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to know that. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - Seems a bit unnecessarily secretive - So the OTRS permission - was it an email from the copyright holder or was it just that the youtube account was in the name of the person in the video? Is there actually any verification at all? As regards not allowing a question as to who dealt with the original OTRS details, could you direct me to that policy/guideline, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of violating BEANS, I'll simply say I'm concerned about the Wikimedia privacy policy, and leave it at that. The person self-identified and used an email address which would indicate they were who they stated. More was not done, as I have mentioned before. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, thanks for looking. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- So, its so hard to assess when you are not an OTRS or an administrator, - this video was uploaded to wikipedia commons by User:Cirt on the 19th November 2009 from a youtube account in the name of Aaron Saxton and the next day after a verification email from Aaron Saxton the subject of the video had been received at OTRS, User:Cirt then added the ORTS verified permission template? Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, an OTRS volunteer "verifying" his own uploads... The secret documentation is an effective threshold against copyright challenges. As to the BLP issue, yes, the article is stronly dependent on this self-published source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps its a side issue but the Aaron Saxton BLP was also written by ... User:Cirt - Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of several videos of critics of the Church of Scientology uploaded to Commons by Cirt and collected at the Free-use Scientology-related video project. Although Cirt verified their own upload, Cirt is an OTRS volunteer and the ticket can be reviewed by any editor with OTRS access (as KillerChihuahua has done). The issue here is the use of the video on en.wiki, if claims are made about third parties. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at it, the written transcript of the video is here at commons - uploaded to the chat forum of the anti Scientology activist group Anonymous (group) on november 19, 2009 - uploaded to wikipedia by user:Cirt the next day. Off2riorob (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC) - as I see it, he is mostly talking about himself and his experiences in Scientology but doesn't mention any individual specifically , but, as per BLP an org or company such as Scientology is a group of living people - as per WP:SELFPUB it is touch and go I would say take it out, if in doubt take it out. The GA reviewer had issues about it himself see Talk:Aaron Saxton/GA1 but appears to have let it ride. It could be asserted that he is an vocal oppositional of the Organization and his negative comments about the Org are self published negative opinion and should be removed from the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is making statements that the Church disputes. The embedded video is part 1 of 7; there is more in the other 6 parts, including allegations against named persons: [1]. The article shouldn't be a platform for his allegations. We should remove the embedded video, but leave the Commons link to them. As far as the use of the videos as sources for article content is concerned, it's mostly basic biographical detail, which is alright. The article also says "While a member of the Commodore's Messenger Organization (CMO), Saxton attempted to make sure those under his supervision had adequate nourishment.[23][24] As a recruiter for the CMO, Saxton typically tried to get Scientologists between ages 13 to 14 to join the organisation.[25]", sourced to these self-published videos. The first sentence could be perceived as self-serving. Other than that I don't see a problem with how the videos have been used to source content. --JN466 11:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a situation similar to that discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 62#Self-published Youtube video. In that case a similar anti-CoS video, also uploaded by Cirt but with the OTRS confirmation added shortly after by User:Kmccoy (who did not appear to be an OTRS volunteer at that time) was removed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get that - why would User:Kmccoy be verifying OTRS claims when he wasn't an OTRS volunteer? Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is a simple explanation. I've left a note on Kmccoy's talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note - removed in this edit as per the policy issues raised and as per consensus in this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meghnad Desai, Baron Desai

Resolved

– Ajaxyz indefinitely blocked. Sandstein 19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the behavior of Ajaxyz (talk · contribs) is inappropriate, and what they are adding to this article may be a BLP violation. Ruslik_Zero 12:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance, there is a huge WP:COATRACK here about Said Khadafy's PhD thesis. This needs a lot of pruning. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed a bit that was mostly duplicated and poorly written undue allegations of wrongdoing. Article needs some copy editing wiki style improvements as it is quite low quality at present. Off2riorob (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did some more general cleanup on the article. Should it be moved to Meghnad Desai? The Baron Desai designation should be in the first sentence though. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going by Ruslik's logic, there can be no crticism section on wikipedia. Off2riorob needs to improve reading skills to understand long and complex sentences — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaxyz (talk • contribs) 03:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ajaxyz is edit-warring to reinsert this BLP-violating "Criticism" section. Saif al-Gaddafi's thesis is already covered in an appropriate section, from top quality news sources. I have issued a final vandalism warning to Ajaxyz, who has also been warned by another. I have also done some copy-editing per Off2riorob and have raised the question of the article title in the relevant wikiproject, where it is being discussed amicably. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronn Torossian (old)

BLP edits were made which are inaccurate (Drive people out of Jerusalem never stated), not which he is noteable for (owns a PR agency), and not well sourced given BLP issues. Pls assist with cleanup as user is very agressively harming this live active person. --108.21.128.55 (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms in that article were attributed to the New York Times, the Forward (considered a reliable newspaper), The Atlantic, the Haaretz newspaper, and Ad Age. One quote was attributed to Herbert Nolan, a writer on the Gawker website. I would not consider Gawker to be a reliable source for information, even though it is highly respected within the PR community. However, I did not rely on that source for information, but only quoted Nolan's opinion. Nolan himself is well-known and a respected media critic.

The anonymous editor 108.21.128.55, in the article 5W Public Relations has used an interesting tactic - he has removed all the footnotes from the section critical of 5WPR, so that he can now contend that the information is unsourced and removed it. I am wondering if he used the same trick at Ronn Torossian. This editor has since been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(... or block evasion - take your pick.)

To echo the comment I made on Talk:5W Public Relations, I would suggest writing ultra-conservatively in this instance. Although the NYT tends to be used as almost the definition of what a WP:RS is, it also sometimes manages to host editorial pieces ("op-eds") that are definitely not the sort of material we want to be basing negative BLP content on. I would also consider leaving out the Gawker material unless it was itself discussed in a WP:RS. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to punish the sockpuppets by our even subconsciously allowing non-neutral negative material to enter articles that we believe the sockpuppets had a COI with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was, perhaps, carried away by my anger at someone trying to make a mockery of this noble institution. On the other hand, we have to take into account that the only really notable thing about Ronn Torossian is the controversy he stirs, both because of his aggressive tactics and because of his fringe views on Israel. If we excise those from the article, we might just as well delete it, as what remains is a mediocre PR hack with a crewcut. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst and young named him a semi finalist to ent of year pr week ad age 40 under 40. His clients (who may or may not be right wing) are for his firms webpage not for personal stories on him. He's been featured in ny times and business week feature stories none of which mention Israel. Your personal political bias are apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.72.4 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The avatars of babasalichai and associates continue to surprise me with their inability to compose a simple English sentence, and their complementary inability to read and comprehend the written word. Here is what the New York Times profile has to say about Torossian's involvement with Israel:

While leading a group called the Coalition for Jewish Concerns, a 20-year-old Mr. Torossian protested at a presidential rally for Pat Buchanan in New Hampshire.

His first public relations job came in 1998 when Peter Vallone, then the City Council speaker and a candidate for governor, needed someone to organize a business trip to Israel. He hired Mr. Torossian, who was living in the country at the time.

In an oft-told story, Mr. Torossian said he persuaded the speaker to tour the settlements along the West Bank, despite the controversy surrounding their status. "There's no Arab voting bloc in New York," Mr. Torossian recalled telling him. "What's your downside? Who are you going to alienate?" A meeting was arranged with the mayor of the West Bank city of Hebron. "When we got out of the car," Mr. Torossian said proudly, "there were 40 reporters waiting."

In other words, the New York Times, while focusing primarily on his PR career, does indeed mention his commitment to Israel. Moreover, dozens of other sources discuss this aspect of Torossian exclusively. I am sure that Torossian himself considers his commitment to Israel an important part of his persona, and would consider a profile of himself that did not include that to be incomplete. Perhaps, 66.65.72.4, you could ask him yourself. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't get is the incessant need to write just the controversy. This Ravpapa editor seems ti believe that Gawker is the end all of genuine news, when in fact it is a blog that thrives on controversy. As for the Gawker writer writing about him being smart or not, is this writer a Mensa tester, a Regents adviser or other? Why is that quote relevant or treated as more than hearsay? Please be balanced and be fair.

Also, the Pistons piece - is that all there is in the article? Ronn Torossian being aggressive and brash is established, why can't balance be added to the piece to reflect possibly comments from those who don't mind it as much as those who do?

Abigail7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I think one of your problems, Abigail, is with understanding the nuances of the English in the NYT quote. I am guessing from your many errors in writing that you, like NYCdan, babasalichai, and the others, are not a native English speaker. So I will explain: the quote "the consummate scrappy publicist" is meant as a compliment. The quote from Nolan is meant to balance this compliment.

By now, I have read quite a bit about Torossian, including interviews and things he has written himself. I have found no one who has not described his PR style as aggressive, brash, pushy. Some, like the NYT writer, find this an admirable aspect of his personality. Others, like Nolan, think that Torossian's aggressiveness is excessive. A legitimate disagreement, one that should be documented in this profile of him. That is what balance is all about.--Ravpapa (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading this too - and I am new here, but not new to news and happenings, and I see that while the NYTimes is a valid reference, the balance should be equally as strong. Gawker is not that. If you wish to argue Gawker, maybe the comment on his style would be balance (if you want to argue Gawker=NYTimes), but the part about Torossian not be that bright is just unnecessarily mean and only there for the purpose of disparaging. I would hope that other true objective Wikipedia editors would see this and realize that this while edit war it about highlighting the issues that make Torossian look as bad as one can.

--BetHillel (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another new user who just happens to have a fascination with a particular PR firm and its owner? That's like the fourth in 48 hours.

Anyway I have trimmed out 90% of the quote, purely on the grounds that it's not Wikipedia's place to be relaying opinions about the lack of intelligence of living persons. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t people love to sling mud at those who are more successful and accomplished than themselves? Torrosian has made a place for himself in the highly competitive world of PR at such an early age. His awards and success stories speak for themselves and naturally cause much bad blood which often results in his unfair criticism. But Wikipedia is no place to vent such negative emotions. Offensive article from Gawker which is libellous and include secondary sources and slander should be removed right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbstinnett (talk • contribs) 12:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated on the Ronn Torossian talk page, I agree that Gawker is not the best source for this kind of criticism, and that I would remove it. I have duly done so, replacing it with quotes from two sources that are unarguably reliable.

I am pleased to note that the debate over Ronn Torossian and 5W Public Relations has inspired three new editors, hitherto anonymous, to create usernames and contribute to the Wikipedia. While the similarities in writing styles and in interests of Abigail7, BetHillel, and Michaelbstinnett are, perhaps, surprising, I nonetheless believe that each will bring his or her unique contribution to building the encyclopedia. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RavPapa - you might wish to notice that I am not editing the page, but adding to the proper talk pages to help combat the spin that some people feel necessary to include. I am well aware that any change I make to the page will be promptly attacked and changed back for no other reason that I did it, regardless of what it said.

--BetHillel (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm helping out here, too. There's some critical material that needs to be reviewed, and some balance material gone from previous versions that may be reintroduced if it checks out. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas Torossian began his career with Israel advocacy, he has since done a lot more. He is on the record commenting on the antics of Lindsey Lohan and Tiger Woods, and even Charlie Sheen. While he was once almost solely about Israel policy, he is now about public relations and commenting on how public figures can do it the right way or wrong way. Shouldn't his Wikipedia presence, as it is a living and evolving encyclopedia, evolve with every year he adds more notable commentary to the pool the editors seem to be choosing from?

--BetHillel (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting someone else's comments from Torossian's talk page:

"There is not need for this article to simply define Torossian with a spin; it should just be an article on what makes him who he is. That is, the good, the bad and the facts - none of which should overemphasize any others. To simply leave the faux pas in a career spanning two decades without also speaking equally of the facts that his style and methods have also been received well enough by different people than he may have offended, is disingenuous to say the least.

Torossian pissed off the rabbis mentioned, but he counseled an Israeli Prime minister, has served many Israeli Parliament members, and represented the Israeli foreign ministry, ministry of tourism and a host of others. To say that the two Jews mentioned define him is just inaccurate and frankly - weighted."

--BetHillel (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I urge administrators and impartial editors here to look - don't gloss over Torossian's dark clouds, but don't make them the only ones in the sky.

Lara Logan

Comment on whether these details of her sexual assault are encyclopedic and compliant with BLP guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&action=historysubmit&diff=421189231&oldid=421163799 Mindbunny (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: delete Mindbunny (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd delete the information, but only because it seems to imply that the attackers were protesters. If the information was to be retained, I would at least delete the last sentence about the Times with the long quote, simply because it's too much information vis-a-vis the noteworthiness of the event.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went into the article, and all I did was correct a date error and move a sentence up to the paragraph above. An editor reverted me, apparently believing I was removing the information. How he could believe that is beyond me. Meanwhile, another editor then actually removed the information. I then made the mistake of looking at the Talk page. The issue of what to put in the article about the assault goes on forevever, and I can't figure out what the conclusion was or whether there even was a conclusion. One thing stands out is the heat of the discussion. I'm withdrawing my comment above, if for no other reason than Mindbunny, who was a participant in this extended discussion, could have alerted us to the contentiousness and history of the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? It's a contentious issue. That's why I'm requesting outside views (again). If outsiders refuse to get involved in anything contentious, it removes a basic way of resolving contentious issues. Just to be clear: the page has been fully protected more than once over this matter, although the main issue was actually different from what seems to be the issue now. (Previously, it was mainly, but not exclusively, shouts of "Jew" whose appropriateness was contested.) Mindbunny (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been fully protected several times because there has been ownership issues and edit warring. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Previous votes and consensus efforts have been deemed irrelevant by Mindbunny. This is a part of the continuing effort whose objective is made clear by the above diffs.V7-sport (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been never been consensus to include the material. While there was a poll, with respect to the material under discussion, the result was 6-6, no consensus, which means in a BLP that the details should not be included. Note that the "partial keep" vote specifically states that the 'stripped, punched, slapped, beaten with poles' stuff should be left out. That means that with respect to the specific material under discussion, which is precisely what is quoted, the "partial keep" vote is actually a "delete" vote. That's 6-6 and doesn't include me. I'll go ahead and add my !vote, even though 6-6 is no consensus anyway. Yworo (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to wade through all that talk page discussion would take a full-time scorekeeper and hours, if not days. Give us an executive summary of the over all dispute. I think in most cases when a professional international journalist, her colleagues and her employer assert that she has been sexually assaulted, she most likely was sexually assaulted. How much more detail do we need to know? I don't care which orifice, if she was fully or partially stripped or bitten rather then pinched. I do care about the level of violence and any racial or national overtones if they are well sourced and most especially that she is receiving care and there is some hope of an investigation. The diff posted by the complainant does not on its surface appear to be overly graphic or lurid, even though it is more info then I personally care to know, I don't see much harm in that diff though I am a male so may be missing something. Beyond that, what exactly does V7-sport (no, I'm not sloshing through your 17 diffs to figure out your issue without some direction, give us a summary) insist must be published and what exactly does the privacy sensitive group apparently led by Mindbunny wish to keep private? I suspect that there is much more to this debate then the diff provided in the complaint. Veriss (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no value in just transferring the arguments from there to here. I was hoping for uninfluenced views. The basic concerns are that these details haven't been authorized or confirmed by the victim, the ultimate source is anonymous, and whether this much detail about a sexual assault violates due weight principles. Mindbunny (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authorized? Is that the criteria for inclusion now? And no, the sources are not anonymous, there is the NY Post, the London Times, Fox, CBS, etc. etc.

Your ideas of "due weight" have resulted in an article that devotes more space to the "Michael Hastings controversy" and the utterances Glenn Greenwald and "Matt Taibbi (who) wrote a Rolling Stone blog entry titled "Lara Logan You Suck"... As the article stands now the reader has idea what happened there or any insight into the reasons why she has been off the air for 2 months.

And when you, several times, write things like "There is an obvious agenda among a surprisingly large group of editors focussed on Judaism and the Middle East who are intent on pushing a POV" as another excuse to cleanse the article of anything that might reflect badly on the people who sexually assaulted her it makes it difficult to believe that you are just interested in "due weight principles". V7-sport (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just back up , and stick to the content issues or move along, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Veriss, I agree with you that the minute details of her assault needn't be posted, however I also agree with I do care about the level of violence and any racial or national overtones if they are well sourced and most especially that she is receiving care and there is some hope of an investigation. That material has been purged from the article. V7-sport (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "level of violence and any racial or national overtones" simply aren't pertinent to the subject of the article being discussed. They should be integrated into Egyptian revolution of 2011 where they would actually add something to the article! Yworo (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The level of violence and any racial or national overtones are pertinent. It establishes what she was doing and the level of risk involved in doing it. Funny how we can devote space to Glenn Greanwald and Matt Taibbi taking potshots at her from the safety their rec-rooms but no mention of dangerous environment that she put herself into in order to get a story or the consequences there of is permissible. It's a sliding scale of what is "on topic". V7-sport (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Beaten and sexually assaulted" is sufficient to establish that. Yworo (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to Mindbunny's original query, I suggest that WP:BLP be interpreted to mandate that we don't include highly specific details of a sexual assault of a named living person unless she herself has disclosed them.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She could have been "beaten and sexually assaulted" in Cleavland. What is sourced is that she went into a highly charged crowd, was mobbed, stripped, beaten with flag polls as the crowd chanted "Jew Jew" and "Israeli". The way the article stands gives the reader no idea of any of that while, for instance, it does go into detail on the opinions of her various detractors because she reported something they disagreed with. V7-sport (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is quite clear about where the event occurred and the general conditions present. You started a poll and the !vote went against you. Now you need to honor it. Yworo (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My name isn't Berean–Hunter and no, the article certainly isn't clear about the event or the conditions therein. V7-sport (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "authorized", yes. The details of the sexual assault of a named living person should be restricted to what the victim has confirmed, as a general rule. I can imagine exceptions, but I see none here. I certainly don't see grounds for an exception in the publication by the New York Post (voted the least credible publication in New York) of details that are anonymously sourced. Mindbunny (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion is not "confirmed by the victim" and that an assault occurred isn't even in question. V7-sport (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logan's privacy should trump even reliably sourced details under WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. Off2RioRob, any thoughts here? Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Rob, but I agree with Jonathan. It's a blend of policy and editorial judgment. In addition to the privacy issue, the details are simply not necessary to document the event. A line needs to be drawn. Wikipedia is not a tabloid of gratuitously graphic material.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." -WP:WELLKNOWN Jonathanwallace, I'm not advocating inclusion the details of this assault above and beyond that it was sexual in nature. The actions of the crowd however are important to the understanding of what transpired. V7-sport (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in this case there aren't a "multitude of reliable published sources". There's a multitude of unreliable sources and perhaps *one* reliable source. So WP:WELLKNOWN doesn't apply. Yworo (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of details about the sexual assault is the only thing this thread is about. That's the text of the diff I brought here. That's the text that has been re-inserted and re-deleted recently. So, what does V7-sport mean when he says he doesn't advocate it? He reinserted it [19]. Mindbunny (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to stop you from paring down the section to insignificance, which you have succeeded in doing.V7-sport (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, as long as unneeded lurid detail is kept out of the article, you do not object to edits pertaining to this phrase "I do care about the level of violence and any racial or national overtones if they are well sourced..." I think addressing the level of violence and any racial/national overtones issue is most definitely relative to her situation, her career as a woman international journalist and why she has been absent for over a month. Racial and national overtones of the assault illustrate how terrifying the experience was for her and the intent of the mob assaulting her. Was she a symbol? That matters in this case. Logan apparently spent more then a few days recovering in a US hospital. I am not a doctor but it seems to me that injuries requiring that much hospitalization must have been serious and the level of violence must of been extreme. The article as it stands makes no mention of her extended hospital stay, the level of violence, what the overtones were, the fact she was overwhelmed by a group of "200" (that is a significant and terrifying amount) according to one NYT article, that it is was serious enough for President Obama to telephone her or that the incident has affected her career as she now has a new position. She is not a waitress in some restaurant, she is a high profile, notable, international journalist. The other unanswered questions need to be addressed. Are there concerns addressing the non-lurid issues as well? Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with giving it a paragraph. Reputable sources gave it some space. 1 paragraph is not going to give it so much prominence that nothing else in the article is noticed. It might be lurid but we are not here to censor material. If reputable sources didn't censor it we certainly shouldn't.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So something like this? [20] or this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=416991271&oldid=416981775} Losing the part "and red marks on her body initially believed to be bite marks turned out to be the result of pinching"? V7-sport (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No , nothing like that, this is getting tendentious, such additions have been rejected for the last month - its old hat, I suggest you take down your tent give it a rest - thousands of bytes here and there and still good faith objections from experienced editors and no vision of a consensus on the horizon - the incident is already in the BLP and well written according to BLP guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as it stands now it has been sanitized beyond BLP guidelines. V7-sport (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is unsatisfactory on many, many levels. It does disservice to her as a professional international journalist and the risks she and other journalists, male and female, face daily. It makes no mention of the affects the incident had on her health or career and it completely sidesteps the issue of if she was a 'symbol' and whether nationalist or racist remarks were chanted while she was raped. As it stands this section of her article is a travesty. "Jew, Jew, Jew" and "Israeli" were sourced and chanted while she was raped while she is apparently not Jewish nor Israeli but is blonde and of South African descent. These political overtones are very germane to the discussion. Is this information left out due to lack of interest or opposition which may be politically driven in nature? I have seen a glimmer of the latter in this discussion so far. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you got your facts straight. No reliable source states that she was raped. No reliable source states "Jew" was chanted while she was assaulted. No reliable source states what effect the incident had on her health or career. The sexual assault is recent and she has not yet commented on it--which is natural. The question of interpreting her as a symbol hasn't been discussed. The "information" is omitted because the one company originating it (various News Corp companies) ultimately has not named any sources, because it is not confirmed by the victim, because it is about something deeply sensitive and private, and BLP requirement stipulate high quality sources and sensitivity. Mindbunny (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anousheh Ansari

I work on WikiProject Spaceflight and related articles. The current lead infobox for Anousheh Ansari (as of 2011-03-28) summarizes her career/life as "Space Adventures Tourist". While it is the case that this woman paid for the means to go to space on a Soyuz rocket and stay 10 days on the Space Station, this strikes me as a bit narrow. This woman is clearly both a quite successful businesswoman and also someone who went to space. I looked at the BLP guidelines and did not find any useful guidance on how one ought to think about these sorts of Infoboxes that summarize an entire life into a few words. Can anyone point me to guideline? Or offer assistance? Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she is a multi faceted person. Her family is in partnership with the Space Adventures company , and she is CEO of another major company, businessperson, CEO, Engineer, Space tourist. I am not well informed about infoboxs so someone else might know better but imo she is not primarily an astronaut and so she could use a different infobox than Infobox astronaut.. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe if you use infobox person, for example, although you get a lot more useful parameters, you'd lose the astronaut-specific parameters. It's essentially a trade-off.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy on a BLP is not something we trade. If the infobox gives a misleading picture, change it. Period.--Scott Mac 16:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And I concur with the change that has been made in the article to replace the space-related infobox with the standard person infobox. Thanks for the help everyone. N2e (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Douglas

I just want to point out that 'Sarah Douglas' is the stage name of MARGARET PILLEAU, so saying that she is the daughter of Edward and Beryl Douglas is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estelle65 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source to cite? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we'd need reliable sources to confirm that. We don't have an article on Margaret Pilleau, but the one on Sarah Douglas seems to confirm her parent's names - her own website makes no mention of stage names [21]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of Googling on this, but didn't find anything definitive - it is possible that Douglas and Pilleau are one and the same person, working under different stage names, but I've got no real proof of this. I think for now we will have to leave the article as is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Baxter

The artist legally changed his name to IAIN BAXTER& in 2005 -- the main heading of his wikipedia entry should be edited to reflect this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alauder (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reliable source for the name change? That's required. Yworo (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, as I just identified, the artist's official catalogue raisonne <http://archives.library.yorku.ca/iain_baxterand_raisonne/> hosted by York University, his dealer <http://www.corkingallery.com/?q=node/50>, the Museum of Modern Art <http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A397%7CA%3AAR%3AE%3A1&page_number=1&template_id=1&sort_order=1> and many other print and electronic sources since 2005 <http://www.amazon.com/Passing-Through-Baxter-Photographs-1958-1983/dp/0919837751> , <http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/971> identify the artist as IAIN BAXTER& -- this is his legal name . . .contact him directly if you wish <ibaxter@uwindsor.ca>, but until you institute this change you are unfairly representing him in wikipedia and damaging his reputation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alauder (talk • contribs) 17:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use implication for a legal name change. There are just as many sites which use his birth name, so a collection of sites using an apparent pseudonym don't prove anything. However, I've found an explicit statement in his C.V. which is adequate. Nobody is damaging anyone's reputation by using their birth name in an encyclopedia article. Calm down. Yworo (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we use the name that is most prevelant in the media and reliable sources. If the person changes their name later, then this should be noted in the first sentence of the lead.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Connolley

The section on the subject as a wiki editor seems disproportionate compared to his biography as a whole. I've had a go at rewriting part, but the balance issue needs attention. The fact we know more about this troubled area, does not mean it's appropriate to write an unbalanced biography that gives it undue weight. Do we not know more about the rest of his life? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that he has achieved far more press coverage for his WP exploits than for anything else. As long as the material about WP is kept in some reasonable balance (favor/oppose proportional to sources), it is difficult to ask for much more - his notoriety is substantially due to that topic. If he were actually notable other than for his online existence (that is, for having a notable family life, notable research attributable to him, other facets than being online) then the weight issue within the entire article would be usable. WP:PIECE applies. Collect (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Healey

Article has been edited stating this prominent retired British politician has died; however no source is provided and a Google news search does not yet show anything. Can someone do an independent check? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the revision per usual practice. It's not the first time I've undone his alleged death[22] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its been reverted by Zzuuzz - Uncited death claims should be reverted on sight, you can always then go and look for a reference and revert it back in later. Off2riorob (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darcey Freeman

Resolved

– 30 March 2011 User:Shell Kinney deleted "Darcey Freeman" -‎ (article discusses living people with no sources, likely problematic for being notable only for a single event, trial is still ongoing and perhaps there will be enough for an article later but even then article would not appear at this name)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've seen this newly created article on a pretty tragic story that I'm sure Australian editors will know well. Anyway, I know this noticeboard is for BLPs and the subject is no longer living, but I couldn't find a more appropriate place to ask for help. If someone knows of a better place for this to be discussed feel free to move it. Basically the article in question is about a 5-year-old girl that was killed by her father in 2009 and has received a lot of coverage in the Australian press. The father's trial is currently ongoing. The article is newly created and unreferenced, although it doesn't seem horribly POV or anything like that and I'm sure most, if not all, of the article could be referenced. So I'm honestly unsure what to do about an article like this. I doubt it would survive an AfD under WP:1E, but does this need to be speedily dealt with (though no CSD criteria fit)? Any advice would be appreciated. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really it needs to vanish. Perhaps an article after the trial if a case can be made that it is an especially notable murder for some reason, but there is no reason to have an article under that dead girls name and we should be a rolling trial report either. Death of Darcey Freeman is it already Murder of Darcey Freeman - Off2riorob - note - its been prodded - Irregardless of the spelling mistake in the title, we don't have articles on four-year-old (murdered) children even if their demise received some comment in the press - (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Yes, sorry I should have mentioned that the article name is incorrect. I also agree that should an article exist, it should be titled something like Death of Darcey Freeman, but it should probably not be created until the court case has been concluded. The article has just been PROD'd and then moved after I raised the issue on WP:AWNB, but I'm not sure if waiting seven days is the way to go here. Possibly a speedy with a customised reason would be appropriate? Jenks24 (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the spelling so that if it is deleted, then it is traceable in the future.The-Pope (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now an A7 tag has been placed on it -- not sure that'll fly with the reviewing admin, but I guess we'll see what happens. Jenks24 (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought of WP:A7 - lets see. Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Reilly

Request deletion due to non-notable individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrVerbatim (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly reverted your edits, you removed sourced content and added potentially controversial information without sources. If you feel the article should be deleted you will need to take it to WP:Articles for deletion. GB fan (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure about "non-notable" as he is mentioned at [23], [24], [25] etc. which appear to make him "sufficiently notable" for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fishman

No citations for an elaborate biography. Written in a biased and personal way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.7.171 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs additional references, I have tagged it for additional references. I haven't done much of a review of it yet. GB fan (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was expanded in a single edit on August 10 by an IP with three edits in this diff - much was a duplicate cut and copy from his imbd bio - I can't see if the content was moved from here to there or there to here but as it was anyway a large uncited expansion with the sort of personal commentary they could well be uncitable I suggest reverting back to the previous version. note - trimmed back, subject appears of minor notability, a redirect is a possible option as presently its uncited. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Cork

Resolved

– WP:COI explained and understood by the user

Paid editing at Alison Cork: Over the past couple of months there has been a large promotional push at the Alison Cork article. This morning a very large amount (multiple paragraphs) of original research was added. I removed the prose as it was completely unsourced, POV and obviously promotional and left a note on the article talk page. The new editor User:Jackswain88, who has only edited this article, restored unsourced info and noted in his edit summary "I have been hired to revert this". I have to log off for a couple of hours, so I'm hoping someone may be able to watch the article to ensure that the information added is sourced, unpromotional, and neutrally worded. Additional follow-up with the SPA account will also likely be needed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did a bit of depuffing in any case. Collect (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Spear

Resolved

– all issues raised resolved through editing and discussion - thanks to all.

To Whom It May Concern, Sir/Madam. This email is to inform you that the information you have is incorrect with regards to my Date of Birth- recording History. I Winston Rodney Aka Burning Spear want no mention of MRI/Mega Force with regards to Distribution your article is very misleading. I ask that you remove this article from Facebook. Thank You. Winston Rodney. <<redacted email>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.205.170 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On general principles, depuffed and removed material which would be of marginal importance in any case. Added cn to date of birth. Collect (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think if Winston was to tweet or blog his date of birth as he would be making himself three years older and that is not something people usually do for vanity reasons then we could consider accepting the date as self published. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collect: You added a cn tag to the birthdate in the infobox, however there are two citations already included for the info in the lede (ref 1 and ref 2). There are a large amount of music compendiums via Google Books that also confirm the 1948 date as well as the San Diego Tribune (here). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the DoB has been changed to 1945 - the cn was absolutely spot-on. TYVM. Collect (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I had been attempting to point out to you was that you had added the cn tag in the infobox, but not in the lede (which already included two refs). It was confusing for a cite to be requested in one area where there were already two listed for the same information in another area. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the tag to "first mention" of the questioned fact. Which rather seemed like a good idea at the time. I know of no WP policy saying "add cn template to second appearance of the claim" to be sure. Collect (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first mention as far as the reader is concerned is in the lede. Citations in the infobox should not be necessary.--Michig (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to have the 1945 dob if some means of verifying it could be provided. I would be happier if properly-sourced details of the MRI deal and subsequent dispute could be included (why is it misleading?), but can live with it being removed if that's the consensus. Removing mention of which Marley the article talks about and of the influence of Marcus Garvey, who is obviously a major influence is, however, definitely not an improvement.--Michig (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the 'citation needed' tag from the infobox, given that the date is supported by two citations elsewhere, and restored the deleted content about Marcus Garvey and Bob Marley, as it is necessary for the article to make sense. Not controversial, I hope.--Michig (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No , not controversial as far as I can see, perhaps the subject will tweet or blog a selfpub update for us to consider, thanks all. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some further digging, and a book by Colin Larkin from 2002 states DoB as 1 March 1945 where an earlier book by him from 1998 stated simply '1948'. Given this apparent correction by Larkin I have changed the DoB in the article. I trust this is satisfactory to all.--Michig (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for the extra research - my only suggestion would be to add a note to the talk page in case this crops up again. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. By the way, a message on my talk page ([26]) indicated that the original request here came from Winston Rodney's wife.--Michig (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikko Briteramos

Blathery argumentative run-on article with profound BLP issues, in the midst of an edit war. Perhaps stubbing needed? Semiprotection? Edison (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbing or at a minimum cleaning up - pending protection would stop them and allow experienced users to clean it up to something worthy of defending - is he actually notable? we will only find out by having a good look at it. From a quick glance the content has some contentious claims - fully protect - warn and report the offenders for edit warning ??? So many options. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A mess - there are obvious COI concerns regarding the major contributor's name too. And what is with all the bold text? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of some of that to see the wood for the trees - yes - COI clearly. I think he is a person that infected someone with HIV but there seems a dispute or a claim of inocense...We have an article were I recently moved a HIV infector that was not notable enough for his own BLP but I forget the exact title - this person may need to be moved to a couple of lines there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- note - it's been stubbed back (this version) and I agree the expanded version should be reverted out if it is replaced until we have chance to have a better look at it. - Me I think if he is wiki notable is a couple of lines here Criminal transmission of HIV and protect the redirect. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rob and Andy. The present article is way more encyclopedic than the one at the time I posted my concerns. Good job! Edison (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive editor has now edited the article again, restoring some of the features of its earlier unacceptable form. I have reverted, and blocked the editor for 72 hours for edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mordecai Tendler

I am attempting to recify this clearly one-sided and biased article, that by it's very nature appears to violate the biographies of living persons policies. I assumed that it was an honest error, until my attempts to correct the article by adding newspaper sources and omitted data was blocked by editor User: Avraham. All relevant concerns and source material is posted on the discussion page. Please assist in resolving this issue. Thanks. Koltorah (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the version you edited to does seem to me to not be compliant with some of our WP:Policies and guidelines, and a little messily formated, neutrality and uninvolved reporting are a core part of those guidelines. Discussion is also key to resolving disputes. Saying that this http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/06/prweb1024704.htm does look like a WP:RS and perhaps an update is required but I have only had a quick look. Although you have been reverted by multiple users as you mentioned user:Avraham I have left him a note with a link to this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PR Web is not a reliable source -- it is merely a web site for posting press releases, with no editorial control whatsoever. This is an astonishing error on your part, O2RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is some kind of information aggregation site, as I said I only had a quick look and does look like a RS - and perhaps its not, I will look more later, it is some kind of reliable as it is an external one thousand and four hundred and ninety six times on this wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement for verifiable information from reliable sources has been explained to this editor on the article's talk page. In this case, I believe the BLP strictures are being carried out properly, simultaneously preventing unacceptable demonization or hagiography. -- Avi (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PRWeb is a site which will publish any press release sent to it. It does no fact checking and is not a reliable source for any assertions except those permissible under the rules on self published sources. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right thanks, I was wondering - what is his major wikipedia notability? is it inherited notability? or is it the sexual allegations, and has he been found guilty of anything? From a UK perspective, he just looks like a minor local priest of very limited independent wikipedia notability. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Priest"??? For the love of pasta -- please just stay away from Jewish topics... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question - please stop focusing on me and discuss the actual issue, as I requested - what is his actual qualification for wiki notability - at present it appears to be - inherited and a large portion of sexual allegations that have no charges at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- but you haven't answered my question either. Let me pose it again: "priest"??? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A Priest and a Rabbi walk into a bar ..." [27].--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how about the list of published newspaper articles listed on the discussion page, which is ignored completely by Avi (talk). He keeps on talking about the press releases, but simply ignores the fact that there are multiple independent newspaper articles that contradict the content of the wikipedia article. In addition, the newspaper articles independently confirm (by making refference to) the content of the press releases. I really think that Avi (talk) should be held to task for what seems to be (at best) very questionable editing habits on the article. Koltorah (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these "multiple independent newspaper articles" ? I see many links to Jewish Press, is all. Tarc (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Jewish Press" is a newspaper that is a reliable source according to wikipedia policy. Why is that not sufficient?

Koltorah (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a little forum shopping by Koltorah see EAR here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Off2riorob here. Tendler's notability outside of the legal case is hazy at best. WP:PERP suggests that this case is insufficient grounds for a biog article and as is well understood, his lineage is also insufficient for more than the case being briefly referred to in his illustrious relatives' articles. And can we grow up a little and avoid red herring discussions about words like rabbi and priest. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my opinions above, and the fact that the closing admin's words in the 2007 AfD haven't been heeded, and our greater awareness of BLP issues in 2011, I'm going to nominate this for deletion. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Thomson

There is no reliable source quoted for birthdate 1960 or 1959. That is because they are both incorrect. One was created first by an unreliable fan site. The Daily Record used wikipedia as its source (please do conform). I could give you hundreds of newspaper articles with conflicting dates. This is wholly inaccurate information that you are propagating. If necessary legal action will be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTLT1 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the Daily Record used Wikipedia as a source. You may wish to read WP:NLT if you continue to edit here. MarnetteD | Talk 15:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):I removed the birth date as it is disputed. We are always happy to do so when facts can't be reliably sourced, or the information is taken from Wikipedia and is therefore circular. However, legal threats are not taken kindly here, see WP:THREAT, and in fact editors who make them are usually blocked until the threat is resolved. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the source is weak and disputed..so I see Johnathon has removed it, which under the circumstances, for the time being I support. She is of minor note anyways her specific age is of little value. We do need to watch out for this - recently (and I encourage others here to do the same) i have been noticing and tagging as uncited and removing - a lot of uncited claims of a specific date of birth - these have been sitting in our articles for far too long, - challenge then and remove if there is not a strong WP:RS that actually supports it. We are WP:MIRRORed all over the web and it is happening more often that we might imagine that some low grade source is referenced wikipedia without admitting that they got it here, and when you look here it was uncited in a BLP for years.. This is the reason that we should be pro - active in either citing to the strongest reliable externals or removal of weakly supported claims from BLP articles primarily but also wikipedia in general, this imo is especially true is regards to personal details about a living person, such as a specific date of birth and children and marriage etc. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your posts JW and Off2. I was making a long post on Ms Thompson's talk page and did not see these until now. I will certainly defer to your assessments of the situation though I am still leery of the long term socking that went on. On another note - having seen her performances over many years I wouldn't call her of "minor note" but that is POV on my part (Off2 this is me trying to be humorous - if it causes offense then I most certainly apologize.) My thanks to you both for taking the time to post here. MarnetteD | Talk 16:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree, looking at her viewing figures and career and celebrity activities, medium note is much more correct. A picture would help, as at least that give readers a focus point as to her general age. Perhaps readers here can google-foo and strong claim for her DOB.Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My (apparently minority) view is we should not have removed the birth year. We had a source for it, and I still can't follow why that source is unreliable or the basis for KTLT1 saying the source copied Wikipedia. Seems to me we're kowtowing to the user's threat, which is pretty damned silly anyway. What's her legal claim? Libel? She'd be laughed out of court. At the same time, I do agree that whether or not we list her birth year(s) is not particularly important, although the same could be said about many other articles, and Wikipedians, for reasons I often disagree with, generally love to include DOBs, ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBB23--of all the edits I have made this month, that's probably the one about which I feel least strongly. However, here is my mild argument in favor. The editor who included her age looked at a source which said she was 49, and decided (as an act of synthesis) that she was therefore born in "1959 or 1960". So I still think it came out appropriately under our sourcing rules, and not because of the threat. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I think the editor was me but haven't gone back to check.) If a source newspaper article says that Thomson is 49 at the time of the interview and the newspaper article is dated, how is that synthesis rather than math? I mean, I just used an article to source a precise birth date based on an article that didn't say the subject was born on that date but was born 8 days earlier (or later) than another date. I don't see the difference. I (or whoever) also put a note in explaining the process. (Technically, synthesis is combining two or more sources, whereas, here, I'm combining a source with my brain, but that can hardly be called original research.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR states: "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." I think the best solution is "circa 1960". It would satisfy the general reader and they will understand it may be plus or minus a year. Encyclopedia Brittanica uses "circa" in many articles, especially where the only source is the age at death. Looking at her tired face in Google Images I would guess she was ten years older, so the reader is aided by the best possible reliable estimate to know she was not born circa 1940 or circa 1950. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except we do not have any figrues to work from. Her birthyear (assuming the source is accuarte) could be any of three years (1959,60,61). Thus this is at best a guess.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it should be a choice of three years: we have a dated source (The Daily Record, 18 October 2009) which states (para. 11) "Kim, 49, who is single". We can therefore feed those figures into {{Birth based on age as of date}}, to give born 1959 or 1960 (age 63–64). Hardly WP:OR and definitely not WP:SYN but since it is from a single source, it is WP:V. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, both cited sources daily express, dailyrecord) yield a year of birth that is 1959 or 1960. Unsourced dates or unsourced claims by editors that might have been floating around earlier are irrelevant.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circa 1960

Approve --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Born 1959 or 1960

(add approve if you agree and remove this spaceholder)

No date

(add approve if you agree and remove this spaceholder)

David Gayle MBE

He is currently in a relationship with Rachel Palin, an Oscar winning actress, after his heartbreaking relationship with Claudia Camacho, who notoriously cheated on him with his close friends.

Hardly dispassionate??

And if RP has won an Oscar, how odd that she doesn't have her own page!

Unsourced, no source found, deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted - uncited contentious, revert , warn and block any repeat offenders. If need-be protect the BLP also. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Genpo Merzel

I am posting notice of this article here again. Ongoing BLP violations, besides a host of other problems, continue to make this article either contentious in its current state, a state which has been reverted a couple of times, or unacceptable in a previous state. Why is the latter unacceptable? Too much basic information is sourced to the subject's own website (even with dead links), too much information (on wives, children, etc) is unsourced, and many of the claims to notability are improperly verified (look, for the heck of it, at footnotes 10 through 13 in the unacceptable version. Note also, in that version, that the references to reliable sources that were there are removed, and that also is unacceptable: I have warned User:Golgofrinchian, who was responsible for that in the first place, that this cannot be: future removal of such reliable sources I will consider acts of vandalism, since they remove validly sourced information contrary to a host of guidelines--and Golgofrinchian, with over 6,000 edits, should be aware of that.

The article's talk page contains some running indictment of me, and Golgo has accused me of "unskilled" edits--I'll gladly set that aside. I have no involvement with this subject or the broader topic; what I care about is that a bunch of editors seem to be ganging up and making a mockery of our BLP policy--and one editor's ignorance of such policy is pretty evident from a comment they made on the article's talk page, in bold print, Several of the links people are pointing to are websites Merzel himself has written. How is that improper source? It is not. He wrote it, it is his website, it is perfectly acceptable as proof. I rest my case. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been "reported" on BLPN twice before this year. First here and second here. Very little discussion took place on BLPN about the substantive issues or the contentious editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and the same ~~shit~~ stuff is happening all over again. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it civil. I have started a new section on the article's Talk page with suggestions as to going forward with this article. I believe the best approach is to start with Drmies's stripped down version and rebuild the article, keeping in mind that everything has to be relevant to the subject's notability and everything has to be reliably sourced. Rehashing of the past will not serve any purpose. Nor does it help for editors to use the word "vandalism" in edit summaries reverting other editors' changes.

I don't know if anyone will heed my suggestions, but I promised to revert any knee-jerk restorations of the article with tons of problematic, improperly sourced material. That said, I can only do so much without falling into the edit warring abyss.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronn Torossian (new)

very recent discussion at this noticeboard, still currently active - see here

Ronn Torossian page has bias and multiple untruths which an individual user Ravpapa has gone wild on accusing many of sockpuppets (as if that would permit him to post the wild untruths). Torossian has won awards from Ernst & Young and Inc Magazine and owns 1 of the largest PR agencies in the US for which the NY Times, Business Week and others profiled him. His page went through many edits for many years and had multiple discussions. This user has now completely biased the page.

Of note is that user fancies himself an expert at inserting bias and has succeeded. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Ravpapa/Tilt

Years ago he was a spokesperson for Israel government and perhaps thats worthy of 1 line mention. In addition, review the post: His claim: "which urged Arabs to move out of Jerusalem[2]." Isnt supported by the source he claims - should be removed. 2 Rabbis who criticize: 1 criticizes a company not Torossian, and the other was in 1 politically slanted left wing newspaper which is a questionable source on a living person. (and he removed multiple positive quotes). Source is a blog and nowhere does it say he is a spokesperson: "He is spokesman for the Hebron Fund, a US foundation that supports Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank city of Hebron[7]. --Greenbay1313 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why another thread? There's already an active one above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its been dominated by 1 user who has continued with negative sources solely. May we ask that you review the material. --Greenbay1313 (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's another thread because the article is locked, and the daily barrage of socks and SPAs are looking everywhere for some kind of loophole. I've told this latest editor on his page to please take his concerns to the relevant talk page, and to stop forum shopping. Dayewalker (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbay1313 has now filed a COI complaint, complete with borderline personal attacks on another editor. I think we are officially through the looking glass on this one. The Interior (Talk) 18:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure of what socks and SPAs are but may I ask if you reviewed said sources in the article. Ask users to visit the article and review the material which is blog sources and dangerous material. Greenbay1313 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC) No personal attacks am saying simply user Ravpapa has biases he admits. Article has blogs and inaccurate sources of BLP. Opening up Wikipedia to a libel lawsuit. greenbay1313 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Ronn Torossian page may have had sockpuppets but stay focused on the libelous material which is now there. Blogs, inaccurate statements and slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbay1313 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reiterate the response on my talk page here. Greenbay1313: By posting two complaints here at BLP/N, as well as complaints at editor assistance, RfC, arbitration requests, COI/N, AN, requests for feedback, AIV, and the talk pages of random and uninvolved administrators, you are actually making things more difficult. Please stop forum and admin shopping, or your edits will go from being simply uninformed mistakes to disruptive edits, and could even warrant a block against your account. Furthermore, please watch your wording. What you said above could be perceived as a legal threat, and making legal threats is also something for which you will be blocked. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, I think that Greenbay is suggesting that Ronn Torossian, not Greenbay, might sue us for libel - a reasonable concern if the article is, in fact, libellous. For the time being, in spite of all the circumstantial evidence to the contrary, we should assume that Greenbay is not Ronn Torossian, and, therefore, I don't think we should consider his post a legal threat.

Sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what Greenbay, NYCdan, Abigail7, et al, is/are trying to say, because his/her/their English is so bad. I think that is the source of the confusion.

But I leave this determination to administrators with more experience in this area than I.--Ravpapa (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hebron reference 12 is a blog. Binyamin Elon is not referenced on his site (and why is 5wpr.com used as a source and if so couldnt corporate clients be included ?) Those who wish to use Israel why have only negative sources been used and not sources which say he was a government spokesperson or praise of Rabbis ?

In terms of opinions others are included how about these ? 2011 - NY Times - For Grey Line - 1 of largest transportation companies in world - Is this not bigger than Israel 13 years ago views ? http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/tour-bus-post-to-sked-for-7am/ Publicly traded Soupman company ? http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-21/soup-kitchen-creditors-file-to-force-bankruptcy-update2-.html Musician Lil Kim: http://www.nysun.com/new-york/bar-worker-arrested-for-murder-at-lil-kim-party/83480/ Spokesperson for Israeli gov't: http://www.newprophecy.net/madonnawatch2.htm Restaurant chain Phillipe Chow: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/confidential/sienna-gisele-caught-on-camera/story-e6frf96x-1111115728651 All of these: http://www.holmesreport.com/agencyreport-info/1930/5W-Public-Relations.aspx

Balance is required. --greenbay1313 (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbay: Until reading your post, I thought that you and your chums were one person. You all write with the same typos and bad grammar, you all make the same arguments about the same articles. Yet I now begin to doubt this. Not only might you not be the same person, I am not sure you even talk to each other.

I say this because of this discussion at the 5WPR talk page. In that discussion, we suggested to theNYCdan that he rebuild the client list based on reliable secondary sources, which he partially did. And here you are, listing a bunch of reliable secondary sources saying who are 5WPR clients, yet you haven't added these to the client list at 5WPR.

Greenbay, get on the stick! Add these guys to the client list at 5WPR. Do some good for your boy, for a change! --Ravpapa (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask simply that users review the page for a few issues: 1: Where are any statements Torossian is active supporter of Israel as lead states. They appear to be clients - a few of many. 2: which according to Nathaniel Popper writing in The Forward, worked to push Arab citizens of Israel out of Jerusalem.[3][4] Thats inaccurate as Ravpapa himself knows. Push Arab citizens of Israel out of Jerusalem ? Most Arabs of Jerusalem are not citizens and noone can say Our Jerusalem (of which a cofounder was the head of Kadima coalition, Yoel Hasson) works to do that. An honest broker would use The JERUSALEM POST source, for what Our Jerusalem was: http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150936 During what would turn out to be a two-year stint in this country, Torossian was one of three founders - together with fellow Betar alumni and peers, today Likud MK Danny Danon and Kadima MK Yoel Hasson - of Yerushalayim Shelanu (Jerusalem Is Ours), a secular organization promoting the right of Jews to live anywhere they choose in the city of Jerusalem. ... and amazing that a 4 page Jerusalem Post feature has no positive quotes in Wikipedia bio. 3: Rabbi Morris Allen, who heads an organization that exposed fraud in one of 5WPR's clients, called the firm's tactics in defending the client "outrageous, to say the least."[9] Allen is speaking about the firm should be removed from Torossian page. 4: Who says Torossian works closely with Christian supporters of Israel and are more than clients. Should be removed. There are many more issues but these are libelous, leaving apart unbalance. Instead of getting worked up about sockpuppets why not work to clean up possible legal issues dont be emotional simply review the content. Its wrong. greenbay1313 (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One might think that if Ronn Torossian represented both, both Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu, he cannot be as extreme as the bio esits show - If that were the case, neither could really work with him politically. Additionally, if these people are clients - not pro bono causes that were taken - they were jobs, not advocacy. A PR Company often takes on clients with varied opinions and the representatives cannot always be presumed to agree or disagree - it's just a job.

Then there is the fact that Torossian represented Sean Combs & Pamela Anderson and neither of that is deemed qualified for inclusion - Yet, with that fact, should the article say that Torossian is an entertainer, a hip hop star or Baywatch supporter?

--TLVEWR (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted a proposed Torossian re-write article here for compromise. Welcome edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greenbay1313/Sandbox greenbay1313 (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Ahmed

Lord Ahmed has not been expaled by the Labour Party. He is a Labour Peer and belongs to the Labour Party. He was jailed for 15 days and the Court of Appeal overturned the sentence and released him . Technically he has never been to the prison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.110.101 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need WP:RS reliable sources for such information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the phrase about expulsion from the Labour party from the lede; it was unsourced. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Sky News "He was expelled from the Labour Party when found guilty". [28] The Guardian article about his appeal refers to him as a "Labour peer" though, [29] so this is unclear. This article states that he was jailed, but was freed on appeal. I don't see how this could be interpreted as suggesting that "technically he has never been to the prison". AndyTheGrump (talk)

According to this recent article he was only "briefly" expelled from Labour although I haven't found a source explaining how or why this was overturned. January (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Lurie stalker

The actor, musician and artist John Lurie was the subject of a BLPN report here February 2011 because of a new editor who was posting nasty, mean-spirited little Lurie quotes in the article. Lurie certainly was cited as saying those things but they were trivial offhand comments unimportant to the man's biography—unencyclopedic and petty. They were gathered together by the editor to make Lurie look bad.

I am dead certain the BLP-violating editor is John Perry, a former friend of Lurie who was reported in The New Yorker in August 2010 as having had a "rupture" with Lurie in 2008, and then stalking Lurie. The BLP-violating editor repeatedly posted a link to John Perry's website, www.johnperrynyc.com.

The stalker-editor, Special:Contributions/Lurielurie, has been active on the page since February 3, calling John Lurie a hysteric, and saying Lurie was making up the story of having a stalker, and that Lurie repeatedly says Perry intends to kill Lurie, with "no evidence to support his claims".

After I jumped in to ride herd on the article and make sure it was neutral and well-sourced, Lurielurie began attacking me on my talk page, saying "You are in big trouble." (And again here.) Lurielurie followed that with several copy/past annoyances posted to my talk page: [30][31][32]

Lurielurie continues to edit war at John Lurie, change wording, altering the tone so that it makes Lurie look worse and the stalker look better. What is to be done here? Is there anything actionable? Does any of this madness merit an indef block for Lurielurie?

At the very least, I would appreciate more eyes on the case. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, more eyes would be appreciated. If erasing exchanges, then wholesale, his talk section wherein he acknowledges being self-serving is not reflective of his non-neutrality, so be it. Though based on properly sourced material, my early edits were clearly not in the spirit of Wikipedia. That they were removed is fair. If I am blocked by a truly neutral third party, fine. My recent edits, however, conform to NPOV, and are accurate based on sourced material.

Binksternet, by his elimination of source references which show that Lurie's claims are unsupported, and editing at the behest of the subject should likewise restrict his edits.Lurielurie (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope that some third party will not allow Lurie to disseminate his defamatory claims on Wikipedia, as Binksternet has now elected to capitulate.Lurielurie (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added to my watchlist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I note here, the article made reference to and characterized user comments on the Dangerous Minds blog. User comments are not reliable sources, and certainly shouldn't be discussed as primary sources. In fact, we shouldn't be linking to the article with comments displayed, but rather to the article without the comments displayed. If a reliable source discusses and analyzes the comments, we can report what that says, but we can't report directly on the comments. Yworo (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. When I put up the summary of the blog comments, I did so because they were the subject of previous edit warring, and because the blog was not notable by itself, but was made so because it attracted comments from the main actors: John Lurie and John Perry. At any rate, I can see the reasoning for your removal of that summary. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A complaint about edit-warring has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Lurielurie reported by User:The Interior (Result: ). Anyone familiar with the issues on this article is welcome to comment there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Kumar

There is a consistent effort in the article about Anil Kumar to downplay his guilty plea in the Galleon insider trading case. Any efforts made to provide balance to the article are imm.ediately deleted. The overwhelming focus of the article is a glowing treatment of his illustrious business career, with his guilty plea for receiving 2.6mm in exchange for providing insider information treated as practically a footnote — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDPearson (talk • contribs) 01:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article in an attempt to create a more neutral version. I re-added the mention of his arrest and plea to the lede where I believe they belong, removed both some tendentious and peacock material from the body, eliminated an unreliable blog source and added a couple of "citation needed" tags. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Mannion

Someone has registered the URL wesmannion.com (already black-listed on meta) that redirects to this rather nasty version of our article. Please revdel that revision and preferably also [33], [34], [35] and possibly more. --Wasell^(T) 07:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done and semi-protected indefinitely. CIreland (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Wasell^(T) 18:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Kissinger

Resolved

– Incorrect material removed from article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence:

"Henry Alfred Kissinger (pronounced /ˈkɪsɪndʒər/;[1] born May 27, 1923, dead April 2, 2011,[2]) was a German-born American political scientist, diplomat, and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize."

Henry Kissinger did not die on April 2, 2011.

Is this an April Fool's joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.233.106 (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Joke" or not it's puerile vandalism and has been reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pipes

Semi-protected for one week. Gamaliel (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Nighy

This actors page was moved incorrectly today by a user who has been inactive for over a year. The page4 move as been entirely inaccurate. I am about to log off. If someone could report this to the right page to get fixed that would be deeply appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 05:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been reverted but seems like it was a good faith attempt to resolve some naming issue. Bill Nighy 2 not to be confused with Bill Nye - Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Nozolino

Resolved

– nothing to see, at least not at this noticeboard

Please view a page of one of Paulo Nozolino's book: http://www.steidlville.com/books/140-Far-Cry.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgomezphoto (talk • contribs) 10:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:BLP issue for us to take action on here. Also, the link you've provided would not be suitable as a source or for establishing notability, since it is just a website trying to sell one of Nozolino's books. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hensman

Resolved

– as per below - protected

User:Ponyo has suggested that I raise an issue relating to the Dave Hensman article here. The article has just been protected for the second time this year as a consequence of one or more contributors inserting an extremely verbose disciplinary ruling that relates to what seems to be a sideline activity of the article's subject involving real estate management/investment.

The questionable content is referenced to a pdf (pages 18-19) but it has been queried by me and others whether:

including it at all is relevant, since the infringement appears to be technical & the punishment imposed appears to be a small "rap on the knuckles" in the scale of things. It is not even certain that Hensman actually did anything wrong as the issue could well be a consequence of his titular position with the business rather than direct involvement. So, is it even a notable event in the Wikipedia scale?
including the full text of the ruling in the article amounts to undue weight and contravention of BLP policy

There seems to be a degree of sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet activity going on and to my mind there it is also POV-pushing and possibly COI by a disgruntled investor. The contributors seems to be single-purpose accounts.

I know nothing about this guy and am involved purely at a policy level. For this reason I have been reluctant to try to edit the additions down into something that might be acceptable to WP and have instead been reverting them. There have been attempts to discuss with the major contributor but they hit a brick wall & consequently umpteen vandalism notices have been issued over a period of time.

Thoughts would really be appreciated here. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless its been reported by independent reliable externals it shouldn't be included at all, never mind the whole text of the ruling as it was presented - nothing in the article to assert its notable at all, no independent reports to assert any notability to the issue, just keep it semi protected for the foreseeable future. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant contributors have recently introduced the sourcing cite mentioned above. That is an official bulletin, but I can find next to nothing else about it - hence my summary that it is a minor technical infringement rather than a significant event. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have added: is semi-protection going to stop this happening? Some of the contributors are named accounts and have > 4 edits already, just by their work on this article. Am a bit clueless about what to do, as you can see. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a primary report with no assertion of notability - irt is not our job to report such issue unless other reliable sources have established secondary notability. Block them all as quacking sockpuppets of the indef blocked original account - add pending protection to stop the additions being continued to be visible to the public and block on sight. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a plan. Thanks for your help. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm....User:Katsmeow777/Legal Suits and Dave Hensan(this is an attack title and could/should be sent to WP:MFD)...User:Jlcharger(needs blocking indefinitely as a sock of an indefinitely blocked user} - User:Katsmeow777(needs blocking indefinitely as a sock of an indefinitely blocked user} - User:Tiredofdavehensman??(blocked) - User:Stratawatch(blocked) - article created about his company - "Teamwork Property Management" ‎deleted (WP:G10: Attack page or negative unsourced WP:BLP ... you can be too polite, the user has been pointed to policy, reverted, warned, blocked and still they are creating multiple accounts to attack this living person using en wikipedia.. This is the user under an IP:70.70.16.233 from Langley, British Columbia (city) - it is highly likely to be disruption from a single user. Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed#Autoconfirmed users is ten edits and four days which if all the users accounts they have used so far are blocked will at least slow them down and will either force then to discuss or make them very easy to spot and block when new accounts make nine edits to mickey mouse and then add this cut and copy post to this BLP, I have found the case is that they usually realize the game is up and move along. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm not often accused of being too polite! My problem is that, despite being registered for years, I've not done a lot here until January, although since then have clocked up a fair mileage. I'm basically not as experienced as some might think/it might appear. I'll take the various accounts to SPI and the page (didn't spot that at all) to MFD. Got to learn sometime. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave it for a few days and see what happens, a passing admin might block them as quacking socks but if not I have them all watchlisted and there should be enough eyes to deal with it if the user returns. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I'll do the MFD. Might be wasting everyone's time but I could do with knowing the process (done SPI before, but your point makes sense). - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest here - does anybody have any evidence that it's the same David John Hensman who runs the company & recieved the disciplinary action as the DJH that the articles about? All we have is a link to 'Teamworks' webpage identifying the companies president as A DJH, suggesting that they must be the same is blatant OR and a massive BLP vio. Someone needs to either take this claim down or provide some evidence, especially since his websites official bio makes no mention of it. If anyone can show it's him, then maybe we can discuss the relevance of this action. Bob House 884 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He mentions it in the bio on his official website, in Ext Links of the article. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave is the president of Nex Gen World Leadership, a ministry focused on training young Christian leaders. His Kingdom focused company, Big Sky Ventures has three components: Big Sky Management, Big Sky Music, and Big Sky Motivational Presentations. In 2003 he purchased one of BC’s leading property management companies: Teamwork Property Management, which enables him to fund missions around the world. He pastors and teaches bi-weekly at The Bridge, a church he planted with his friends Dean Richmond, Brian Doerksen and Irv Esau. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up Bob House 884 (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is totally undue, he was disciplined for a case of professional misconduct and fined by the council under some subrule section and fined jointly 2500 Canadian dollars, even if had been widely reported in WP:RS it wouldn't warrant inclusion, a single line at a push. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked User:Jlcharger and User:Katsmeow777 as sockpuppets of indef blocked User:Stratawatch. Same edits, same harassment crusade. User:Katsmeow777/Legal Suits and Dave Hensan has been deleted under G5 criteria (created by a blocked user in violation of their block). Did I miss anything? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly ip 70.70.16.233 ? - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The semi-protection will bar any IPs from adding the contentious info to the article, so no need to block unless they start editing disruptively elsewhere. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you to everyone who has co-operated here & on the related pages. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, wikipedia should not become the primary vehicle for such content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Chizik

Alabama fans have edited the article and used completely untrue information. All you have to do is read the first paragraph and it will become clear what the false statements are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.148.238 (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clean up the obvious problems. Thanks for bringing this up. Dayewalker (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-union violence

[36] appears to directly accuse a living person of asking a Governor to kill pro-union protestors. Then another person is accused based on [37] . The issue is primarily one of coatrack against Governor Walker, who has not been alleged to have paid any attention at all to the suggestions - but the linking of him to the proposed violence is possibly a BLP concern. Is there a valid concern over the way Walker is named in the edit? Is there a concern over the way the other living people are handled in the edit? The editor making this new article states [38] fairly clearly that it was created as WP:POINT because his AfD on Union violence failed. Collect (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This argument about WP:POINT is entirely mistaken, in my view. See Talk:Anti-union violence.

The sources for the living persons-related content are the American Bar Association, and CBS News. The information is factual, and reflects exactly what the sources state. The content is not in any way directed at Governor Walker, but rather, is about two other individuals, each of whom made an effort to contact Governor Walker to convey controversial information. Both lost their jobs as a result of these attempts, which is a notable fact. Richard Myers (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) [39] shows the same information added by the same editor to Union violence which would have the same BLP implication for Governor Walker. COATRACK is still COATRACK, and WP:POINT is still WP:POINT. This standard proposed by that editor would allow us to list every single email sent to a person suggesting violation of a law, and mentioning that person's name every time. I doubt that such is proper under WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The news items are notable, they relate to unions, and are in articles about unions. Richard Myers (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor, I think the material is reliably sourced and relevant to the article. There are no WP:BLP concerns in the case of such widely and reliably reported information about the two people. Nor is there any implication that Governor Walker solicited or planned to act on these suggestions--and someone has now added his statement he would never consider violence. Therefore, I don't see any BLP concerns about him either, or a WP:COATRACK. The WP:POINT argument is not really for this noticeboard, and anyway the Talk page material you cite can be construed as a plea for the inclusion of opposing or balancing information, rather than the making of a tendentious point. (For the all time classic example of a WP:POINT, see Judaism and bus stops). The whole section might be slimmed down a little for weight and possibly added to the "Recent examples" list. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Jennings

I wasn't sure where better to ask - [40] a lot of these links don't seem to be from sources we can use. Is it OK to put them as external links? Jnast1 (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question and thanks for asking. The general answer is no. Better to park those yet unused sources on the talk page for future use. The External Links (see WP:EL) should be kept to a minimum and should feature links that are give broad insight into the life of the subject. For example the links to bio's and his official web site are appropriate but the others should be removed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you! Jnast1 (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul D. Hanson - in Alan Dershowitz article

This appears to be a BLP violation to me. The Alan Dershowitz article contains a paragraph about a controversy involving Dershowitz and Paul D. Hanson. The text only quotes Dershowitz' accusations and paraphrases his justifications. Here is the text in full from Alan_Dershowitz#Harvard-MIT_divestment_petition:

Randall Adams of The Harvard Crimson writes that, in the spring of 2002, a petition within Harvard calling for Harvard and MIT to divest from Israel and American companies that sell arms to Israel gathered over 600 signatures, including 74 from the Harvard faculty and 56 from the MIT faculty. Among the signatures was that of Harvard's Winthrop House Master Paul D. Hanson, in response to which Dershowitz staged a debate for 200 students in the Winthrop Junior Common Room. He called the petition's signatories antisemitic, bigots, and said they knew nothing about the Middle East. "Your House master is a bigot," he told the students, "and you ought to know that." Adams writes that Dershowitz cited examples of human rights violations in countries that the United States supports, such as the execution of homosexuals in Egypt and the repression of women in Saudi Arabia, and said he would sue any professor who voted against the tenure of another academic because of the candidate's position toward Israel, calling them "ignoramuses with Ph.D.s."[26]

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thats an impressively subtle hackjob. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the source I would suggest immediate removal, this seems to be non notable campus drama rather than anything substantial. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, this makes Dershowitz look bad. My initial take is that the "campus drama" comment above is right on the money. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

eh its all subjective on whose side of the I/P conflict you abscibe to and whether people think such a petition was a good idea The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Moridi

Would you please keep an eye on the biography of Reza Moridi Canadian politician? It seems that the individuals who might not have good faith or/and respect the neutrality of this Wikipedia biography are trying to misrepresent the facts in this biography of living person. Looking at the history of this Wikipedia page one could see that in the past there were biased changes done by some users. In the past users Jonathanwallace (talk) and Collect (talk) spent time cleaned up and editing this this Wikipedia biography, to make certain that the neutrality of Moridi’s biography is preserved. The nationality of Moridi is Canadian and his ethnicity according to the facts, documents and evidences is Azerbaijani. User Marmoulak (talk) have changed the ethnicity of Moridi from Azerbaijani-Canadian to Iranian-Canadian without providing any proper evidences and/or inline citation. The current inline citation and evidences clearly indicate that Moridi’s nationality is Canadian and his ethnicity is Azerbaijani. Starback (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almine Barton

Resolved

– Incubated by The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs)

I have a concern with the edits and removal of pertinent parts of this article that I did extensive research on. Due to the simultaneously editing mishap/misunderstanding in 'not good faith' and claims of 'edit dispute'(see User talk:theonelife 'Warning'), I was told I am not allowed to make changes as it is deemed as edit warring under threat of blocking. I will try to make this as brief as possible, please bear with me.

Appreciation is extended to the earnest efforts of 'clean up' of the article, however I must state some recent erroneous edits that demean, and discredit the purpose of the BLP in question to the following guidlines per wikipedia standards WP:BLP.

PLEASE REVIEW: Erroneous Deletions and Edits by the following three editors:

Extended content

NOTE: 'The edits done by this User:JohnInDc below(#1), subsequently after he deleted 'credible' resources and sections, he requested deletion of his username space (see [here User:JohnInDc]).

1

User:JohnInDc:

Edit deletion in section of Teachings:(see last edit)of an article reference of "what it's like to be in a pod with Almine" but is pertinent under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC .

Re: deletions of entire Broadcasting with exception to one which doesn't air anymore and his own commentary in this user talk section above, ie:(Talk:Almine Barton - see'article concerns') is also erroneous under: WP:SYN and is considered WP:NOR under the policies and guidlines for 'cleaning up clutter' distorting the content of this section in regards of citations and referencing topic.

Re: deletion of entire Arachneography section: While I agree that there was 'one' link to the main website(this one could have been deleted without deleting all), all the other sites are not commerical sites, they all contained information on the topics of the 'Teachings' section that refer readers to material she teaches. (Perhaps, I could suggest to change this section to 'Further reading' under the 'Teachings' section of this article.)

2

User:Dougweller:

Dougweller re-titled section 'Peerage' to 'Titles'. He worded it wrong, then he corrected it, but the change of the sections from 'Peerage' to Titles is 'negative' POV in character due to the wording that it defames her stating she is only 'entitiled' to use the title "The Countess of Shannon" because she married the Earl of Shannon...which also falls under WP:NOR. #2- erroneous wording that she "re-married" the 9th Earl of Shannon when she only married him once. It isn't necessary to put in a BLP a section of why someone has a title, whether they were born in the family or married, I wish to revert it to previous section "peerage".

Dougweller also deleted section: 'Articles About Almine Barton' due to the claim the article "Stanford's Who's Who is a paid for self publication source and should not be included.(see Talk:Almine Barton section: Stanford's Who's Who) Under the section: WP:SELFPUB it is allowed due to Stanford's Who's Who is an 'press release article' written by a Publicity firm of the person the BLP is about.(see above section on "What a pod is like with Almine" for the references on deleted articles.)You will see that I had listed verifiable news articles about Almine.

3

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise:(see User talk:theonelife discussion 'Warning')

Re: While I appreciate this person's initial dialogue, has become a edit dispute due to the misunderstanding of simultaneous editing and this user states that I must refer to Almine by her last name in the article. No where in the BLP guidlines does it state that a BLP must refer to the person by their last name. After the 'Warning' of edit dispute, this user insisted that the use of the last name falls under WP:MOS and that there is no discussion about it or I would be blocked. Case in point - In the section wp:mos that he referred me to, guidline on name usage: MOS:FOLLOW ie: Almine's work and Books, this would fall under WP:COMMONNAME as in other BLP's.

Re: catagories: User:Future Perfect at Sunrise added-Catagories: Countesses, that was fine. I then added these catagories:

Category:New Age writers

Category:American spiritual writers

Category:1950 births

Category:Living people(deleted by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, but later added by user:JohnInDc)

Category:Date of birth missing (living people)

These were quickly deleted by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

I added the above catagories under criteria in WP:BLPCAT.

In respect to other parts about her that were deleted should have been left due to the description of a Biography- which states: ' "A biography is a detailed description or account of someone's life. A biography is more than a list of impersonal facts (education, work, relationships, and death), it also portrays the subject's experience of those events. Unlike a profile or curriculum vitae (résumé), a biography presents the subject's story, highlighting various aspects of his or her life, including intimate details of experiences, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality." ' These were referenced from her own accounts of her experiences and ancestry.

I request this article be put in 'incubation' or 'semi edit protect' status so I may 'clean up' the erroneous edits that discredit 'notability' and 'verifiability' on the key elements I stated above or 'adopted' by a guide who in 'good faith' will guide me on this and work with me on content and citations,etc without threats of blocking.

Thank you for your time, User:theonelifeTheonelife (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okie doakie moving it into my userspace shortly for incubation and will adopt and guide user The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now at User:ResidentAnthropologist/Almine Barton The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard P. (Dick) Haugland

This page is a blatant resume. Please note all the references are websites, without a single neutral, objective citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupiterdasa (talk • contribs) 22:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it doesn't really indicate what Haugland is notable for. If his philanthropy can be reliably sourced, maybe that is relevant, but otherwise I don't see why there should be an article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It and Starfish Country Home School Foundation look like the work of a paid editor. Will Beback talk 23:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Bleichman

An IP editor has just introduced some material from a Polish newspaper into a new section he has called "Controversy". Someone has translated a the quote into English (presumably the IP editor). I've formatted it all for him but this article is a BLP and the allegation is potentially quite serious. Are there any Polish speakers who could check out the cite please? - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removed pending verification its a very serious charge The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd already reverted twice & so needed to adopt a different tack. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted as well, I'm gonna keep an eye on it in the mean time if true is it WP:RS to make such an allegation The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears to be a mainstream Polish newspaper, albeit one with a right-wing(ish) past. However, my gibberish is better than my Polish, so I'll leave it to the experts. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if true translation... The question is this the same "Franciszek Blajchman" as the one in the article? Was there a retraction or other editorial statement in the following days? This accusation seems to fly in the face too many other accounts of the official story.... The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an impossible scenario by any means: these things do come out of the woodwork & obviously it would be in the interests of (potentially) both the US & the individual to have avoided the issue. However, I'm concerned that I struggled to find English language versions of the story as these sort of news items do not tend to stay confined to one country. Also, the IPN organisation which seems to be behind the allegation appears from its own WP article to have a somewhat controversial image at times - I realise that this is circular, but I'm just working with what I've got. Sometimes I wish that I didn't patrol the category for pages with missing refs ... Let's get the translation out of the way & then maybe it needs to go to WP:RSN ? - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I funneled "the source" through google translate and as added to the article it could be accurate translation. I use google translate on occasion but nuances of language are often lost. The Google Translation says "In fact, Francis Blajchman - such that his name was included in the materials of" Which depending on how accurate that is could be "such a name" meaning possible coincidence or indeed "it was him." I we need some one who can tell us exact translation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pratibha Patil

The entry has outrageous and libelous comments that are unsubstantiated. The entry claims that Pratibha Patil lived with Allen Ginsburg in Varanasi and was involved with Timothy Leary. These claims are incotrect, abusive, and must be removed immediately from the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.72.232 (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the uncited statements. I agree that they may be detrimental to her. However, if someone does come up with a reliable, verifiable citation then you'll just have to live with it. All I could find in a quick search was blog entries and comments to recent news stories about Wikileaks on MSN News etc. I'm watching the page now. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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