Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive111

This page is an

current main page

.

Narendra Modi

There is a dispute on whether or not information about the possible existence of a wife of this individual should be included in the article. Modi says that he is a bachelor but two reports, one, an opinion editorial on the online site of The Hindu, a reliable Indian newspaper, that states he was married and is now separated [1], and a second on 'open the magazine' which says that a woman claims to be the wife of Mr. Modi[2]. To me, this appears to be a marginally plausible claim that, if included, would primarily be there for titillation (Modi is a controversial Indian politician) and so is best avoided in an otherwise serious blp. User:Ashlonerider, on the other hand, is arguing that it would be incorrect to drop all references to him having a wife especially when journalists have proved the existence of the said individual with marriage records to back up those claims (though neither of the two sources provided back up their claims with marriage records). Other eyes on this dispute are welcome. --rgpk (comment) 14:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

- yes - I am not seeing any documentation to back up this claim. The hinduonnet.com comment is from 2003 so there has been plenty of time for this to get confirmed, it really depends on the amount of coverage in
Off2riorob (talk
) 16:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

At first rgpk's contention was that hinduonnet and OPEN magazine are not reliable sources. Now it has shifted to questioning whether it is "enough" evidence.

That is incorrect. My first talk page comment on this here was largely about blp issues and, as the edit summary shows, my first concerns were blp related. --rgpk (comment) 15:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is from 2003. There has also been substantial coverage on the issue during the Gujarat Elections by various media houses. I dont think it is anybody's place to say whether the article is "sensationalised" or not.

Now that there has been an attempt to edit out these references, i would be getting other media references. In the meantime, i would request a block on the article to prevent further vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 03:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest bringing these further sources to the table here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

John Ducey

Resolved

This is in regards to a technical issue with the article and not the content so this may not be the correct place to report it but it is the most likely place I could find. Please kindly forward the report the correct place.

It seems that the structure of the article may be corrupted in such a way that it is not possible to edit the text above section 2

An edit made in the first section does not appear in the live article. You can see the diff here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Ducey&action=historysubmit&diff=416859832&oldid=413663553

Thanks to all the Wikipedia staff and contributors

-- Michael Mt1955 (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Seemed to be this edit which was causing the problem, I believe I've fixed it. January (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

John Galliano

The page has been defaced with a lot of references to Galliano's homosexuality, ironically in a fashion that suggests the perpetrator is as predjudiced as the designer. They should probably be removed, and perhaps the bio should be locked for a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.11.119.130 (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi protected for two weeks. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

susan hiller

Resolved

– Article fixed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My name is Ann Gallagher, Tate curator and editor of Susan Hiller's recent Tate catalogue (also author). My name has been misspelt as Anne Gallagher. Please correct. one e makes a big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.148.72 (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it because I found lots of places on the Tate website that say "Ann". However, ironically, the first reference I found says "Anne". See here. You might want to get it fixed. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Barry Chamish

I was forwarded an email complaint from someone, apparently Mr. Chamish, that we call him a "Holocaust Denier" when he isn't. I took one glance at the article and I am horrified by it. It is full of BLP violations. I am taking an extreme step right now and stubbing the article. I think every single claim in the article should be carefully checked and only re-inserted if it is sourced to a reliable source. As it stands now, the article is absolute crap.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

When I see crap articles, most of the time I rewrite them. I urge others to do the same. --Moni3 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Me too, but in BLP cases it is important to remember that our first obligation is to remove the crap. Building back up something better is important too, as a later step, but the first thing to do - immediately - is to remove the crap.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree, and said so here. However, I came into conflict with another editor who took it upon himself to blank Anita Bryant's page. It was not crap. It was mostly accurate. Mostly unsourced, too, but for the most part, accurate. I wrote Save Our Children, so I don't think I should be the person to filter material about Bryant's life. Instead, there it sits, waiting for someone to rewrite it. And waiting.... --Moni3 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(undent)What's the deal with WorldNetDaily cited in the Chamish article? Is it considered reliable for direct quotes but unreliable for everything else?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Moot.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily has been held unreliable for fact assertions, at

WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source as long as it doesn't infringe the five criteria given there. Oh, and by the way, the WorldNetDaily ref is currently back in the article. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I would consider it a source to be treated with caution. Confirmation in other sources would be generally useful I think. Speaking generally, using them as a source for a fact which is not found anywhere else *and* is not particularly controversial would seem ok in some cases. If the fact can be found in a better source, that source should be used instead or in addition. If the fact is controversial, I'd be very careful.

My primary beef with this article is that it did something absolutely outrageous: it accused the man of being a holocaust denier when the closest thing to a reliable source, and a source which plainly hates the guy, absolved him of that charge. This was in the article for more than a month.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I may end up proposing the article for deletion for lack of notability. Even Daniel Pipes writing about him was in his blog. There seem to be a few news mentions, most of which treat him as a conspiracy theorist in passing, but it is not at all clear that he is notable. The only reason I'm not nominating right now is that I asked an Israeli friend and she said "Of course I've heard of him, he's a famous <unflattering term>". If he really is famous, perhaps there is enough to write a proper biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a history of abusive vandalism of this article by the Runtshit vandal. See in particular Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Zuminous, though several other edits by Runtshit socks also make such edits. Many of the recent abusive edits share similar characteristics, and I strongly suspect that these too are Runtshit socks. I am looking through the page history, and making an SPI submission. RolandR (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And most of the accounts which made the abusive edits have now been

confirmed by Checkuser as sockpuppets of Runtshit. RolandR (talk

) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have opened an AfD on the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

robert downey jr

)

early life section has been edited to include offensive remarks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.2.214 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism, reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

List of disputed supercentenarian claimants

This would appear quite straightforward to me. The lead of this article reads "Disputed supercentenarian claimants are people who have been claimed to be over 110 but whose age claims have been controverted by reliable sources such as census research and/or birth/death records". Thus anyone living in the article is being accused of lying about their age. There are multiple uses of the Worlds Oldest People Yahoo Group. This seems to be a quite straightforward misuse of a self-published source for claims about living people? O Fenian (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A Yahoo group is prima facie not a

WP:RS. Individual messages might mention relevant RS, but if so they should be cited directly. It's quite amazing that the list defines itself as "cases are deemed to be invalidated by an authority such as ... or World's Oldest People." Who reckons a Yahoo group is an "authority"?? I can't see any justification for that on the talk page (though I skimmed it quickly and might have missed some discussion). Remove immediately per BLP anything relying on that source, and then discuss how to proceed in terms of trying to find RS. (Other sources are probably OK, though arguably both the claimed age [including exactly who claimed it] and the actual age should be sourced, and I'm not sure they all are.) Rd232 ^talk

14:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please contribute to a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disputed supercentenarian claimants. --Rob (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Roy Sagnik

Dear all,

I am an old contributor for wikicommons and recently for wikibooks and wikimedia. I am wondering about the "relevancy and accuracy" of this bibliography. Is it wikipedia the proper platform for anyone to advertise its own biography on?

The content in this page for "Roy Sagnik bibliography" is more "facebook-profile-like" but doesnt seem to have any sort of public usefulness or relevancy. I would be concerned that this person is just using wikipedia platform for advertising himself— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carla.antonini (talk • contribs)

At a quick glance, he seems to have third party coverage in media like Economic Times and Hindu that would probably be sufficient to establish notability. The article could use some editing for neutrality, elimination of

peacock words and the like. I added some appropriate tags to the article. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 17:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

- Yes, its very promotional and I did a bit of work on one of them, still needs the promotional taking out though and a list of externals looking at to see what they are supposed to be citing - I also note - such is the promotional aspect of the situation that he is so good, like New York, they named him twice and he has two articles.... Theme from New York, New York

- Roy Sagnik - I did a little work on this one

- Sagnik Roy
- note - I blanked and redirected
Off2riorob (talk
) 13:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange

content fork biased towards one side thus violates WP:UNDUE. A similar article was deleted

a while ago for the same reason.

The Assange article has had numerous BLP problems in recent months and currently has 291 watchers, while this new article has less than 30 and the talk page has generated numerous concerns. The article is currently up for AfD. I'm not a BLP expert, so would like some input from the regulars here. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 05:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Could we please get some extra eyes on this article. The BLP violations are growing by the hour. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 02:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This needs some new eyes on it - I've become somewhat disillusioned with the endless attempts by some contributors to spin the Assange article, and this one. Far to many edits seem more appropriate for a courtroom than for Wikipedia, with endless disputes about the meaning and implications of each and every word. I don't think that 'trial by talkpage' is really appropriate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Adam Walters

This is an article about a journalist who about a year ago got in hot water over a report by him aired on Sydney television news. The report in question was widely criticised, as any Google News search will show. I recently rewrote the section in his article about this report, and another user has deleted it, and blanked the talk page, claiming 'libel. The section was thoroughly referenced. I have not reverted, in the interests of not starting an edit war. I would appreciate it if someone else could look into this and consider the appropriate resolution. - Mark 10:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleting other people's comments on Talk pages is almost never acceptable, unless they are pure vandalism or libel. He makes the latter assertion but if the material under discussion was reliably sourced he should not have blanked it. I looked at the edit history and believe that the David Campbell section was given

undue weight but should survive in the article if edited to a couple of neutral sentences. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 11:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I restored the talk page and re-added a much shorter section on David Campbell. I also posted a warning on the user's Talk page, though I see he has deleted several similar warnings from others. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice work with the trim, the expansion of that section was imo totally undue. I also created an archive on the talkpage and moved the historic stuff there.

Off2riorob (talk

) 13:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a paragraph about the coverage, mostly about Walters in David Campbell's article. I would question the relevance there, I think in that article it's sufficient to cover just the incident itself rather than controversy surrounding the coverage. There's no suggestion that Campbell himself got involved in the debate. January (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Marit Bjorgen

)

URGENT! The article about Marit Bjorgen, the section “Asthma medications and doping controversy ” is fabricated in order to harm Marit Bjorgen. The article in Wikipedia is used as reference in a smear campain in Sweden towards Bjorgen. All content and writing about the substance SALBUTAMOL need to be erased as there is no evidence whatsoever in the references or elsewhere that Bjorgen has ever used it. Swedish Wikipedia has had the same problem and corrected the content today. Please the section as a whole instantly. If the section is needed at all it needs to be rewritten from zero. (I have no personal relation whatsoever with Marit Bjorgen, I am not even Norwegian but Swedish, but was fooled myself by the smear campain's reference to Wikipedia and I find this totally unacceptable) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljg49 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be multiple sources for the information - are they inaccurate? If nothing says the name, then the specific drug should be removed and just generic references to an asthma medication used. The section itself could probably use some rewording - "This is on the doping list" is probably not needed, or at least in that manner, plus some other phrasing.

Ravensfire (talk

) 21:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I blanked the section. None of the references supported any of the propositions: that she uses Salbutamol, or that her coach said it improved her performance, etc. Nor could I find a reliable source that says she uses this drug. She does use an unspecified asthma med, as reported here, and a Polish competitor acccused her of getting an advantage from it. I'll wait for consensus on whether to re-include that in the article in some form. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt she uses Symbicort. She admits this here self. Source Swedish National Television http://svt.se/2.21247/1.2325124/bjorgen_avslojar_preparat_for_svt and Norwegian National Televison http://www.nrk.no/sport/langrenn/1.7505862 . The substance in Symbicort that is prohibited is formoterol . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiung (talk • contribs) 00:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

note - the Swedish wiki BLP for Bjorgen translated via google. - It looks to me like a couple of lines would be sufficient to cover the mini controversy, the claims and counter claims about the drugs benefits are coatracking and undue, perhaps an addition similar to the Swedish content - basically as I understand it, she is allowed special dispensation use this drug and one of her competitors doesn't like it and has accused her of doping but its not - she is allowed to use the drug.
Off2riorob (talk
) 14:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rob's evaluation but would add there also seems to be an issue of whether it is correct she ever used Salbutamol as opposed to a different asthma drug. The Salbutamol allegation should not be added to the article unless someone can find a reliable source. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

According to http://www.nrk.no/sport/langrenn/1.7505862 she told Swedish (!) TV that she has a dispensation for Symbicort. I'm Norwegian, so I don't want to edit this article at this time. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick Google check seems to confirm that Symbicort and Salbutemol are different drugs. Various IP's and at least one user account keep re-adding the content about Salbutemol, sourced to a dead link, a blog and a couple articles which don't mention the drug. Other eyes on this would be greatly appreciated. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotection? The world championship is an ongoing event (ends on Sunday). --Alvestrand (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just when things quieted down, user Jenna6752 (account created yesterday) is re-inserting the suspect content.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It is correct that she has said that she has a medical prescription to use Symbicort and has received a dispensation to use it. Her competitor

Justyna Kowalczyk claims she is using doping and Polish and Swedish fans are really angry. PaoloNapolitano (talk

) 13:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I have no objection to the insertion of a reliably sourced statement about Symbicort, Kowalczyk, etc. However, the content the various IP's and possible socks have been adding is always the same, sourced to blogs, dead links and sources which don't support the statements about her use of the drug or its effects on performance. I haven't done this myself because all of the English language sources I have seen so far are not clearly reliable. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A real user with some edit history has now added an acceptably slimmed down and apparently reliably sourced version. In the meantime, I also applied for

page protection given the history of contentious, unsourced editing of the page. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 14:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerned users might want to keep an eye on

Justyna Kowalczyk where similar claims are made.Sjö (talk

) 15:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Orange Factory Music

Hello... I am completely Wikipedia illiterate! I need someone-anyone's help editing the page for Orange Factory Music. Several flags were placed on the account and I have no clue how to contribute to the article to verify and validate the information. These guys have made big contributions to pop music and should be noted for it. Any help is great appreciated. Please check out their wiki page (Orange Factory Music) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbleweedz (talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The article currently lacks reliable third party sources independent of the subject, establishing notability. It also contains some language such as "Internationally acclaimed" which appears to be what we call "

WP:MUSIC standard may give you some ideas for material worth adding. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 14:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Shahid Balwa

This needs a good cleanup, or I'd like a second opinion on whether this should be deleted G10 as an attack page. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This one is hard to evaluate. The man is certainly notable, and the assertions about his arrest and being the subject of investigation are all supported by the sources such as India Today and the Pune Mirror. They look like standard newspaper sites written in English in usual journalistic language, not like blogs or ideological attack sites, but its hard for someone not from or otherwise familiar with the subcontinent to evaluate them further. Might be worth posting a request at the Indian Wikipedian noticeboard asking for advice. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Rafael Correa

I view all the references to "limpiacoches" (literally translated as "car-washer") as derogatory at worst and improper for a biography article at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.243.106 (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed these. That was some pretty effective vandalism, taking advantage of the limitations of non-Spanish-speakers. If it can be established who was responsible for this, a long block is in order. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It was added in this diff on jan 29 by a user

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Bangaru Adigalar

Request help. Bangaru Adigalar is quickly reverted each time there is an edit for a while now, first by an IP, now by User talk:Boldandstrong. I stopped editing February 18th, because of this. Another editor's work is also now being reverted, by the same user.

I had written on the article talk page, explaining my edits, with no response. I've now written on the users talk page, including a link to the page on biographies of living people. I've also contacted the recent editor who's work has also been reverted.

BoldandStrong seems to feel that the information from Bangaru's websites are sufficient to source all the things they are saying. I'm not sure where to go from here. I think that the Feb 18 version of the page, which was my last edit, is a solid start, with a secondary source, that still includes information on how devotees consider Bangaru Adidalar, without asserting divinity wholesale. I hope we can get some help! Nihola (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I did indeed write to User talk:Boldandstrong requesting that they stop simply reverting edits by others, and to try to work with the other editors. However, they have today removed what I wrote, during a 'minor' edit. Nihola (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ben Heine

Can someone please check this article for balance and sourcing? Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a little, moved some stuff out of the lede, added some sources, and moved the Israel-related stuff to its own section. Let me know what you think. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your edits improved the article, I have also made a few edits, but the BLP can still use some improvement as regards the citations and promo lists of externals to front pages with no mention of the subject - jonny has appeared on a and b and c and d and e and f and g - with front page links to nothing about the subject and there are a bunch of 404 deadlinks also, detail is on the talkpage.

Off2riorob (talk

) 18:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ck1 Writer

It seems that some unknown IP is trying to introduce the artist as a vandal, even the deceased photographer , on their on biography page. I was working on completing the page, when i was on a trip. some IP edited the page multiple of times and I can feel this may go to result to an edit-war, I can easily edit the page and revert it to the original, I will try my best to put the right information that will not lead to abusive or offensive material... please notice this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ck1_Writer&direction=next&oldid=411005616 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soso freak (talk • contribs) 09:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

roberto sanchez ramos

Pursuant to COI guidelines, I'm hereby stating that I edited my own entry to eliminate a misleading and unfair statement about my mother, which was improperly and maliciously inserted by someone with strictly-political motivations. First, the statement about my mother is marginal, at best. First, it is not about me; second, in such a short article, its inclusion makes it seem as though it's an "important" matter, which it decidedly never was. Third, the alleged "question" referred to my mother's pension, and it was raised at a time when I became subject to public criticism by members of the political party of a former governor whom the Department of Justice (under my watch)criminally charged for making false statements to the government in his attempt, while being governor, to secure for himself a higher pension than he deserved. In fact, PR's Retirement Administration had adjusted the former governor's pension, having concluded that his statements had indeed been false, and the former governor never appealed that decision. The "question" raised about my mother's pension was whether she had relied on a "sworn statement" to get credit for certain years of public service; however, the facts are that (i) my mother never relied on any "sworn statements"; (ii) the Retirement Agency never raised any questions about the factual information submitted by my mother regarding her prior public service reported for the purposes of computing her pension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivirj (talk • contribs) 14:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Despite your conflict, I don't think there was anything wrong with your removal of unsourced, possibly libelous information about yourself. However, you did more than that, you added some facts at the same time. Even though they weren't controversial, for those kinds of changes, I suggest you declare your conflict and raise any changes you wish made on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your report, I have left you a list of handy helpful links on your talkpage. Please report here any similar problems and we will deal with them for you, your article is for the English wikipedia of minor note and has few active watchers. I and Bbb23 have added it to our watch lists and if the content is replaced we will request additional protection of the biography.

Off2riorob (talk

) 18:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Chris Trousdale

This entry lacks objectivity and appears to be written by the subject. An independent impartial and knowledgeable person should edit it for a more balanced view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.49.150 (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

- Please read
Off2riorob (talk
) 20:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

Resolved

– Picture deleted on

WP:Copyright violation

)

A user is attempting to insert a photo which is allegedly of Sanger at age 11 but given this response when I asked on the users talk page, I suspect this is being done to disparage Sanger. Request admin attention to this, please.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

James Maas

The last line of my biography is defamatory. The process that rendered the decision of an ethics committee has been disbanded as unfair. I have asked twice that the line be removed, and it was both times. Yet now it is back again! Someone or some group of individuals obviously has a personal vendetta. Please see that this line is removed asap as I consider it libelous and injurious.

Many thanks, James Maas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbm1 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've temporarily removed the sentence in question, based on there apparently being a former OTRS ticket regarding this, accompanied by the statement that contentious statements of this nature require more than one reliable source.

Could you point us to a reference (e.g. newspaper, news website etc) which discusses the subsequent disbandment of the ethics committee finding?

Alternatively someone with OTRS access may wish to comment. --

talk

) 02:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have OTRS access, but there are a lot of sources discussing this other than just the one, so the claim that this is an issue of contentious claims requiring more sources isn't relevant. Other sources include this article this article(discusses Maas although not the main focus). There is also this press release by the group defending Maas. I can't find any sources backing up the claim that the ethics committee was in any way disbanded as being unfair. If Maas has a source for that, he should supply it, in which case the most reasonable thing to do is to include all the details, including the disbandment. But without that, it seems like there are more than enough sources to justify including this content. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Gunasegaran Rajasundram

Resolved

– per User:Nil Einne - as the article is not a BLP and futher discussion for article improvement in general can occur on Talk:Death in custody of Gunasegaran Rajasundram

I've done a partial cleanup of

Gunasegaran Rajasundram, but I have to logoff now. Can anyone else take a peak, as I'd rather not have it left like this for hours. But I think there is probably too much sourcing for a G10 deletion. Ϣere Spiel

Chequers 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

- I moved it as he is a one event not otherwise notable to
Off2riorob (talk
) 20:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with the move, I'm not sure if this is really the right desk for further discussion anyway. The person died about 2.5 years ago and although a few living people are named not really in any way that raises BLP concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Milan Kučan

)

full link to the article in question = http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Ku%C4%8Dan troublesome material: a scan of person's signature in the "info box" in the abovementioned article.

On behalf of my father, Milan Kučan who is a living person with a certain status in Slovenia (first and long time president of the Republic of Slovenia), I kindly ask you to remove a scan of his signature.

A scan of a famous living person signature is troublesome material, even if originally with a positive purpose, since it is prone to be abused, especially if made available in an article on a person in a format that can easily be re-used. Besides being troublesome, I don't think that a scanned signature adds any true value to the article.

The scan of my father's signature only appears in the Slovenian language version of the article and I could try to suggest its removal, but according to one of the Slovenian Wikipedians, to whom I have just talked, the scan would probably reappear and a fruitless debate might start over this. He suggested I turn to you, reporting the problem on this noticeboard.

I hope you can understand the situation and kindly ask for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Špela Kučan, on behalf of Milan Kučan, former president of the Republic of Slovenia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmera (talk • contribs) 19:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

- this is the en-wikipedia - we are not involved in that article you need to request there on the talkpage, the signature is not currently published via our article - and as I can see is also not published via WP:Commons - the hosting is copyrighted and currently only hosted at the Slovenia wiki here - so as we have no authority over the situation at that wikipedia you need to ask them there. -
Off2riorob (talk
) 19:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Cmera (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC): Thank you, I'll contact the locals then ...

Bobby Gonzalez

I appreciate the changes made by David Able and thank you for your time and attention. I ask that you read the following and made additional corrections and the issue should be resolved completely.

"Gonzalez received his seventh technical of the season with 11 minutes to go.[3] The next day, Gonzalez was fired. School officials stated that despite the team's on-court improvement, he was not a good representative for Seton Hall. Seton hall University president Monsignor Robert Sheeran said the events of the previous night were "a crystallization of all that was really wrong" with the program under Gonzalez' watch."[4] o David Able. thank you, the changes are better, but some of the issues still exist. this last sentence should be removed because it is not true and it implies that everything under Bobby Gonzalez's watch was "wrong" which is an absolute falsehood. bobby received a 5 year extension in October of 2009 with a statement from the school to the public that they were pleased and happy with the direction the program was heading. Obviously this should tell you that the statement by Monsignor is dubious at best. Within the next few months after that extension, an administrator in the program by the name of Pat Hobbs got Bobby fired to cover-up some decisions that he made on his own. To cover up his wrongdoing, and for interests of self preservation, he put blame on Bobby. this all had to do with inner politics and nothing whatsoever to do with Bobby's biography. He did nothing wrong and does not deserve to have all of his success trashed in a few sentences in a living biography. The NIT game at the end of his career was one game in over 400 division one games Bobby coached. Does that seem fair to you? The last sentence re: NIT game and technical fouls was just a smokescreen for PR purposes. It is not factual biographical material. During the course of a basketball season, players do get chippy and get thrown out and coaches do get technicals. Part of the game and not anything to do with a biography. If you read the biographies of other coaches you don't see this kind of thing written. It's as though Bobby were singled out by someone deliberately out to demean. This is important as background : The program actually improved under Gonzalez' watch, rose in the standings every year and rose in the win column every year. His record tells the truth. Seton Hall also fired the women's coach, the track coach, the AD and Sheeran stepped down. And Hobbs is about to step down. Bobby got railroaded and the people behind it, a couple of reporters with an agenda, set out to ruin him. they've also used Wikipedia to this aim. All that you have on that is opinion, and poor opinion at that. It is the subject of a legal issue behind the scenes as are the NYT stories by Pete Thamel whose credibility is a serious question. I understand there are likely privacy concerns but we would like to trace the origin of the Wikipedia article that ended up being so disparaging. The only reference to the firing should be this: that the school decided to go in a different direction due to longstanding disagreements between the coach and the athletic director. As for the mall incident: that is being expunged and therefore should not be written anywhere. I can contribute biographical material that you should have from his actual biography. I would ask you to add,Gonzalez, came to Seton Hall after a tremendous seven year run as the head coach of Manhattan college. He led the Jaspers to four 20 win seasons and two NCAA Tournaments. His team won the MAAC regular season championship three times and a tournament title twice. Gonzalez received numerous accolades, being named NABC District 2, USBWA and NYBCA Division One Coach of the Year as well as Metropolitan Coach of the Year two years running. Gonzalez served as an assistant coach for the Gold Medal winning 22 and under United States team of the World University Games held in Turkey in 2005.Gonzalez served as a member of the NCAA ethics Committee and as a television and radio analyst for the NCAA Tournament and NBA Draft. We are very anxious to have this corrected. Thank you so much for your time. Cannot figure out how to sign this. Linda Gonzalez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindag3333 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bobby_Gonzalez" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindag3333 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

- this just looks like a wall of unfathomable text. Please state any specific
Off2riorob (talk
) 20:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As regards "tracing the origin of the wikipedia article", if you're really serious then the article history is about as close as you will get. --

talk

) 18:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Virender Carro

Resolved

– new users statement about himself

I am Virender Carro belongs to Village Jheel Teshil Narwana in Distt. Jind Haryana . My father is a farmer & My mother is house wife. All land of our village is agriculture land. At least I am working in Gurgaon in a manufacturing Unit.

Our village is situated 3 k.M stone from N.H.71 & 1 K.M Stone Delhi- Jakhal Railway Crossing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virender Carro (talk • contribs) 11:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that, if I was you I would not post personal details about yourself on wikipedia without good reason. I have left you a menu of helpful links to help you enjoy your editing here.

Off2riorob (talk

) 12:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The exonerated landlord in Murder of Joanna Yeates

The landlord was a suspect in the murder and has now been cleared. I think this means we should not discuss him at all. An earlier version contains extensive recounting of his arrest etc. The whole episode has been damaging for Jeffries, in ways readily apparent in the (now deleted) text -- and I think it is highly plausible that having the whole thing spelled out in Wikipedia only exacerbates it. I really believe it would be appropriate for the article to not mention him at all (and have removed the material in question).

There is a question of whether we can write about him per

WP:NPF

. NPF says, include material relevant to someone's notability. However: if someone is notable, then they get their own article; if Jeffries is not notable enough for his own article, then he's not notable. NPF is about whether relatively unknown people should have their own article, and "include only material relevant to their notability" does not amount to license to write about non-notable people. Jeffries is not notable, and we shouldn't be writing about him.

Discussion under way here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

All the information doesnt need to be restored but it certainly needs a mention in the article. Chris Jeffries is wether we like it or not part of this Joanna Yeates story. To not mentioning him at all is to basically censor an article.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity has made a fundamental misinterpretation of

WP:NPF. It certainly does not say that someone who is not notable enough for a biography must not be mentioned in any other article. For an example of how such a rule would wreak havoc and make articles incomprehensible, think of Gillian Duffy. Sam Blacketer (talk

) 17:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes after following the discussion both here and on the articles talk page I would Support a full restoring of the material removed about Chris Jeffries.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The coverage of this person in the article imo was excessive and we should seek consensus for a trimmed down addition. This discussion is now going on at two locations which is never a good thing. We should perhaps continue in only one?

Off2riorob (talk

) 17:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes agreed. Any further comments on this particular discussion, please make them on the articles Talk page.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Kamala (herbalist)

Resolved

–

WP:A7

: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)

I am the subject of the page Kamala (herbalist). I did not write this page. There are many bits of erroneous information, as well as inaccurate information there. The worst part is the title of the page. I do not advertise myself as an herbalist, as I stopped selling any herbs for internal consumption in January of 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KamalaDana (talk • contribs) 17:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What title is more correct

Off2riorob (talk

) 18:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ariana Grande

On this article for some time IP or new editors have been changing this girls surname to Butera. I have googled her and found this may be her real surname. 59 Results But a search for Ariana Grande yields 1,600,000 results What is the course of action in a situation such as this? Tentontunic (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

On her website here she is stating her full name is

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless a rock-solid reliable source verifies the name, the addition should simply be reverted as OR. It looks like a couple of people have searched for sources (I didn't) and found nothing other than a few mentions (which might be echoes of each other). That demonstrates that the information is not of encyclopedic value, and should be omitted even if plausibly true. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Diane Zak

The Diane Zak page seems to have been heavily vandalized and contains material that seems extremely libelous. She apparently is a real person. There seems to be vandalism layered on vandalism and it's not clear to me there is a resolution short of total or near-total removal of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreykegler (talk • contribs) 00:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Last unvandalized rev might be that of 02:10, 6 December 2010.--Jeffreykegler (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I stubbed it and then

proposed it for deletion as she does not seem to meet our notability requirements. The article creator has retired from Wikipedia and it seems as if no-one else was watching for a while. Jonathanwallace (talk

) 00:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've semiprotected the article in light of the serious BLP vandalism from IPs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox redirected by AfD

WP:UNDUE text in other articles about her; hence, a bio page is the only method to ensure NPOV coverage, with space to allow numerous sources. Wikipedia should not be seen as a place where only gun-toting psychos, who police kept releasing, get bio pages. We need to overturn the prior AfD's. Thank you for considering this. -Wikid77 (talk

) 14:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Should be article. World famous.
talk
) 14:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

world famous isn't covered in wiki policy. The AFD discussion makes interesting reading, nothing has changed and she is still a
Off2riorob (talk
) 15:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Off2riorob. Her notability is for a single event: her involvement in the Meredith Kercher murder, which has its own article. If more needs to be said about her, the biographical section about her in that article could be expanded, although in fact it has actually been slimmed-down. This might have been for many reasons, but for myself, I thought it was a good idea for the following reason. If a biography focused only on the positive things that have been said about her (hard-working, guitar-playing, etc), that would be a distortion of the full range of sources, some of which cover her sex life, drug-taking and quite negative images of her. However, I believe that if we included all this negative stuff, it is potentially prejudicial to the ongoing legal process. So do we write a rose coloured spectacled biography that is an idealised view, or do we reflect the balance of views in all the sources and risk prejudicing a legal process? My view is that we do neither and stick to a few basic facts about her background, then focus on the event which is the only notable thing about her: the murder. And the place for that is the existing murder article. Bluewave (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Prior AfDs are overturned at
WP:DRV. And as previously advised, the best way to go about that is to build a userspace draft that addresses the concerns of the previous deletion discussion, and ask for recreation at the DRV. Suggest closing this. MLauba ^(Talk
) 16:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum - The same philosophical issues were discussed over more than 2 months at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 27#Amanda Knox -the recommendation to close also stems from a concern that at this stage a theoretical debate on that exact question here will lead to similar fruitless exchanges. A userspace draft at least provides concrete material to discuss. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your advisory statement.
Off2riorob (talk
) 16:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Addendum for draft bio page - While the notion of taking time to create a draft bio page (as a userspace draft) might sound like "concrete material to discuss", instead, what happens here, in the real world, is (...wait for it...): a draft article gets hacked and slanted and POV-pushed and pre-censored and edit-warred and
WP:DRV), and I have contacted the AfD-closing admin in preparation for WP:DRV. Knox has replied about the controversial film premiere, a 2nd event about her, and is charged with criminal slander for a May/June 2011 courtcase (3rd event). Hence, expect extensive talk at WP:DRV. -Wikid77
17:03, revised 20:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Bio Page Necessary - A bio page for Amanda Knox is necessary, and that we don't have one is a gaping hole in Wikipedia. The BLP1E concerns are completely unfounded for several reasons: WP policy regarding a person who is notable because of one crime is that they generally shouldn't get their own article if both the following are true: 1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event; AND 2. The person remains OR is likely to remain, a low profile individual. Seeing as it is 3 years after the crime and Knox is still featured prominently in the news, Knox is the subject of countless articles, Knox is the subject a few books, and Knox is the subject of an recent TV movie (The Amanda Knox Story), the second prong of the test cannot be satisfied. Not only is she high profile, but she looks to remain high profile for the foreseeable future. (I would also argue that the first prong is not met, but that is unnecessary.) Furthermore, arguments for one article for the crime and each person involved in the crime don't hold water. First of all, in most cases where there is one article for the crime and for the people involved, there is only one or two perpetrators (less division of the biographical content of the article), many victims (meaning none of the victims are covered in a biographical way (therefore, less division of biographical content) and the perpetrators remained in the news for a short time. This case is far different. Furthermore, many crimes/perpetrators have BLP type articles despite being less notable than Knox or having committed crimes which are more easily pushed into a single article. For example, the Menendez brothers (the article spends time introducing their early life and education, and about 33% of the article deals with their lives after the trials/appeals), the DC sniper crimes (each of the individuals get their own biographies), and the Manson family. The Columbine killers got their own biographical article and there is a columbine massacre article. Ditto for the Virgina Tech shooting guy. Ditto for the Amish school killer. Ditto for Karesh. The Winnendon and Jokela shootings articles have more biographical information than they do information about the crimes. We have a case here were common sense, WP policy, and past practice all dictate that Knox should have her own article

While I agree with Wikid77 on the necessity of a Knox article, his proposal doesn't look completely NPOV or complete. I would suggest that the article look something like this:

I would imagine that an Amanda Knox article would be similar to the biographies which currently exist about her in books and tv shows/movies. While I am just learning about her now, I would guess the article would go something like this:

Lede

Early Life, education, etc.

Murder of Meredith Kercher. This would be a summarized version of the first half of he MoMK article.

Appeals and other Court Cases. Self explanatory.

Portrayal in Media. A survey of how the media has portrayed Knox in the Press. Perhaps there would be different Italy, UK, US, and RoW sections

Public reaction to Knox. The disparate and differing opinions/camps regarding Knox.

Portrayal in Popular Culture. This could also include references to the biographies, books, TV shows, and films about Knox.

For people who argue that we should create an article first and then ask for a new page, that seems like a waste of time unless there is some indication that people will actually let a Knox article exist. Currently it seems like people have such a personal hatred for Knox that they would ignore WP policies to ensure that a "sociopathic killer" does not get more prominent coverage on Wikipedia than an innocent victim, despite the fact that the news continues to cover Knox at least 10 times more than Kercher (and probably closer to 100 times more). We should not be arguing the merit of the individuals, but the correct application of WP policy and how WP can best serve its readers. "Amanda Knox" gets far more page views than Guede, Kercher, Solecito and anyone else involved in the murder combined. That readers are deprived of a biographical article about Knox is a failure of WP.LedRush (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I would Support a bio page for Amanda Knox. She has with the latest film about her becomed notable on her own.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The page should try to explain her later behavior. This is what people are interested in. Biographical details should concentrate on what lead an ordinary girl to becoming a murderer. QuentinUK (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy St. Louis

Jeremy St. Louis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone keeps making libelous remarks about Mr. St. Louis' married life. I, and others, have removed the offensive comments several times, but this same (apparently) person revokes the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.139.47 (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The content is not in the article right now. I will add it to my watchlist. If the IP keeps reverting, it may be worth listing it at
WP:articles for protection as semi-protection would ban any IP editing. Also, the guy does not seem very notable to me. We don't usually keep bios of reporters who just do their jobs, unless they become newsworthy in some other way. Jonathanwallace (talk
) 21:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The IP was reverting even as I posted this. I placed a welcome/warning on his user talk page. If he keeps this up, he will have soon committed a
three revert rule violation so we can apply for that remedy as well. Jonathanwallace (talk
) 22:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Semi-protected by User:Cirt for 3 months. (Article is badly lacking sources, only one of the citations actually mentions him.) January (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I see some third party coverage, interviews with him etc. so decided a PROD was not warranted. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ashley Farrugia

Resolved

Ashley Farrugia has developed substantial businesses in the Automotive, Auto LPG, Franchising and Internet industries. He established LPGAS1 Franchising 2005 which was one of the largest Vehicle LPG converting companies in Australia. He now Operates various successful online Businesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.118.125 (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this is not the noticeboard to request article creation, you could try
Off2riorob (talk
) 09:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest

Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am convinced editor Parishan has removed a huge part of this article for political reasons (including the biography of winner Vladimir Arzumanyan). The part of the article removed are about Azerbaijan and Armenia while Parishan is mostly Pro-Azerbaijan he also removed the content I believe because it wasnt something that he personally liked. Well sourced article part just look here, I tried to convince the user Parishan that a third party opinion was needed but it only resulted in my being met with patronising and hostile comments from parishan.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The winner seems to have their own article (stub) here -
Off2riorob (talk
) 18:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I am aware of that. I only brought that up to justify this articles inclusion in this noticeboard. You see my reasons below for why this information should be restored.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

8th Junior Eurovision Contest (2010)

On November 21, 2010, Vladimir Arzumanyan from Nagorno-Karabakh won the first place for Armenia in the 8th Junior Eurovision Song Contest held in Minsk. According to Armenian news reports, Azerbaijani media interrupted the broadcast of the event as it became apparent that Armenia had won.

-http://news.am/eng/news/38887.html

- http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/culture/news/57089/Azerbaijan_does_not_endure_victory_of_Vladimir_Arzumanyan_at_2010_Junior_Eurovision

However Tahir Mammadov, representative of Azerbaijan's public broadcaster
ITV
, stated that due to Azerbaijan not participating in the contest, the channel did not broadcast the event altogether.

- http://www.eurovision.org.ru/news/pobeda_armenii_na_evrovidenii_v_minske_sprovocirovala_skandal_v_internete/2010-11-22-5443

- http://www.hafta-ichi.com/v4/2010/11/23/online=277

Yeah but obviously many Armenian user with knowledge about the language added these sources. And as I understand it non-english sources atleast weighs higher than no sources at all. We have to assume good faith for these sources until someone find english sourcing contradicting this information. Also other Azeri users with knowledge of the Armenian language havent removed the information. If you see my point. I suggest it be restored. Cheers;)--BabbaQ (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it looks harmless enough to me, and has a little rebuttal. Perhaps another local speaker can weigh in with an interpretation as regards notability. I am not seeing anything contentious in the content, perhaps attribute it to the sources more specifically.
Off2riorob (talk
) 18:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Then please add the content back. Would be appreciated. Then a more "local" user can be approached to evaluate the content in its place. I agree with you the information isnt contentious. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It would be good prior to replacing to get the approval or some comment from the user that was removing it, would you leave him a link to this discussion.
Off2riorob (talk
) 22:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the user has already made clear that he is not willing to compromize even an inch, so im not very hopeful for any meaningful compromize but I have notified the user. We dont need approval, but sure a comment on his/hers side of the argument and from that you or someone else will decide what to do.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Now its up to you to give this dispute a senseful resolution. It has already been pinned out that there is no real reason to not restore the article. And as I told you on your talk page I will not interact with the user in question. That has proved pointless.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Well lets see, I have left him a note to see if he has a comment to make and if he still objects to the content.
Off2riorob (talk
) 22:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP is particularly relevant to this dispute. It isn't cited as a reason for removing the paragraph. It seems to be more an accuracy dispute over whether the Azerbaijani TV ever broadcast the show, or showed the start but removed it when the winner became obvious. I would note that the story bears a striking similarity to the way that Jordanian TV removed the broadcast of the main Grand Prix Eurovision in 1978 when it became obvious that Israel was going to win, although that doesn't mean it didn't happen again. Sam Blacketer (talk
) 10:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you Sam, also user CT Cooper agrees that the content should be restored.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The content has now been restored per the consensus reached. Dispute resolved.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card

Orson Scott Card (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm very inexperienced at Wikipedia protocol but am currently involved in an edit war with a much more experienced user who keeps removing information about Orson Scott Card's anti-gay activism. Here is the section as I wrote it (please excuse my noobish formatting):

Card is zealously opposed to any tolerance for homosexuality.[16] In 1990, in an article entitled "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality," Card wrote favorably of preserving his state's laws criminalizing same-sex intercourse even between consenting adults - a law which, at the time, made any homosexual act a crime punishable by up to six months' imprisonment and a fine of $1,000: "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."[17]In 2006, one day before the 2006 midterm elections in the United States, Card wrote an opinion piece for RealClearPolitics, in which he (while being a Democrat) encouraged voters to support the Republicans in order to prevent homosexuality from being tolerated.[18] In the same article he threatened he would attempt to overthrow any government that recognized same-sex marriage, saying "Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn."[19] In 2009, Card became a member of the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage, a group that seeks to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage. [20]

And here is the section after the edit he keeps making:

In 2006, one day before the 2006 midterm elections in the United States, Card wrote an opinion piece for RealClearPolitics, in which he (while being a Democrat) encouraged voters to support the Republicans.[16] In the same article he voiced strong condemnation of any government that recognized gay marriage stating, "Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition..." In 2009, Card became a member of the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage, a group that seeks to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage. [17]

All mention of Card's advocacy for the criminalization of homosexuality has been deleted, and the quote about same-sex marriage has been cut to omit the vow Card made about destroying any government that sanctions it. The user is also renaming the section from "Anti-Gay Advocacy" to simply "Politics", which fails to be accurate since the only thing mentioned under the heading is LGBT rights, and because the very next section, "Environment and science", also deals with Card's political activism. The user (ResidentAnthropologist) has been making similar edits to the
WP:OR
, but will not explain how. He does not respond to my questions on the discussion page, but just keeps undoing my edit, and has placed an intimidating warning on my talk page saying that my account will be blocked if I do the same.
What can I do? Card is a professional anti-gay activist, a director of a lobbying group who finances campaigns on a national scale, and it seems absurd to remove noteworthy information describing his stated positions from his entry.--Frellthat (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the discussion on the article talk page. My take is that the other user is incorrect in maintaining that quoting Card's blog for his views is
weight and other standards, is to inform, not to protect people against their own more problematic or difficult statements. Jonathanwallace (talk
) 22:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I believe the length and detail is warranted due to the extraordinary nature of Card's position. He says same-sex intercourse should be punishable by imprisonment. Surely no discussion of his position on LGBT rights could be complete if it failed to mention something like that. As Card is a director of a nationwide political organization which lobbies exclusively on the subject of LGBT rights, his views on LGBT rights must be firmly established, or the article fails to inform.--Frellthat (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Your desired addition had a couple of problems such as http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html , I not certain if this is a
Off2riorob (talk
) 22:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Visit his political website ww.ornery.org and use the internal search function to look up "homosexual". He has written about gay marriage and gay rights pretty much nonstop. This is not a question of cobbling together three quotes over thirty years. This guy is notable both for his science fiction and his political views. Although I agree with you the original paragraph gave undue weight compared to over-all article length, the result should not be to protect this guy against views he is proud to express on every possible occasion, to anyone who will listen. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect, how can it be
WP:undue? Card was not quote-mined - the quotes are provided merely to establish his position, which he's publicized in detail. AFAIK, he's not relented on anything. A person who says any government that recognizes same-sex marriage is his "mortal enemy" and must be "destroyed" is not the kind who is likely to change his mind - but if his position has changed, I'd certainly be happy to make appropriate changes to the entry.--Frellthat (talk
) 22:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, one of those articles was from 2009, so I don't think he has moved his position much if at all. I think a mid point might get consensus, a smaller less bold addition. I left the other user a talkpage note to this discussion.
Off2riorob (talk
) 23:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE
is a somehwat subjective standard, but arguably applied because your edit was five paragraphs in a thirty paragraph bio:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic....Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

I think we can find a solution where we can re-include some of your content while keeping it short. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there are several elements here I think need addressing "Card is zealously opposed to any tolerance for homosexuality." is pov statement that we should not even pretend is ok. The issue here is Cherry picking various statements to try and demonize card. I dont agree with his views in the slightest but I also recognize that we shouldnt be digging through his writing to create some
WP:NOR
we should be avoiding.

I dont think calling him zealot and "opposed to any tolerance for homosexuality." is within our best interest. I also think anti-gay advocate is incorrect terminology as well. These are fairly common views which may or may not be wrong though certainly disagree with them. Forgive me for not replying in under 2 hours to User:Frellthat statements on the talk page. I was editing between classes and was not "refusing to respond" in the two hours between Talk page posting and BLPN thread here. . I dont think any one either was uncontroversially removing
WP:COATRACK material from Westboro Baptist Church a "bad action" I am very proud of BLP work I do there and one in which Rob and I worked together on. As for the 3RR warning that is standard for all disputes where edit warring is occurring as any one here can tell you. I do not regret removing material I felt violated BLP and will continue to do so. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs
) 00:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I will respond to these points in no particular order: 1. The word "zealously" I will concede should be replaced by some other synonym without negative connotations, such as "emphatically". 2. I said you were not responding to my requests for discussion because, looking at your activity page, I could see that you were making numerous edits to other articles at the time, but were neglecting to respond to my request. I humbly suggest that if you have time to remove information, you should have time to explain why. 3. The heading title "Anti-Gay Advocacy" is certainly not a POV term. When one is advocating that gay behavior should be a criminal offense, one is anti-gay. The WBC page contains a heading called "Anti-Gay Picketing". Orson Scott Card, according to the same understanding of the term, performs anti-gay advocacy. 4. Same with "opposes tolerance of homosexuality". If you are suggesting something should be a criminal offense, you oppose tolerance of it. I consider this neutral and objective language. 5. The statements from Card were not chosen according to how inflammatory they are, but only to elucidate his positions on different LGBT rights issues. For one, he opposes marriage rights. For another, he opposes the right of same-sex couples to have consensual sex in their own homes. It is important to list these things in an article about him, because he is a director of a national political organization that lobbies exclusively on the subject of gay rights. It would not be fair to readers who come to the article and expect to learn about his political advocacy if we avoided accurately describing that advocacy for fear of causing him to be "villified".--Frellthat (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes indeed I made other edit as I always do, I apologize my editing on Wiki does not revolve around making edits at Orson Scott card bio. The article right now covers his affiliation with Nation marriage defense org and views neatley in two sentences. for the most part its irrealavent for the most part for his biography. If these views are notable and deserve more space then please provide secondary sourcing to support these views as important feature of his writings. You make it clear here that advocacy for the Gay-right position is more important than BLP. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Who said they had to be important features of his writings? This section is about his political advocacy, not his science fiction. I'm sure Mr. Card feels it's important - in fact, I think he's written somewhere that it's about the survival of civilization.--Frellthat (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Mhmm I am tlaking about his writings as whole. Essays and everthing The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 03:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Picking appropriate quotes from a source is not
synthesis so long as it is done with our other standards in view. Otherwise, the writing of any Wikipedia article would be an act of synthesis, except for those extremely rare ones in which we include a source in its entirety. Jonathanwallace (talk
) 00:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
but thats the problem here its not being done within our standards. Our own statement says
WP:PRIMARY "Do not ... evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Thats not going on here we are picking and choosing which views we find like or dislike and highlighting it in there. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs
) 00:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
That generic statement would apply to dense primary sources like census data, deposition transcripts, directories etc. It isn't meant to ban the use of an author's own essays as a source for his opinions. There is no requirement that if an author has written repeatedly "I believe X" we have to find a third party source to confirm he believes X. And again, when someone has been as clear and categorical as Card about his beliefs, there is no illegal synthesis involved in quoting him.Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I would consider volumes of essays, books, short stories "dense material." I agree to assert X believes X is fine generally. The issue here is We are not working with other policies like
WP:UNDUE We need to prove this excessive detail is necessary. Its minor thing in prolific writer career. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs
) 01:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it's irrelevant to his writing career, but why should the article just be about his writing career? I hardly think a few sentences about LGBT issues is an excessive amount of detail on a page about a political activist who works exclusively on LGBT-rights issues.--Frellthat (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How about LA Times, Salon and Wired for reliable sources? Card is "a bitter public foe of same-sex marriage", LA Times. "I'd somehow failed to ascertain that Card was a disgustingly outspoken homophobe..." from this Salon interview which quotes Card as saying, " Gay rights is a collective delusion that's being attempted. And the idea of 'gay marriage' -- it's hard to find a ridiculous enough comparison." Also: "The homosexuals that I've known well, I have found none who were actually made happier by performing homosexual acts. Or by withdrawing, which is what they do, from the mainline of human life. The separation is there and is, in fact, celebrated within the homosexual community." Here's a comment from Wired: " Orson Scott Card has written a strongly anti-gay screed that goes so far as to propose active rebellion to ensure that marriage is legally defined to his liking. Like many others who have read his diatribe, I am utterly repulsed by his words, to the point that they have drastically altered my perception of him as a person, and yes, to some extent, as an author." Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "Its minor thing in prolific writer career"--He's written numerous essays on his own web site and elsewhere about homosexual marriage and rights, discussed it in interviews with mainstream media, joined the board of the National Organization for Marriage....Not a minor side note but a major focus of his for the last few years. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not opposed to such material in the article and the article covers it as is. I just to go into
excessive detail. We should give it appropriate weight and right now I think it has personally. He has also written many other things that are not about homosexuality as well. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs
) 02:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The article doesn't cover it as is. You removed any mention of his advocacy for the criminalization of same-sex intercourse, and the fact that he urged open rebellion and vowed to destroy any government that recognized same-sex marriage. Those quotes put the earlier views into context and show the depth of his convictions to be anything but trivial.--Frellthat (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologise that I did not read the entire discussion so this point may have already been made. However someone above mentioned his blog should be allowed as it's an SPS. This may not apply here but I feel I should point out we generally avoid solely using blogs to describe someone's POVs. While there may be no question the person said it, there remains the question of relevence. If someone has a blog, they've probably written a lot of things. We as editors should generally refrain from deciding for ourselves which of those things matter and which of them don't. The way we can avoid this is by relying on other sources which have picked up what a person said to decide for us if those things they've said matter. (In some cases particularly controversial political commentators even this isn't enough since there's so much stuff they say which is picked up my some source.) The fact that someone has written about it a lot doesn't guarantee it really matters. Particularly for someone who is highly notable which many sources discussing them, it seems unlikely that no other sources would have picked up important details about them. So if it's the case that no other sources have picked up what they've said even if they've said it many times, then we can presume they feel it doesn't matter and it's ultimately not for us to disagree with said sources judgement on what matters about the person. Just to emphasise I'm not saying we should exclude the material, there may be other sources, just explaining the fact it's sourced to the person's blog doesn't mean it's okay to include. P.S. Another point, if it's true Card is being paid for his activism as alleged by the OP in the first posts, this creates another dimension. Is there any actual evidence for this? Directors of non profits and advocacy organisations are often unpaid AFAIK. If there isn't evidence then I suggest the claim not be repeated. (Or if the OP didn't intend to imply Card was being paid for his activism I suggest they avoid the term professional which when used in a context like the OPs usually implies the person is being paid.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(
Off2riorob (talk
) 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I greatly disagree. This guy has been on a campaign for years. His essays in his blog are not casual but constant, he's a director of an activist organization, has written for other publications and discussed his views with interviewers. Secondary sources--LA Times, Wired and Salon--also exist; I cited them above. But to say we can't quote an author's web site or blog for his own opinion because its a primary source elevates form over substance to the nth degree. The mental operation in choosing a quote is not forbidden
neutrality violation) to protect people against their own unpleasant or embarrassing utterances--even people like Card who don't want the protection and are happy to express their opinions to anyone who will listen. Jonathanwallace (talk
) 18:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
This is not about his blog anyway. Nothing I referenced in my original edit came from a blog. His essays regarding gay rights were all published in different journals. The one in which he advocated the outright criminalization of same-sex intercourse and basically said that gays have no rights whatsoever ("Hypocrites of Homosexuality") was first published in Sunstone (magazine), a Mormon publication. Can you tell me why it should not be used?----Frellthat (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Good point, I don't know how this turned into a blog discussion. However (and now somewhat off topic) I wanted to remind everyone that
WP:BLPPRIMARY clearly authorizes the use of self published material so long as it isn't unduly self serving or doesn't contain assertions about third parties. Jonathanwallace (talk
) 19:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding ResidentAnthropologist's "excessive detail" claim - I wonder if he has considered how the average LGBT reader feels when he is forced to learn from some other website that Card wants his very existence to be illegal, and that Wikipedia acted to conceal that information from him because one of its editors thought it was an "excessive detail"? Card is one of the directors of NOM, a group that constantly claims that they are not against gays, but just against "redefining marriage". But the stated opinions of their own board members show that they will not stop at marriage, that they only use the marriage issue to conceal what they really want, which is the banning of gays from adoption, military service, teaching, etc., and eventually the re-criminalization of same-sex intercourse itself. If we omit those stated positions because they're "excessive detail", Wikipedia will be contributing to that deception.----Frellthat (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It is unencyclopedic to exclude such reliably sourced information, as Wikipedia readers do not get a neutral overview of the individual. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I accept that the subject clearly does not support same sex marriage and such like - but I request again - please provide independent reliable secondary reports that discuss this about the subject so as I can assess the situation and any desired addition. As not a single one so far has been presented here so far I am left presently left in doubt about any independent notability about this and if you want to only primarily blog support it then I couldn't support more than a simple single comment.
Off2riorob (talk
) 21:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Card, Orson Scott. “The Hypocrites of Homosexuality.” Sunstone. Nauvoo. 1990. Latter-day Saints. 30 Mar. 2009 <http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html>--Frellthat (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the problem with the arguments for the full addition: The article is about Orson Scott Card, not LGBT issues. It needs to be appropriately weighted in the context of Orson Scott Card's life, not LGBT concerns. I've dealt with similar problems with quotefarming before (lately from Glenn Beck fans a lot). Quotes should be selected (if used at all) based on reliable sources, not chosen from his blog based on a WP editor's opinions. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Once again, the quote I added did not come from his blog - It came from an article written by Card, which was first published in Sunstone Magazine. As for needing appropriate weight, I'm sure there's plenty of information that could be added to the rest of the article to restore any imbalance that might be caused by the addition of a few sentences about his anti-gay advocacy (which occupies a large part of his life). Advocating for the criminalization of same-sex intercourse is a major policy issue - it's hardly quotefarming, under a section about Card's anti-gay advocacy, to mention it and source it with a direct quote. Card is such an active opponent of LGBT rights that the subject quite frankly deserves much greater attention than I'm proposing.--Frellthat (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Rob, did you not read my post above, or are you disagreeing these are reliable sources? I quoted LA Times, Wired and Salon. Here is the post again for anyone who missed it:

How about LA Times, Salon and Wired for reliable sources? Card is "a bitter public foe of same-sex marriage", LA Times. "I'd somehow failed to ascertain that Card was a disgustingly outspoken homophobe..." from this Salon interview which quotes Card as saying, " Gay rights is a collective delusion that's being attempted. And the idea of 'gay marriage' -- it's hard to find a ridiculous enough comparison." Also: "The homosexuals that I've known well, I have found none who were actually made happier by performing homosexual acts. Or by withdrawing, which is what they do, from the mainline of human life. The separation is there and is, in fact, celebrated within the homosexual community." Here's a comment from Wired: " Orson Scott Card has written a strongly anti-gay screed that goes so far as to propose active rebellion to ensure that marriage is legally defined to his liking. Like many others who have read his diatribe, I am utterly repulsed by his words, to the point that they have drastically altered my perception of him as a person, and yes, to some extent, as an author."

Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Jonathon, thanks for the links , please can you attempt to present them clearer and also clearly present the content you desire to include and use them to add specific content to the BLP. Un specifally presented I am unable to use them verify any desired addition.
Off2riorob (talk
) 00:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that this fact bothers people, but this is not a widely-reported bit of information about Card. It is reported, but not as widely as his writing career by a long shot. It is not WP's job to "get out the word", only do our best to reasonably place it within the context of the sources and his life. I resist heavy quoting, as it's often poor form for an encyclopedia, and my experience has lead me to the conclusion that it is often a symptom of POV pushing by padding the section and selecting the most outrageous quotes possible. Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 23:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I would actually disagree with your assessment that this is less widely reported than his science fiction writings. Card writes a weekly column for the Mormon Times which deals with religious and political issues. Search their website and you will find dozens, if not hundreds, of essays. For over two decades, he has written consistently against LGBT rights. I would guess that by now, his political writings might just outweigh his science fiction in total volume.

What, specifically, are you against including? Is it just the quote from Sunstone, or any mention of Card advocating the criminalization of same-sex relationships? If it's the former, I selected that quote because it illustrates his position about LGBT rights. The fact that it is an outrageous position to most people should not be grounds for excluding it. Card is a political activist and we have a responsibility to provide an objective overview of his advocacy, not merely the parts of it that are politically acceptable. This is a major issue, and I strongly believe that a section about Card's anti-gay advocacy would fail to provide an accurate and neutral description of the subject if it neglected to mention that he has written favorably of making same-sex intercourse a crime.--Frellthat (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Jett

Joseph Jett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(posting a request put in an
{{adminhelp}} on User talk:Manway#Concern about a biographical article Chzz  ►
03:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Concern about a biographical article
{{adminhelp}} I have a concern about a biographical article Joseph Jett. Apparently the subject of the article has changed it in the past, removing criticisms. Now tonight, USER:Comix03072011 signs up at 19:17 hours and at 19:21 starts a string of 31 edits to the Jett article in 7 hours. Quite a few of those changes take out criticism of Jett and replace it with glowing reports. Am I seeing things or is this unusual? Thanks for a second look. --Manway (talk
) 03:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like Manway has edited the additions back to a more correct guideline compliant position. If it is a repeat pattern you could request
Off2riorob (talk
) 09:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor is back. I cannot figure out how to request pending changes. I'm getting close to a 3RR situation here. Sockpuppets confirmed in this case. --Manway (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppets confirmed. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Comix03072011. --Manway (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

- comments from User:Relief03082011

Hello, A friend and I did a paper for black history month on Wall Street and the African-American experience. We had the opportunity of having one of the subjects, Joseph Jett, detail his Wall Street experience concentrating on the impact of new media on business. Wikipedia, Facebook and Twitter were main items. Reginald Lewis, the other financier, did not speak as he is dead. My friend and I took the publicly sourced material from magazines such as Barron's, The New York Observer and yeah the Harvard Crimson and used it to add to the timeline on the Jett article and included issues related to race. We also used documents published by the SEC to create a table on their conviction rates. We included references to every addition that we made. We removed one citation about a 2009 SEC investigation as we called the SEC and they had no knowledge of the investigation having taken place nor were any references cited. Now, simply because the facts we present disagree with someone else's desire for what the facts should be, he has sent a letter addressing us apparently to convey derogatory sentiment as Mr. Jett. Mr. Jett in his talk spoke about his 3 year battle to have Wikipedia remove defamatory information from this page. What is going on here? If someone is going to remove any addition it should be for a reason of improper references or attribution. We did a lot of work and the additions we made are indeed scholarly. As I posted, if you look at the archive you will see that this "everyone posting a favorable remark must be Mr. Jett" is way overused and this page clearly had a negative intent as Jett asserted and as Wikipedia's legal team agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relief03082011 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I received a message from the fellow who removed our additions to the Joseph Jett page. I include it here in hopes that you will actually look at what was added, what was deleted and the references used and the fact that the SEC was contacted regarding the unreferenced post which was the only one that Comix deleted. And of course we have the same IP address we are sitting two feet apart. Dear Manway, I notice from all the comments that anyone posting a favorable article must be Mr. Jett. Please do not be juvenile. I filed a complaint with the biography of living persons as to our edits. We fleshed out the Jett article from properly referenced major newspapers and magazines after a black history month look at black pioneers on Wall Street. I do not understand your beef. The article championed the SEC without noting that the SEC has a 94% conviction ratio. Is that not pertinent information? We sourced the SEC report so how can there be criticism of that. Jett's color certainly played a roll in this affair. We cited from major newspaper articles about the impact of race. You say that this is not scholarly? We added that GE own NBC and did a story on Law & Order based on Jett. AGain what is your issue with this? We used IMDB as the source. The media power of GE certainly played a role in the Jett case. How is this not a pertinent addition? You should not have the right to remove anything that does not support your particular bias. We certainly did not. We did talk to the SEC. They knew nothing of a 2009 SEC investigation, but did send us to their website for the conviction ratio table. Since the 2009 SEC investigation had no reference cited and the SEC knew nothing we removed it. How is this not scholarly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relief03082011 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

- note - the BLP has been semi-protected by
Off2riorob (talk
) 20:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Christian Brando

Christian Brando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This report concerns a possible BLP violation in the article Christian Brando regarding his mother, Anna Kashfi, who is living. It's about a quote attributed to author Nellie Bly that contains an allegation of child neglect. I haven't supplied a diff for technical reasons relating to the Wiki Edit app I'm using.
The problem is that the quote is not cited. Although Nellie Bly did write a biography of Brando, the quote is not cited to the book, and the book is obscure enough that I can't find it locally. An accusation of child neglect is serious enough that I'm not sure it should stand without clear and specific attribution as long as Anna Kashfi is living. Could I get advice as to whether this should be stripped? I'm not familiar enough with current BLP practice to be certain.
Please note that I am not associated with the author Nellie Bly; the similarity between her name and my nom is coincidental. --
talk
) 03:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily good sourcing. I've removed various statements from that section. Some of it might be suitable to go back in if more information from and about the book turns up, or if other sources are found. Some of the remaining material is still only sourced to "crimelibrary.com" which I don't imagine is the best of sources. (If Christian were still alive then I'd be tempted to remove links to a site which lists him as one of "notorious murderers" when he was actually only convicted of manslaughter.) --
talk
) 07:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Omid Safi

Omid Safi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some extra eyes on the Omid Safi article may be required. I removed this section which contained what looks to me like contentious material sourced to a blog. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of contentious material about a third party under
WP:SPS. I watchlisted the article. Jonathanwallace (talk
) 11:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, support removal and watchlisted.
Off2riorob (talk
) 14:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Jules Dervaes: eyes welcome

Jules Dervaes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There's some serious edit-warring going on in this article the last few weeks over a plagiarism allegation (without proper sourcing), and I wouldn't be surprised if there's two drawers full of socks active. Anyway, the subject is a BLP, and the accusations are violations of our policy. Your attention and analysis is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put it on my watchlist and commented on the talk page of the latest editor. The article
talk
) 10:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Aron Ralston

Aron Ralston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aron Ralston is not the first person to climb all of Colorado's 14ers in winter. He is the third. The first is Tom Mereness. The second is Jim Bock. I believe this can be verified by the American Mountaineering Club and/or Colorado Mountain Club. I doubt Aron makes this claim about himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cammisa (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well... this noticeboard isn't really here to referee this sort of thing, but having looked at the three sources cited for this statement, I am beginning to agree with you. One claims to be written by Aron himself (and thus is not an independent source for this article) and the other two just point to sites about the mountains, without mentioning Aron (or any other mountaineer) on the page linked.

Perhaps you (or someone else with an interest in the topic) could make it easier for us, by checking the two sites linked and giving us a deeper link to the page where it lists the first-people-to-do-this ? Or in fact any other source that says who was the first person to do this? --
talk
) 20:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to this article in the Aspen Times Ralston was the first to do this solo, Tom Merrenes was the first overall but not as a solo project. Ralston's article does specify solo, but perhaps it needs to be reworded to make this clearer. If you disagree I would suggest discussing this at the article's talk page. January (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks January, looks like you are 100% correct there. Please could everyone discuss the details of this at the
talk
) 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Aaron H. Thomas

Aaron H. Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
I remember during the
Aaron H. Thomas per the charges filed against him. Is this a concern?--v/r - T P
22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

He shouldn't have his own bio.
WP:Coatrack. Jonathanwallace (talk
) 22:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
An IP merged
WP:PERP recommends caution in creating articles about people who have not been convicted, in any case there doesn't seem to be scope for two separate articles covering this. January (talk
) 22:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

-
Off2riorob (talk
) 22:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tericka Dye

Tericka Dye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is very sensitive; I may be entering into a small edit war with a user who insists on using blogs and FOX news as citations. I'd appreciate some eyes and some extra opinions, if appropriate. Relevant discussion is at User_talk:Brittany_Cintron#Revert. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 23:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, so the edit war is mostly resolved, but extra eyes are still appreciated; expect this is attract attention in the next few days. /ƒETCH COMMS / 23:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Ruth Westheimer

Ruth Westheimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It is stated that Dr. Ruth Westheimer started her studies at the U. in Paris in 1950--and then she was teaching psychology at the University of Paris, befoe she emograted in 1956. It is NONSENSE. No student can teach at a university in Europe--there is no system of Teaching Assistants. She never finished graduate school there. She started Graduate School at the New School of Social Research, in New York City (I was there myself--so I know it as a fact.) She tried but failed to receive a Ph.D. there as her thesis was rejected. She moved on and got an Educ.PhD somehere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.238.59 (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Wikipedia articles of necessity must be based on
reliable sources such as newspapers and books, and not on personal information or recollections of individuals, as we have no way of judging their accuracy. Based on your information, some of the editors here will certainly review the biographical information in the article.Jonathanwallace (talk
) 06:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Friendly Fire Incident

Paulioetc and an IP sock are continuing to edit multiple articles, to add a claim that a British Forward Air Controllerd (FAC) faced manslaughter charges as a result of a friendly fire incident in Afghanisation. This is based on an old report in the Daily Mail [3]. That information is seriously out of date, no charges were ever brought, the subsequent investigation cleared the FAC and the coroner found no individual to blame see [4].
Articles involved:
List of post-1945 U.S. friendly-fire incidents with British victims

SPI Check: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc‎
As the FAC is still alive, this appears to be a BLP violation to me. I have deliberately avoided naming the individual, though his name is in the public domain and a simple google search will find it. Note:
Talk:List of post-1945 U.S. friendly-fire incidents with British victims for attempts to engage the guy in talk, he routinely ignores and deletes any warning template. Wee Curry Monster talk
12:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

- User:Paulioetc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

- User:67.164.105.159 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The above also now also seems to be using the ID below, and is continuing to ascribe the initial error to the FAC, which is contrary to the cited sources. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

- User:JamesHawks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jay Marvin

Jay Marvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It would appear from the edit summary in this edit (which should probably be revdel'd?) that (alleged) subject contacted helpers in IRC with concerns about this article. (I was not present for that discussion).
Due to significant concerns over unreferenced controversial BLP material, I have removed most of the article with this edit.
I hope that was the right thing to do. Chzz  ► 20:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

While some of the writing you removed had neutrality problems, not sure why you needed to stub it down so far as to eliminate inoffensive content like "He began his radio career in 1973 as a country music DJ at KWMC in Del Rio, Texas", as opposed to just adding a "citation needed" template. There seem to be reliable sources out there from which details can be confirmed. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair point; there were some bits that could have been kept - and I was going to revisit it; however, since then, others have been editing and some info has been added back. It also may have been listed at AfD,
reliable source. But anyway, the AfD would now be the best place to discuss it. Cheers, Chzz  ►
00:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob (talk
) 14:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

WIKI on NAS

Resolved
– I left you a template of handy links, this is article update or improvement and not a BLP issue

Nas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
When viewing your entry on the rap artist NAS, your failed to mention what I think is an added factoid.
I only first heard of this rap artist when I viewed an Indi movie from a British source called "Fish Tank" a very highly rated story of a teen girl's 'coming of age' living in the council flat apartments in England that received much praise. The main character sought her way out of her miserable existance with a 'loose' drunk whoring single mother and younger sister by teaching herself hip hop dancing. She used the NAS song " Life's a Bitch" throughout the movie during her dance practice and especially in the emotional ending, when she found her way out; they played the same song and her mother, sensing her daughters' talent, accomplishments and bittersweet happiness about her 'getting out' started dancing with her daughter in the ending scene. And they were bonding due to the song 'life was a bitch for them'. Even the younger sister joined in. The song was SO RIGHT for this movie and I had to read the credits at the end to see what the song was and who performed it.
This was the first time I ever heard of NAS, being an american woman and only knowing and liking the mainstream rap artists. Needless to say this song is on my IPOD now. Try to watch the movie. I don't expect a whole paragraph in WIKI, but at least the important contribution of this song on a truly great movie. Thanks for hearing me out. Mary Drew, Illinois, USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.105.17 (talk • contribs)

- We have an article regarding the movie you mention -
Off2riorob (talk
) 19:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Emma Reynolds

Emma Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Last line of article concerning Oxford Union debate is untrue and libelous. Not from an authoritative source. Repeated attempts to remove this have been blocked by administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.10 (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the text (actually, I tried to but someone beat me to it) since it is not from a reliable source. We'll just have to see if that sticks. If it doesn't and you find that the problem continues, your best course of action would be to raise it at
WP:RSN. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk
) 18:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes - clearly not from a reliable source. I've added the article to my watchlist. Other editors should note that ubder WP:BLP policy, such unsourced and contentious material is exempt from
WP:3RR. AndyTheGrump (talk
) 18:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Rove McManus

Rove McManus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rove McManus is an Australia television personality who has recently moved to the United States. For years, his biography has described him as a Comedian, and various editors have added quotes around the word "Comedian" in his biography in an attempt at sarcasm. It used to be more common when his talk show was being broadcast here in Australia, but it has happened 9 times in the last 12 months. For years there was a comment in the page's wikitext insisting that people should not add the quotes again. I have created a bot (computer program) that can scan the biography once an hour, remove the quotes whenever they are added, and warn any user who adds them, as well as roll back any contributions that occur along with the addition of quotes. It is submitted for approval here : Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/RichardcavellBot. The bot is completely customisable, since I wrote all the code myself.
The questions for BLP enthusiasts are :

Do you agree that any further addition of the quotes should be rolled back, with prejudice?

Do you agree that any edits by the most recent author, where that recent author has placed quotes, should be assumed to be unconstructive and rolled back?

Do you believe that it is appropriate to run my bot continuously to perform this task?

All contributions to this discussion are welcome. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Carl Truscott

Carl Truscott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
[5] is presented as the single source for :

Truscott was appointed by the attorney general to serve as ATF director, a role he held from 2004-2006. Under Truscott’s leadership, ATF expanded its role in explosives investigations, developed a National Center for Explosives Training and Research and constructed a new training academy. Most importantly the 5,000 men and women of ATF were able to make effective contributions to the Department of Justice’s highest priority – the prevention of terrorism – through intelligence sharing, investigations, regulation, training, laboratory services and an expanded international presence. He resigned in August of 2006 amid allegations of irregular spending practices and ethics violations that were the subject of a Justice Department Inspector General’s Office Report.

Does this source fully support the multiple claims made for purposes of a BLP? In addition, a primary source is presented as an "External link" [6]. Does this run afoul of NPOV or BLP by its title (stated in the EL as Report of Investigation Concerning Alleged Mismanagement and Misconduct by Carl J. Truscott, Former Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) and does it properly belong as a primary source in a BLP? Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Liakopoulos Dimosthenis-Δημοσθένης Λιακόπουλος

Resolved
– content not hosted on this wikipedia, advice given

Dimosthenis Liakopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would like to point out that the authors of this article have come to some validations according to the rules of article creation wikipedia has established. 1 The article, which is referred to a living person, lacks in objectivity. In the article, the author states his personal opinion about Dhmosthenis Liakopoulos which can be concluded by his kind of writing. 2 Absence of well balanced sources. There are more sources that support opinions against Dimosthenis Liakopoulos than those in favour of. Please consider my report and examine closely the article. Mgbfw (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

- Seems like the article has recently been blanked, and was hosted on the Greek wikipedia. This is the EN Wikipedia and we don't appear to be publishing an article about this living person here. You should discuss content issues on the local wikipeda. If you get no joy and there are serious issues, you can try asking the wikimediafoundation. -
Off2riorob (talk
) 00:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be some forum shopping going on here, so I'll repeat my suggestion already given elsewhere: If Demosthenes Liakopoulos receives significant coverage in independent secondary sources then maybe you should create an article about him here on the English Wikipedia - there doesn't seem to be one at the moment. The English Wikipedia has far more readers than the Greek Wikipedia. --
~~talk~~
) 08:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Paulina Gretzky
Paulina Gretzky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've doubts about the notability of this individual on her own merits. Would somebody review the article? GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the current content of the article isn't enough to establish notability. It already seems to have survived one AfD, though. --
talk
) 08:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
No doubt Gretzky fans had somthing to do with it. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad Yunus

A separate article had been created as a
Yunus Under Attack, and had become a bit of a walled garden. I turned it into a redirect, and created a new section Muhammad Yunus#Yunus under attack containng all the contents of the fork, in order to preserve the edit history of the content. This material is highly contentious and needs attention by other editors more knowledgeable of BLP rules on accusations against politicians, etc. in a South Asian context. --Orange Mike | Talk
17:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I left a note regarding this thread and article at
Off2riorob (talk
) 23:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Dan Wells (Actor)

Dan Wells (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone is creating a biography for me, with libelous information. I tried to fix it, and he or she just changed it back to the way it was. I am Dan Wells and I was not born in 1972. The "source" he lists, has my correct birth date: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1067391/ And when I try to add my new experiences/TV credits, this person deletes that as well, returning the page to the way he wrote it. This is impacting my career. Please get this person to STOP. Regards, Dan Wells — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdanwells (talk • contribs)

Actually, the source listed didn't mention a birthdate at all, it was just Dan Wells' homepage. Info removed, lacking citable source. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The reversion was not made by a person but by a
WP:FACEBOOK
.

If you find
conflict of interest guideline you should generally avoid editing this article except for the kind of uncontroversial edits set out here
.

What part of the article do you consider libellous? I couldn't see anything objectionable. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter T. King

Please keep an eye on the
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. With the controversial hearings going on, his article needs to be kept clean. Corvus cornix_talk
00:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The article is currently under attack by a series of "new" users repeatedly adding the same POV content. Obvious sock or meatpuppets. Corvus cornix_talk 03:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have semi-protected that page for one week. --Orlady (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Alan Stern

Alan Stern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This entry lacks objectivity and appears to be written by the subject. An independent impartial and knowledgeable person should edit it for a more balanced view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.29.124 (talk • contribs)

I'll give it a go, and I'll tag it with {{like resume}} - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Aruna Shanbaug

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
This article is insensitive and offensive in the way it describes a victim who has been in a coma for 37 years. Especially, the line "That "muscle in her mouth" with which she flayed a subordinate for not doing his job no longer receives any signals from her brain" though taken from an article in an obscure magazine is of extremely poor taste and should be unacceptable for international readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.1.26 (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That is one of the worst articles I've ever read, even without the statement quoted above. At the very least it should be completely rewritten from scratch, and deletion should probably be considered as well. *** Crotalus *** 15:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Crotalus. Largely unsourced, few footnotes. Doesn't seem very encyclopaedic.
wp:ONEVENT would seem to apply. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs
19:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

- I have renamed this article
Off2riorob (talk
) 14:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

India court admits plea to end life of rape victim - The BBC - 17 December 2009 -

If someone wants to suggest it, there maybe a case to merge to this recently created article that seems to be primarily about her
Off2riorob (talk
) 15:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep as a separate article. The fact that her case was discussed in the Supreme Court of India should put her notability beyond doubt. Compare
Terri Schiavo no longer has her own biography. - Richard Cavell (talk
) 21:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

bobby gonzalez2

Bobby Gonzalez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I responded to some edits but I'm not sure if I'm doing this right. Can you look at my comments and tell me if they have been seen before and if I'm doing this right? Still trying to get some disparaging statements removed. Lindag3333 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Another user reverted all of your edits under Wikipedia rules which require that articles be
conflict of interest editing this article if related to him. I suggest rather than making any more changes, you post requested edits on the article's talk page, quoting reliable sources, so that other users may comment and make the changes on your behalf if they are appropriate. Jonathanwallace (talk
) 08:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

David Addington

David Addington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could an administrator who has the ability to lock articles from being edited unless a user is logged in please look at the recent edit history of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Addington&action=history There has been a credible (at least to me) allegation that the subject of the BLP (or someone close to him professionally, at say
talk
) 02:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection of the article, which would prevent IP users from editing, can be requested at
WP:articles for protection. Jonathanwallace (talk
) 07:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Suze Orman

Resolved
– no
WP:BLP
action required - editing issue only - new user has been provided with a handy list of links to assist them

Suze Orman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Susan Orman has told millions of people to consoladate their student loan to help better their credit; however by doing so will increase the interest rate from your low 3.5% reducable to 2.75% raising interest to 7.25% reducable to 6.75%... Do not listen to this reasoning on school loans unless you want to add 30 to 150,000 dollars to your student loans. Per: Sally mae/ FASFA. Read your contract before following this Susan Ormans advice.. You will be the better for leaving the loan as it is as designed by the goverment who this time knows best.. ck it out...and good luck to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getoutofdebt (talk • contribs) 12:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for calling this to our attention. Per Wikipedia rules, changes to articles must be based on
reliable independent sources, and not on the opinions of individual editors, which are hard for us to evaluate. If "Sally MAE/RSFA" is a source, please give us the details, such as a web link or publication; or please provide some other source for this information. Jonathanwallace (talk
) 13:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Susan Lim

Susan Lim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There appears to be an author intent on sharing negative slander and libelous material against Dr.Lim based on her recent court case (still unresolved). The case which is to continue on 28th March has yet to hear any defensive testimony or evidence. The cited article from the other Author is poorly researched, based purely on rumor rather than unsealed court documents from the case which paint a very different picture. The motivation for posting this negative and unproven information is purely sensationalist, and given that there has not been a result to the court case, the inference of posting is decidedly towards guilt since people are given to believe accusations. Dr.Lim is a highly notable professional in the medical field, and having been through all the court documents its painfully clear she is correct, and in fact is was she who took the Government body to High Court to defend her rights. It is coming out now that the entire case was politically motivated, thus the inference is to protect Dr.Lim until the case is resolved, at which time it is ethically acceptable to post the FACTS about the case, rather than post the ACCUSATIONS which damage a prominent Doctor's reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegurukl83 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The text currently in the article is cited to an article in reliable source. —C.Fred (talk
) 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed it down a little more, the case is not even opened yet they are just talking about opening a case, I don't know what went on at the article but a lot of content was removed. I have also added a few ref tags and tidied a little and commented on the
Off2riorob (talk
) 18:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nick Bjugstad

Nick Bjugstad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mike and Janeen Bjugstad DO NOT have 3 children. They have 2, Abbie ans Nick. Please make that change. Thank you, Mike Bjugstad [phone number reverted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.173.224.18 (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the information entirely, since it does not seem to be included in the source given as a citation. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Glen Vella

Glen Vella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear Editors, could you please make minor corrections to your page as per subject caption. Glen Vella was born in 1983. His official website has changed to www.maltaeurovision2011.com. The official facebook fan page is www.facebook.com//profile.php?id=100001970225687. Kindly make changes with urgency as you are directing the media to outdated information. You can confirm this information by contacting the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) Malta. Best regards,Daniel d'Anastasi Media and PR Malta Eurovision 2011 Team [email protected] [phone number reverted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.73.192 (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

- I will have a look for you.
Off2riorob (talk
) 00:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

facebook one

facebook two

How do you tell if a facebook is official? Nither seem flagged in any way..
Off2riorob (talk
) 00:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Lerner

Joseph Lerner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joseph Lerner is a Canadian politician whose article has been subjected in the past to promotional and problematic editing (I had to block one editor for legal threats. I'd appreciate another eye or two on it as there seem to still be problems. Thanks.
talk
) 17:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I trimed back a lot of stuff not supported by secondary sources. This article needs a lot of work. Racepacket (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This edit is troubling: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=418294668&oldid=418293408 I think it's POV and it's repeating accusations that have not been evaluated by a court yet. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it's also questionable and possibly misleading to use the term "sexual assault" in the section title and in the article's lead-in without providing the details that this refers to condom use and not common rape or beating, etc. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is repeating the undisputed statement that these allegations have been made. How exactly is that POV? And rape is one of the allegations.

There are currently serious problems on the Assange article, and at
Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange‎, caused by attempts to play down the nature of the allegations, and to cast aspersions on the alleged victims, the police, and anyone else that it suits this blatant POV-pushing agenda to attack, with a complete disregard for WP:BLP policy (and possibly, libel laws too). I'd like to see a few more editors watching these articles, with the objective of constraining this sensitive issue to factual matters, rather than spin. AndyTheGrump (talk
) 23:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Claiming that this is only about condom use is not NPOV. The claims that this refers to condom use is the version put forth by the defence. When the prosecutors and the extradition judge use the word rape they are refering to an alleged instance of Assange initiating sex with a sleeping woman. The English judge ruled that these allegations, if true, were considered rape in both English and Swedish law. On top of that, there is an allegation of Assange using his body weight to hold a woman down. Again, that has nothing to do with condoms. We might not like or agree with the allegations, but the ruling of the judge is a fact, not an opinion. We should present both the prosecutor's and the defence's side. Mbulle (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It is rather confusing because although the word "abusive" sounds more serious, the women have said the sex became abusive, but they have not claimed that they withheld consent at any point. I do think it is important to make this clear, although I am not sure how. It's not just to do with a condom though. One of the woman says she was still "half-asleep" when Assange initiated more sex with her the following morning. I think there needs to be some way that we can make clear that neither woman is claiming to have said "no" and been ignored at any time. For example, the statement that Assange was "using his body weight to hold a woman down" might imply that this was against her consent, when in fact she has not alleged that she told him to stop. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing confusing about the wording of the allegations as presented to the English court - and the judge stated that one of these would constitute rape under English law. These are the facts. Your opinions on what you think occurred are utterly irrelevant. You might well benefit from looking up the word 'consent' in a dictionary, though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Greg. I have changed the section header and the sentence. I changed assault to improprieties. The sentence was more problematic becuase it really didn't conform to the source. Unfortunately, the source was a series of factual allegations by the women, and it was almost impossible to put them in a single category. Without actually listing the allegations (refusal to wear a condom, refusal to take a test, pinning a woman down who wanted to retrieve a condom, etc.), it was really hard to create a sentence from it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy: with regard to the sentence (not the header), each source has to support the assertion. It wasn't a function of Greg's opinion as to what happened - it's what the source says or doesn't say. The word in the header is a different issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm surprised, but my changes didn't last long (typical in highly contentious articles). Unfortunately, the editor backed out everything I did, even though he complained only about the word "improprieties" (called it prudishly Victorian - heh) in his edit summary. I decided not to fight the word "assault" in the section header and undid the reversion but restored the word "assault". I have no idea how long even that will last, but the sentence in the section was absolutely wrong, even if one doesn't like my rewording.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Was it "assault" I reverted to? I thought it would be to "misconduct"; changing that right away. I think that word fits best the description, and is most middle of the road between the allegations of the two parties. I hope I didn't hurt your amour propre too much with the Victoriana :) ^walk victor falk^talk 00:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I remember I wrote "abusive after sex which was initially consensual"; I think the exact details of the accusations, like the condom, should be developped in detail in the SJAvJA article; that's what's it for after all. Perhaps this sentence could be amended to "His two accusers charge that some of the sex that began consensually developeded into acts they felt were non-consensual and abusive~". That conveys better the disagreement between the two parties. ^walk victor falk^talk 00:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "misconduct" is just right, and, no, you didn't offend me, I just found your comment amusing. As for the sentence, I see no support in the source for saying that the sex became nonconsensual or abusive. If you can point to a passage or passages that say that, please do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

- The exact problem is that there is an attempt to try the case in the article and it hasn't even got off the ground, there is clearly pre judicial considerations, all the minor details and attempting to find a way to say she never actually said no and shall we call it rape when swedish rape is different to everyone else's rape is what is causing all the disruption. Just keep it simple, there are plenty of tabloids that are reporting such like. Just stick to the simple notable details. Assange is wanted in Sweden for in relation to sexual allegations, assaange was arrested in England after a extradition request from Sweden,assange was at extradition hearing and the Judge upheld the request, assange appealed, and the outcome was...? Thats it, just redirect the legal article and add that to assanges blp and take a break.
Off2riorob (talk
) 00:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It isn't our job to take sides, and spin the allegations down to what we think actually happened - that is a breach of basic Wikipedia principles. We should report what was alleged (in minimum necessary detail), and report that the allegations have been denied (again, in minimum necessary detail). We should report the facts regarding the ongoing legal case (the extradition). That is all. We don't need gossip, rumour, and attempts to smear others. Just the facts.AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Rob and Andy. That would mean removing from the Assange article his denial and the accusers' allegations.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with Andy's change of the section header to "Allegations of rape, coercion and harassment". Even assuming there've been reports that the women alleged those things (and some of them are nebulous - what is harassment? what is coercion? what definition of rape are we using?), it doesn't belong in a BLP header unless the accusations have been substantiated. What if someone accused him of murder? Would just the fact that we say "allegation of murder" make it acceptable? Maybe we should avoid this issue completely and change the section header to "Swedish extradition" or something similar.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The wording is from the
Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange article, which in turn sources it to the arrest warrant. The warrant is clearly the best source for the allegations which relate to the extradition case. AndyTheGrump (talk
) 01:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

With the header in the Assange article and with the sources in the Assange article, the header wording you chose is not, uh, warranted. A more in-depth treatment in the main article is a different issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with minimum necessary detail; I see no reason not to include as much as allowed per wp:v, wp:rs and wp:blp? For one there's hardly any point in having a whole separate article if it sounds like the summary of the police report. An encyclopedic should have ideally a mix of entertaining
Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Featured article advice, in particular, point #2: it's comprehensive. ^walk victor falk^talk
02:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you're gonna use words like trivium and quadrivium, who can argue with that? For the moment, the Swedish stuff shouldn't get a lot of coverage in the article, particularly because it's covered in another article in more depth. That doesn't conflict with point #2 in the FA advice ("A featured article should cover all facets of the topic in relation to their importance to the overall topic.").--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you might not have followed the trial article so closely. Material disappears from the biography, but does not reappear at the other article, but vanishes in some limbo inbetween. What with all the removing for some reason or other there's hardly anything left. Sins of ommission are often worse that sins commission when it comes to neutrality, because if something is there that's partial you see it, whether if it's missing you don't notice anything. I've begun to think maybe a merge back would be for the better. ^walk victor falk^talk 02:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup. The spin-off article was created as a POV-fork, and it has done nothing but cause trouble since. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a problem if the editing climate was more cooperative. ^walk victor falk^talk 03:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "sex with a sleeping woman" charge, I believe one source said the sleeping woman's reported response to Assange was "are you wearing anything?" If that account is true, it would appear she wasn't objecting to sex but to condomless sex. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, our job is not to find evidence and make a judgement on what happened. We should report the allegations put forward by the prosecution in hearing, and the defence put forward by Assange's defence in the hearing. All evidence that is put forward outside the courts is just speculation and trial by media/wikipedia. Mbulle (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe we should step back and bear in mind that at this point we have only an arrest warrant and an extradition in response to that warrant. I don't know much about the Swedish justice system, but if this were in the U.S., it is unlikely we would report details of what victims say after a mere arrest. We would wait at least until a person was charged.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Andrea Thompson

Resolved
– small write to remove a cut and copy violation and the education ambiguity

Andrea Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Appears to contain contradictory information. The (Early life) phrase "she graduated from high school at 16" may contradict the later (Journalism career) phrase "by earning her GED." Since only individuals not earning a high school diploma may take the GED tests, one phrase or the other must be incorrect. I have not been able to verify either phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewartx5 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, heres the wayback to the high school drop out claim, written by
Off2riorob (talk
) 10:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Lerner

Joseph Lerner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thank you Doughweller and 4meter4 for keeping an eye on Lerner's bio. If you look at my talk page you would learn that I am a new contributor with not much experience. Furthermore, each time that I have made a correction to this specific article I have described the nature of the change in my talk page. If you refer to my talk page and see my last edit of Lerner's bio, you would precisely see that I have removed a piece of information that I thought it had a promotional nature. At the same time, I noticed that some of the stubs are removed from Lerner's bio "North American composer" and "Poli-bio-stub". Lerner is a Canadian composer that is fact. Therefore, he is a North American composer. Lerner's bio also falls into the "Poli-bio-stub", which is a fact as well. I am going to put the stubs back. If you decide to remove them then I respect your choices. My question is: if there are enough reasons that we so meticulously need to monitor this specific bio and spend time and energy on it, then why bother. Why not just put it for deletion and get rid of it. (Watcherpost (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

Hi, Watcherpost. Thanks for your contributions. He looks clearly wiki notable to me, the minimum requirement is
Off2riorob (talk
) 09:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Off2riorob (talk) for the advise and more so for leaving a "menu of helpful links" on my talk page. (Watcherpost (talk
) 17:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

Pallab Ghosh

Pallab Ghosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yesterday I restored several deleted sections containing criticism of the subject after realising they were removed by an IP address registered to the subject's employer, the BBC — see also
WP:SYNTHESIS. There is no current editing dispute, but I'd appreciate if others took a look today as this article is experiencing a sudden spike in its page views and I'm planning a short Wikibreak as I'm somewhat tired and stressed and seem to be making mistakes. Thanks, --Qwfp (talk
) 08:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, no biggie. Its the ability to review and correct them that is important. The BLP was being coatracked by undue
Off2riorob (talk
) 09:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Riyo Mori

Riyo Mori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have noticed that an IP added information about the death of Miss Universe 2007 Riyo Mori. According to that she is one of the victims of the Earthquake in Japan yesterday. Anyone having any information about that or can we rule it out as pure speculation or a silly rumour?--BabbaQ (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing at all in a google search. As per blp, an uncited death claim that stayed in the article for nine hours on a BLP with - 30 watchers is completely unacceptable. After such an edit to a BLP I would suggest adding
Off2riorob (talk
) 15:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Anspach

Ralph Anspach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I think this is a case of
WP:Oneevent. This is a person who is famous only for his legal actions against the makers of Monopoly
. The current content of the page probably should be entirely removed and has lots of contentious information.
There is an article on "his" game Anti-Monopoly which from a board game perspective would count solely as a variant. If it was connect to any other board game than monopoly it would be clear to AfD both pages and reduce the section in History of Monopoly to what is verifiable. The article had no RS I was able to add a RS quickly due to the Monopoly connection so I was looking for some advice.Tetron76 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I stubbed the Anspach article, which read like an anti-Parker Brothers screed and contained assertions not supported by the sole reliable reference, the Wall Street Journal. To the extent this other material was sourced to Anspach's XLibris book, it is banned under
one event as he is potentially notable both for introducing the anti-Monopoly game and then being sued by Parker Brothers. The lawsuit itself last many years and involved separate events such as trials, appeals and a settlement. However, he may not have stand alone notability and perhaps the Anspach article should be merged to "Anti-Monopoly" or both to the appropriate article on the history of Monopoly. Jonathanwallace (talk
) 13:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The article is now much improved. I guess the next step is to deal with the Anti-Monopoly which would no longer be BLP/

The one eventissue for me is he would not pass the board game designer criteria.
The game is so similar to monopoly that you could use a monopoly set to play the game.

Many variants of games don't get mentioned at all i.e. Diplomacy (game)

It was not the first game to work on the principle of reversing the monopoly objective

He could have made some minor changes to layout and name and have a legal version of the game.

Hasbro own the rights to Anti-Monopoly as trademark

The Anti-monopoly game in its current incarnation would count as self published.

Triopoly without a page has more novelty (cannot link due to blacklist)

The game was clearly renamed with a view to getting sued both for copyright and trademark infringement. I guess with a view to exploit the most valuable brand in games but the RS do not cover the story in this light but it is difficult to see this as more than one thing. Tetron76 (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Ottoman throne

Resolved
– newly created article Line of succession today blanked by the creator and deleted, disputed content remains out of the original article

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
There was previously a BLPN discussion about this article.[7] The article was fixed up to remove BLP problems. But since then IPs have reverted, including today.[8] Maybe semi-protection would be in order?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The poorly sourced material has now popped up in a new article.[9]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I've started an AFD discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession today (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Social Media as a Source

With increasing Social Media presence that various political and news groups, as well as celebrities and politicians have, how do we treat them in terms of either being or not being a reliable source? This is considering the fact that Social Media has become a very important source of news and reference even in journalism and news business. Social Media meaning: Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc. Your insight on this is greatly appreciated. Watcherpost (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources for the policy covering this type of source. --Allen3 ^talk 10:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Shannon Marketic

Shannon Marketic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would someone with experience in current BLP policy (I am a bit out-of-date) please review the article? The Brunei bit is unsourced though probably could be sourced. The first arrest is unsourced and the second seems
undue weight (UNDUE does not exactly apply but you know what I mean). The whole article is very tabloid. Thanks --Lyncs (talk
) 11:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the Brunei stuff because it was sourced only to legal documents in violation of
WP:WEIGHT. Jonathanwallace (talk
) 12:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks a lot better, thanks. --Lyncs (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Corneille (singer)

Corneille (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved
– Inappropriate material deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the "F" word is inappropriately used in the line talking about Corneille leaving Germany. You probably would want to Corneille (singer)edit that out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.41.210 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the heads up. It was already reverted it by the time I looked at it. For the future, you can revert the vandalism yourself if you wish. See Help:Reverting. However, if you feel uncomfortable doing so, reporting it is appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Shmuley Boteach

Shmuley Boteach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is kind of a mess. I found things like two sentences from different parts of an article strung together as a single quotation, a few weasel words, and a blog used a source. I don't really have time to carefully check the whole article, but it could use more eyes. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have read this article and checked the sources. One of the more frequently cited sources is a series of blog posts by Fox News columnist Roger Friedman, which is almost entirely opinion. Among the facts attributed to that article:

That he was "banned from preaching in any British synagogue by the United Synagogues of Britain." This may or may not be true. I could find no reference on the internet to an organization by this name. There is a synagogue by the name of "United Synagogue", but as far as I can tell, it represents only itself, and there is no reference on its website of a ban of Boteach. (This fact is also attributed to a Guardian article, but the Guardian article makes no such claim.)

That the British Charity Commission "froze the bank accounts" of Boteach's charitable trust in Britain. This is true; the article omits that the Charity Commission reached an agreement with Boteach, which involved his closing the trust and reimbursing it for funds that the commission determined had been wrongly withdrawn for Boteach's personal use. The issue was concluded amicably, and no charges were brought against Boteach. All of which also appears in the blog post but is omitted from the article.

The article relies on a very odd and eclectic collection of sources, none of which are generally considered reliable by Wikipedia. The fact that he was asked to leave his post as British Shaliach, for example, is attributed to the Jewish times Asia. I could find no reference to this in a British paper, Jewish or otherwise. The paragraph about irregularities in Boteach's British trust is attributed to six sources. Two of these are blogs, one is the Friedman column from Fox News (also a blog), and two are pop music sites. The one reliable source, a Guardian article about Boteach, makes no mention of the episode. Other sources include the Canadian Michael Jackson fanclub, the AV club, which is the entertainment news site of the Onion, and another Jackson fanclub called MJEOL.com

Some of the sources, such as the Guardian article and an article in the Slate, an online daily magazine owned by the Washington Post, are not at all negative about Boteach, but have been carefully pruned for negative comments in this article.

In sum, the article as it now stands is, in my opinion, uninformed on legal issues though it may be, actionable, and should be shorne dramatically and immediately. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Would strongly disagree - Is Fox News not a reliable media source ? Of course they are and so too is The Guardian, and the Jewish Times of Asia. You may not like the facts, but surely they are facts.
The article by Roger Friedman is factual - its based on British reports and research.... United Synagogues of Britain is a well known umbrella organization
If you'd like to add that the Charity Commission reached an agreement with Boteach, which involved his closing the trust and reimbursing it for funds that the commission determined had been wrongly withdrawn for Boteach's personal use is fine - He wrongfly withdrew charity money. Thats factual and can be added.
None are reliable ? The British papers arent reliable nor is Fox News ?
Some of your comments are ok - but I do believe we 1st need to address the repeated single user vandalism account which is vandalising the user page repeatedly. Can we agree to a lock until this is resolved ? Jonathangluck (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Fox news site includes both news articles, which can generally be considered reliable, and opinion columns, which are essentially blogs and are not considered a reliable source of information (of course, they are reliable sources for quoting someone's opinion, but not facts). A column entitled "Jacko's Rabbi Gets Meshugah on Court TV" should not be considered a reliable source for information about a living person, since the title itself (and, in fact, the rest of the article in its entirety) displays a clear and, I might say, venomous, bias.

The Guardian is most certainly a reliable source. However, the Guardian article says nothing to support the statements attributed to it in the article. For example, the article says, "Boteach was separately banned from preaching in any British synagogue by the United Synagogues of Britain." What the Guardian article says is "he was publicly reproached by the president of the United Synagogues and was forced to resign from the synagogue in Willesden where he preached." Not the same by a long shot.

As regards the United Synagogues of Britain, I am a little wiser now. There is an organization called "United Synagogue of Britain", which is a union of orthodox Ashkenazic synagogues. I can believe the article's claim that United Synagogue banned Boteach from preaching in their places of worship, though the claim is currently unsupported by a reliable source and must therefore be removed. However, in any case, that organization represents only the Orthodox Ashkenazic synagogues. There are also Sephardic orthodox synagogues, as well as Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform, and unaffiliated synagogues in Britain, none of which are affected by United Synagogue's alleged ban. Therefore, the statement in the article is patently false, and probably libellous.

The Jewish Times Asia may well be a reliable source for things happening in the Jewish community of Asia. To rely on it for information on events in Britain is really stretching the limits of reliability. For a piece of information so imflammatory - that he was forced to resign his post as Britain Shaliach because he invited Rabin to speak - you should certainly be able to find a reliable British source (if it is true).

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldnt A column entitled "Jacko's Rabbi Gets Meshugah on Court TV" be considered reliable ? Meshugah means crazy.... and besides that whats so out there ? And yes perhaps theres bias - Werent many biased against MJ when he was accused of molesting children ? You can remove The Guardian as the source, but that doesnt mean you can remove the statement about "Boteach was separately banned from preaching in any British synagogue by the United Synagogues of Britain." Fox News says it - What would you propose to amend it to ? As you say the Guardian article says is "he was publicly reproached by the president of the United Synagogues and was forced to resign from the synagogue in Willesden where he preached." If we agree that United Synagogue banned Boteach from preaching in their places of worship, Do you believe Boteach could be a rabbi in a Sephardic orthodox synagogues, as well as Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform, and unaffiliated synagogues in Britain ? They'd take him or vice versa ? Should we change it to say Roger Friedman a columnist for Fox News says ? I would agree to that.
Absurd to say The Jewish Times Asia is only reliable for the Jewish community of Asia - is The New York Post only reliable for New York ? or The Jerusalem Post only for Jerusalem ?
Condemned by Crown Heights - http://www.slate.com/id/103323/ Movement severed ties with Shmuley: http://www.atlantajewish.com/content/112005/shmuley.html Boteach's official break with Chabad came not as a result of his writings about sex, but before. A few months after the rebbe's death in 1994, he invited Yitzhak Rabin to speak at a forum. http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/10385/orthodox-equivalent-of-dr-ruth-to-dive-into-spicy-sex-at-mjcc/
Boteach himself saying he was forced "to relinquish my position as his emissary in Oxford" (He says is because of Booker"... many others say differently...If youd like to take his position that he was removed because of the thousands of non-Jews who had joined our organization is fine too. http://www.crownheights.info/index.php?itemid=17270&catid=55
And its not inflamatory to say he was forced to resign after the facts above ? if you'd like to make changes lets discuss 1st... Jonathangluck (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
We can change this sentence: After inviting left wing politician Yitzhak Rabin to speak, despite protests from the Chabad movement leadership, he was asked finally to leave his posting as shaliach.[8]
Can make it Roger Friedman a Fox news columnist rather than Fox News if thats better ?
Any other issues ? Seperately I am concerned about the continued single user vandalism and would like a lock on page. Jonathangluck (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate some comments from others on this noticeboard more familiar with BLP issues than I. To me, this article looks like a not-so-subtle smear of a popular if controversial religious figure. But almost all the people I have written about on the Wikipedia have been dead these few hundred years, so I don't consider myself an authority. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ravpapa asked me to comment on this. Having just read through the article, it is a very poor example of a BLP. Citing the
talk
) 22:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

user: shalominthehome once again vandalised - Will he also be blocked ? Controversial information ? Thats his calling card ? He has had 2 financial scandals ? The Sun is a major paper ? Why is Fox News relevant about a Rabbi close to Michael Jackson ? Are you joking ? Lets get some more opinions Jonathangluck (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Sun does indeed sell many copies, but it is a low-end tabloid given to sensationalism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist. That's according to our policy on
talk
) 02:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and as regards "once again vandalised" -- actually shalominthehome last edited the article the day before yesterday, in my timezone, and has received a whole bunch of advice on his talk page since then. They already have the helpful menu of handy links. Will he be blocked? I have no idea, but if he continues to edit the article disruptively then presumably he will be. That's not a crisis, but having negative controversial statements about a living person sourced only to The Sun and to Michael Jackson fan websites, is a crisis. --
talk
) 02:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Who says it is a low end tabloid ? You do ? Its the 10th largest newspaper in the world and surely has libel concerns as well.. Its factual, as is Fox News. Can write conservatively as you wish, Boteach has been censured by governments in both the UK and US for financial misgivings regarding charities.... I dont object to some of what you are saying - Care to propose more specifics ?Jonathangluck (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Am missing this issue with the Sun - I see the Independent and Guardian as major sources - Where do you see The Sun ? Rather than talking hypothetical, what do you propose (and regarding your comment about Spicy Sex, you are aware thats a reference to Boteachs book which is relevant ?) ?Jonathangluck (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all the potentially libellous material and dubious sources from the article. It now meets, in my opinion, Wikipedia BLP standards.

The article still needs a lot of work to include material, mostly from Boteach's recent activities, but at least it is no longer grounds for a lawsuit.

Thanks to TheInterior, Deryck C, and Demiurge1000 for their help and support. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Following numerous attempts by Jonathangluck to restore libellous material to the article, I have asked for administrator intervention here --Ravpapa (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Jim Downey (comedian)

Jim Downey (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A small issue on this page: an editor has removed the info that this individual is the brother of
Robert Downey, Sr.. The ref used for this was an NBC bio (NBC is the individual's employer). When challenged, the editor has cited personal knowledge of the family. User Talk:Jespah#James Downey and NBC quote Would like some help figuring this one out. The Interior (Talk)
22:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You have a reliable source. I'd go with it. In case it helps you, here's a news article from 1985 identifying Jim Downey as the head writer of SNL.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused with precisely what Jespah is saying Jim Downey did or did not do but are we sure the refs we're using are referring to the same person? Nil Einne (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
(e/C)The third item on this GB search seems to corroborate this as well (assuming The H.W. Wilson Company doesn't use us as a source!), however the snippet view doesn't give you the goods. (I've seen GB do this before, anyone know what's up with that?). I'd really like more info from the below poster before restoring, but judging from here comments, she's done with this. The Interior (Talk) 23:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused too, but the Jim Downey, long-time SNL writer, Harvard Grad is who the article is talking about. The Interior (Talk)

(ec) You're both confused because the explanation is confusing. :-) If I understand Jespah (Jespah's Talk page is a little clearer), there are two Downeys, both of whom appeared on SNL, but the one who just did a short appearance is the brother of Robert Sr. However, putting aside the probabilities of two James (Jim) Downeys on SNL, there is only one James Downey listed on IMDb and connected to SNL (as an actor, producer, writer, etc.). Although IMDb is not a wholly reliable source, it's pretty good when it comes to cast information, etc. Plus, there is zero proof of what Jespah is saying, just his/her say-so, which ain't good enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish you all could see your comments from the perspective of one who actually knows Jim Downey. Very funny. IMDB does, indeed, include the work of both James and Jim Downey into one profile of a James Downey. Amazed at how not one of you really researched this. But you know it all... Here's a clue... look for a photo of the Jim Downey who appeared on Kate & Allie and the James Downey who wrote for SNL. Nell 07:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not know it alls, that why we use sources! I am fully open to the possibility that the NBC bio is wrong (it does have a typo), but at the moment it's what we have. Please help us out instead of leaving tantalizing clues like the Kat & Allie thing. The other J. Downey is an actor? What else has he been in? The Interior (Talk) 10:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Jespah has removed the info, and apparently feels their personal info is sufficient. Not sure where to go from here. The Interior (Talk) 23:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

response to interior re downey bio

you can choose to believe me or not - that is up to you. i don't need to discuss this. the james downey I know is referred to as jim downey, not james. he co-authored parodies of some of martha stewart's work. Nell 22:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC) refactored from bottom of page by The Interior (Talk) 23:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC) note: this poster is User:Jespah
He is in the movies I deleted from the page. Nell 14:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies

Gavin Menzies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- Gavin Menzies "vexatious litigant"

The Gavin Menzies article currently makes the simple statement that he was found to be a "vexatious litigant" by a British court. I wanted to add a bit of detail, and made my suggestion on the talk page. But then I read WP:BLP, which made me think that my proposed addition might not be appropriate. Could someone please comment? The discussion is at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gavin_Menzies#.22vexatious_litigant.22
Thanks! --Other Choices (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I commented at the Talk page that I am not currently comfortable with the way the assertion is sourced.Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments about an academic

Annette Gordon-Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Said editor made the following comment yesterday "If we are to be expected to heed Reed and the body of 'historians' she represents..." [10]

I understand this violates policy under
WP:BLPREMOVE. I said this was an attack [11], and he claims otherwise [12]
.

Annette Gordon Reed is a highly respected, Pulitzer Prize winning historian [13]; deniers of the Jefferson/Hemings relationship often seek to discredit Gordon-Reed. It's clear from his comment he also questioned if Finkelman was an historian, though he's a respected academic (Phd, writer etc) said editor happens to disagree with [14]
.
His denialist/unfounded claims on the Hemings/Jefferson affair were commented on the fringe board [15]. He made similar comments on Paul Finkelman in Jan [16], and ignored warnings [17]. His demands to change the article now have added what I'd say is an attack on someone who "is recognized as one of our country’s most distinguished presidential scholars" [18]. I've got reason to believe some of his other comments/edits, on speculation directed towards Sally Hemings & Gordon-Reed, may support racial views incompatible with wikipedia's stated mission. Singling out Reed (an African American) without any basis is worrisome, particularly when this is what she herself describes as a problem. Ebanony (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with you on the substance of the issue and am fine with the phrasing of the lede, on reviewing his comments, I don't think that the other editor's comments (while a little bit edgy with that "entities" crack) cross the line into the type of contentious material that can be deleted from Talk pages. Deleting other people's comments on Talk pages is highly disfavored, and the gist of his remarks is that he doesn't believe certain material belongs in the lede, but only elsewhere in the article. This is an acceptable position for him to take, even if against consensus. Jonathanwallace (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment & the clarification. Thank you for looking into the matter.Ebanony (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Louis Bacon

Louis Bacon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arising from some OTRS complaints, can I ask someone to review this article carefully, taking particular interest in the quality of sources? It relies a lot on "Bahamas Press", which doesn't seem to be very reliable. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I did a bit of looking, I moved a load of externals to the talkpage, some deadlinks and some unreliable, if anyone wants to use the reliable ones to add some content to the body of the article they are there on the talkpage for investigation. I also removed a small section about someone died in the hot tub on his estate, on investigation the guy died of coronary heart disease and nothing happened. - so all the story boiled down to was. - In May 2010 a man died of coronary heart disease in a hot tub on the subjects estate. - personally imo death is normal and as such happens all the time and not notable and presented as it was it asserted that the subject might have had involvement in the death which is titillating speculation and disputed by the coroner. This SPA seems to have been instrumental in some of the dubious additions.
Off2riorob (talk
) 13:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive111&oldid=1143528518"~~