Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive37

This page is an current main page .

Archives

Archive TOC

• Jamie Leigh Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Jamie Leigh Jones, a contractor, has filed a civil lawsuit accusing coworkers of raping her in Iraq. No criminal charges have been filed. Multiple users have been removing words such as "alleged" and have been treating Jones' claims as if they are proven facts. // Rhobite (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Charles Boartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Jones has accused Boartz of rape. Some users are editing his article to portray Jones' claims as facts. // Rhobite (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Per

talk

) 16:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On second check, you seem to have gotten them all after all. Good work.

talk

) 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be prepared to do the merger myself, if other users agree. Does

talk

) 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - While the capsule summaries that link to existing articles may be acceptable without cited sources, there are a number of listed individuals without either a wikilink or any sources. The "notable" in the article title clearly means "controversial", which (my understanding) means source or remove. I'd clean this up myself, but don't have time - would appreciate someone else dealing with. // -- John Broughton (♫♫)
  21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

2.) Looking at some of the material removed, my opinion is that it is not encyclopedic, and somewhat tabloidish for the notability of the subject. I have no interest in this subject or what transpires based upon what I have reported. Ward20 (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This person is a daughter of the Prince Albert of Monaco. She was born as a result of a union between the Prince and a woman not married to him. There are sources in the article which seem to document these facts. Nevertheless, an editor has strenuously objected to the use of terms and phrases such as 'born out of wedlock" and "illegitimate." The birth status is apparently important because of laws of royal succession in Monaco. I removed the offending material until it was sourced.It has now been sourced and replaced.

For those with OTRS permissions, a note was received at Ticket #2007122110002539.

Another set of eyes would be useful. We are likely moving to

I've removed a lot of unreferenced stuff and POV editorialising. The girl is only 14, so whilst notable we need extreme care. I invite some sensitive editors to review and watchlist.--

Doc

^g 13:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Monaco's pattern of

BLP

problems:

1. Jazmin's "trustee" objects to any explicit reference in the article to the girl's illegitimacy, yet this is directly relevant to her
   Caroline, Princess of Hanover as the official heir, but also inheriting that throne the moment Albert dies. Nonetheless, I erred in describing Jazmin as born "out of wedlock", because it appears that her mother
   was still legally married to David Shumacher at the time of her birth. The relevant point is that Jazmin's parents were not married to each other when she was conceived or born.
2. The "trustee" repeatedly inserts language which is either false or
   Crystal Balling, i.e. that Prince Albert has the authority as "reigning monarch" to legitimize Jazmin, to change the constitution to make her his heir, to make her his heir by marrying her mother, and claims that if Albert "were to recognize her" as legitimate she would become "HSH Princess Jazmin of Monaco". In fact, none of those assertions is true & therefore can't be sourced. Monaco is a constitutional monarchy
   whose Head of State can no more alter the constitution than in any other Western democracy.
3. The "trustee" juxtaposes text to suggest that Albert II did not recognize Jazmin as his daughter primarily out of desire to protect her childhood privacy. In fact, her mother's California paternity lawsuit against Albert failed due to Albert's refusal to voluntarily submit to California jurisdiction in the case, and he only acknowldedged paternity following results of DNA testing, which he required. Lethiere (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• My opinion is that this girl has really no notability by herself and that there should be an Afd. Hektor (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – My new edit appears to have been accepted. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• WP:BLP. As this is heading for 3RR I've raised it here. We discussed the removal here User_talk:Snowmanradio#Jeremy_Paxman and later here Talk:Jeremy_Paxman#Where_was_JP_brought_up.3F. I'm pretty unhappy about this and would appreciate some input from BLP knowledgable people. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk · contribs
  ) 16:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My strategy in a situation like this is to look for other sources, rather than just rely on the one you disagree on. Here is an article from the Independent [1] and one from the Observer [2] both reliable sources, that say he was brought up in Worcs, so use these instead. BTW I think the

reliable sources noticeboard might be a better spot for another time, but no worries. Solved, no? --Slp1 (talk

) 17:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Slp, I've compromised on Yorkshire & Worcs. I'll leave this open for a few days in case it's removed, but happy for it to be closed after that. I reported it for review here because I felt that it was perhaps a case of tendentious editing. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Can people take a look at this article - it seems pretty unbalanced to me - look at the size of the south park section, the section using newspaper speculation (admittly in RS) to discuss the impact of his PR people changing. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've excused myself from editing Scientology related articles so I am not going to do anything. However it seems to me that what is notable is Tom's, and the Church of Scientology's, reaction to the program. One South Park episode itself is not that notable. But this one is hanging on lots of coatracks here on WP. :-) I also made some needed BLP changes to

TomKat, Scientology is not mentioned there. Steve Dufour (talk

) 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we expect an article on

TomKat. :-) Steve Dufour (talk

) 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Kozimor

Resolved

 – Material deleted

Whoever this [deleted] is, he has some people in Sacramento who dislike him. See this diff which combines the edits of three accounts. Even if WP:BLP didn't exist, the edits should be reverted because they are preposterous, silly, & lack a source reliable or not. I wouldn't bother reporting the matter here since I reverted these edits, but I found out about these edits due to this blog post, which means these edits probably should be purged from the system but I'm not familiar enough with the various Admin tools to know which one to use. (Is there a FM for me to read that will help me get up to date?) -- llywrch (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You did well in reverting these additions. I would suggest you write a note on these user's talk page, with a gentle "no-no". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of Kozimor at the linked blog entry seems good-natured and friendly to the subject, and the URL they use to point to Kozimor's article doesn't use a version number. There is no hint in the blog entry that version history is understood. Since the current version has been fixed, there does not seem much reason to delete versions just because of a case of routine vandalism, even though it does insult the subject. (If we did that generally we would be deleting versions from biographical articles hundreds of times per day). EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• The above item was posted here in response to a complaint posted at [[3]]. It is obvious that he is trying to divert attention to his repeated violation of the three revert rule. Several users have repeatedly noted that the subject of the article
  WP:COI violation. Eventually, the subject's various sockpupets were banned, but User:Alansohn has taken up the cause in an effort to see how far he can spin Mr. Rauschenberg into a person worthy of note. The best outcome would be a deletion of the Dane Rauschenberg article, but if it must remain, all facts should be presented in a fair and balanced manner. For example, Mr. Rauschenberg added to the article that he shared the honor as the Washington Running Club's "Male Runner of the Year." Yet, the WRC is a 56-member running club in a city with two other running clubs of over 1,000 members, each of whom honored others that year. I do not know the relationship between User:Alansohn and Dane Rauschenberg, but the energy he expends in puffing up Mr. Rauschenberg's so-called achievements shows a serious lack of editorial judgment, and does not excuse his abusive editing and 3RR violations. User:Xcstar(talk
  ) 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am more concerned about the future of the article. A couple of users recently removed the birth date and birth place and that is perfectly backed up with reliable sources. I reverted it, and a couple of hours later, that has been removed. Also, some parts of it need to be well-cited. I need some help with this. A user most recently added accomplishments in Japan and removed the birth date. Any comments or objections? Greg Jones II 23:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I hope that you are not referring to the self-published article that cites Wikipedia as one of those reliable sources. Uncle G (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• This just strikes me as bizarre. First the discussion about
  Kou Shibasaki and now this. Apparently Tamura also sued IMDB for including her real name and birthdate. http://www.onpointnews.com/070320.asp That suit (assuming the referenced URL, which is more of an opinion site, is accurate) was dropped by Tamura, and the IMDB data remains. Although I'm not a first amendment attorney (I am an attorney, but my area of expertise is IP law, not first amendment law, although we all get a pretty good immersion in the subject in law school), I suspect it was dropped because it didn't have much of a chance of winning, for the reasons pretty well put forth in that article. There are good encyclopedic reason to include birth date, or at least birth year; as well as a real name. It may be that Japan has a more restrictive policy, and if that's true, then that's a good argument for keeping the info out of the Japanese wikipedia. But Wikipedia in general should not look to the lowest common denominator and self-censor. UncleG's comment is a separate issue; if the information is incorrect or unreliable, it should not be used as a source, of course. -- TJRC (talk
  ) 01:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Some additional info: it looks like Tamura herself provided her birth name in the complaint in her lawsuit, and did so without attempting to file under seal. A copy of the complaint is at http://www.onpointnews.com/docs/IMDB.pdf ("Plaintiff is a well-known professional actress whose given name is Eriko Sakamoto, but who publicly uses only the name Eriko Tamura.") That action alone puts the name very clearly into the public record in the U.S.; not at all private Anyone can go down to the Clark County courthouse and get a photocopy of this filing and see the name; and this is something newspaper reporters, for example, do routinely. That wouldn't be the case if she had either filed under seal, or simply omitted her given name in the filing. -- TJRC (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the points where we will be having a lot of misunderstanding. I am not a lawyer, but with all the time I spent here, Commons and the Japanese Wikipedia I noticed privacy laws in Japan are very strict. The Japanese Wikipedia respect it all (as you have seen it in the Kou Shibasaki discussion, the fact that no article there has a free picture of a Japanese artist, etc) even though they may not need to do so (if the ja.wikipedia.org server are outside Japan, I mean). I think, even if that were the case, they would not put it to allow article reprinting (which would be impossible had they not respected those laws) and out of respect. I think every time an issue happens with Japanese articles, we should point the users to our disclaimer, although I also like the compromise of finding more than just one reference for this kind of data (which should make it clear the data is public). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think multiple sources are required if one source is sufficiently reliable. In this case, we have two pieces of data, the birth date and the given name. We can fairly rely upon Tamura's own court filing as a reliable source for the name. There's no need to find a second source to show that it's reliable. As to the birth date, the only source I'm aware of from this discussion (I've never researched Tamura herself; I didn't even recognize the name as being the "Heroes" actress until I looked at her article) is her IMDB entry; but Tamura's court filing says it's accurate (saying IMDB is "showing Plaintiff's birth date"). That's sufficient to establish the accuracy of the entry.

And anyway, inaccuracy isn't the issue of the complaint. If anything, it's the exact opposite. Her complaint isn't that the information is wrong; her complaint is that the information is accurate. TJRC (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is biased in that it includes too much criticism of Ehrlich and almost no defense of his opinions. He is a prominent scientist who writes about and promotes public understanding of the environment. It seems probable that his entry has been edited by people who want to attack the environmental movement for political reasons.

Is this the Paul R. Ehrlich article? --15:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by H2g2bob (talk • contribs)

I added some citations about the impact of population on the environment. However, I can sure use some editing help from others. I may have used up my three edits for the day getting typo's out. Thanks- feed back welcome. Buddydog21 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

One further concern. Should a person merit a wikipedia article merely on the strength of writing computer books? The article was written, I believe, by people who wanted to take Schildt down, and as such Herb and his family may find it an irritation and an embarassment. I certainly enjoyed Born to Code in C, but I would prefer Bjarne Stroustrup to Herb on C++.

At this point, we have a great article...about a hard working decent fellow who didn't deserve the mud hurled at him. Let us now praise famous men, and their children after them, as the good book sez. Maybe now we have to go through the entire catalog of publishers like O'Reilly and Apress and add a bio of each guy and gal.

Like me!

Of course, that's nonsense. An encyclopaedia cannot chronicle the lives of every hard-working, decent, and creative person, or me neither. Perhaps it should, now that storage is free; as a kid, I never understood why my physician father was in Who's Who, but my friend Carl Stankovich's father, who worked in the steel mills, wasn't; I was too innocent to realize that you paid for entry, but also needed some of what Bourdieu calls Distinction.

But such an encyclopedia, with a biography of anyone who wants one, isn't wikipedia's policy, is it?

No, there has to be a genuine lifetime achievement, or negative achievement in the case of the Unabomber, Manson, or Tiny Tim. The person has to be either famous or notorious, larger than life. Or just mega-dumb in an amusing way.

Perhaps Herb doesn't want to be a wikipedia stud. Perhaps he wishes that the article was never made. And perhaps it was written to take him down by people who can't write.

Or something like that.

The bottom line? Leave the article alone, perhaps with the facts about the anti-Schildt campaign put into neutral perspective: I think those facts are interesting because his persecution prefigured the much more serious persecution of Kathy Sierra, another computer author who attracted the rage of programmers who can't write. Or code with any grace.

But, start a new wikipedia project to profile computing authors as such, selecting the most famous and treating them with ordinary decency. Leave me out until I publish more books.

Edward G. spinoza1111 Nilges, well-known net.kook and author of "Build Your Own .Net Language and Compiler", Apress 2004. 202.82.33.202 (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The biography of this computer author was created, I believe, to be able to insert libelous information concerning his content and a pointer to a nonexistent offensive neologism "bullschildt", by people working on behalf of a competing author for his commercial gain.

As such, it violated wikipedia's standards for biographies of living persons.

Pointers were added to apparently solid information concerning Herb's "errors" on C: but on investigation, the reader discovers that the "errors" are in telling the student the things she knows in order to be an effective C programmer (for example, that negative numbers are usually twos complement) but which are not explicitly mentioned in a new C standard, which itself isn't universally implemented and fails to "standardise" a non-standardisable language which deliberately allows the programmer to create non-deterministic and machine-dependent code.

I have cleaned up the article and will revert vandalism to this cleanup, which has already occured and which includes libelous information concerning my record, demonstrating the intent of the vandals, who are probably the creators of the Schildt libels, to use wikipedia, Amazon, and usenet not to communicate but to destroy people, either for commercial gain, or for cheap thrills.

Edward G. Nilges, author, "Build Your Own .Net Language and Compiler" Apress 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.65.177 (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly, there are actually 994 Google hits for "bullschildt," with Jargon File being the #1 reference. This editor's attacks on the article's talk page do not inspire confidence. *** Crotalus *** 08:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

See Spinoza1111 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) for some background. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This article does need some

reliable sources. It shouldn't be hard to find some, though; he's clearly a controversial figure in the world of compilers. *** Crotalus ***

08:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

203.218.133.218 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)I was blocked last year for objecting, strongly and in no uncertain terms, to vandalism in the name of anti-vandalism, by people unqualified to write about the subject matter and who seemed to be convenience store clerks. I believe wikipedia is by this meta- or second-order- vandalism being privatized and the remaining commons trashed in the name of Randian ethics, which was to be expected, given the bizarre views of its founder, where it was most unfortunate that this sort of person be the founder in the first place. I believe this privatization is being carried out as I believe the attack on Schildt was carried out, for commercial gain, sanctified by a prevailing libertarianism, or, the anarchy and destructiveness of the lower middle class.203.218.133.218 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

203.218.133.218 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)It is of course only necessary for you to bring this unfair blockage up if you had no case in starting the attacks on Schildt and did so in bad faith, and perhaps for commercial gain. When it comes to firing off shots when you seek only to destroy, any old iron will do. But it certainly shows that you first and foremost aren't interested in computer science or C, but personalities, faddish either positively and negatively, and in a Stalinist fashion, where innuendo trumps reason203.218.133.218 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

203.218.133.218 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Edward G. Nilges203.218.133.218 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be joking, surely! Like many professional C coders I used Schildt's C book as a reference in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were adequate, clearly written, examples of the genre, and at a time when C was slowly becoming standardized this book and others like it did a lot to guide the programmer through the minefield of real world C programming. The article isnt' well written and definitely needs improvement, but adding information about so-called "bullschildt" would not serve Wikipedia well. --Tony Sidaway 11:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

He isn't joking. I've attended standards committee meetings where Schildt's books have been discussed. His books are controversial. This answer was created for people, including professional coders, who grew up with these books and are surprised to learn that what they thought to be good books are not universally respected by experts. If you want book reviews by some C and C++ standards committee members, see the reviews of Schildt's books published in C-Vu (the journal of the ACCU) which you can find archived on-line here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. This author's works have not been positively received by experts, who observe that they contain errors. Don't let the Jargon File mislead you into thinking that this is just some Internet silliness and an excuse for a pun. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've stubbed the article down a bit--it really was full of all kinds of HOWTO stuff and links to downloadable code, and an odd bit of editorialization unrelated to the criticism. If you could collate the more significant negative reviews (for instance I wouldn't know whether Francis Glassborrow is or is not a standards committee member) and precis them, I think this would make the article better. --Tony Sidaway 14:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I, personally, know that Francis is a committee member because I've sat next to him in meetings. To prove it to other people: I'm not sure where one can find a list of all of the occasions that he's been the BSI HOD, or an additional delegate, over the years, but you can confirm that it's happened on at least one occasion by reading the ISO WG21 minutes for 2001-10-21. As noted, he has written rather a lot of book reviews. As far as Wikipedia's needs are concerned, he is definitely someone knowledgeable on the subject writing in his field. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

203.218.133.218 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)How many people CREATED those 994 hits for "Bullschildt", and did they know each other? In fact, were they not in fact a group of people some of whom were organized by the author of a competing book, who then attracted fellow-travelers because on the Internet, joining Lynch mobs is a favorite indoor sport?

Furthermore: just grow up. Leave the things, and the name-calling, of childhood behind.

Almost all the "errors" I've seen errors were matters of interpretation, that held Herb, and no other author, to a standard of faithfulness to a "language standard" that (1) isn't fully implemented in real compilers and (2) futile for a non-deterministic (because aliasing) language like C. They were an attempt by C fundamentalists to show off a false superiority constituted in the knowledge of what the standard doesn't specify, and what main() returns, concerns that are orthogonal to the needs of real C programmers...many of whose compilers aren't conformant.

The people who attacked Herb seemed to have wanted him to basically shut up so that C praxis could be a matter of secrets and the private property of consultants. For example, they take him to task merely for saying that "negative numbers are twos-complement"...because the standard makes no such requirement.

As it shouldn't: a language standard has to be silent about countless implementation details...which the student has to know to get his assignments done...which the working programmer also has to know. A reasonably literate person, as opposed to a fundamentalist, knows how to shift hermeneutical gears when listening to a teacher teach, and when listening to a language (or other) lawyer tell you the black letter of the law.

Tony, thanks for cleaning the article up. I wouldn't object to a new section about controversy because it's a fact that a campaign did start, originating in the drive to standardize a language that should be retired and not standardised, and also in the desire of a competing author to destroy Herb's sales, of harassment and a controversy section can identify this fact, containing pointers to the jejune objections to Herb's books. It might also mention the abuse I was subjected to when I annotated the discussion page yesterday, as if it's the worst crime in the world to interrupt bullies when they are vandalizing, not only a wikipedia article, but also the good name of a living person. The content that was created yesterday, in calling me a net.kook for asking wikipedia merely to live up to its own standards, certainly reveals a lot about the envy and hatred that, I believe, caused the article to be created...as merely an ability to people to exhibit globally erroneous notions about C and mentoring, along with ill-will, bad manners, childishness, envy and quite possibly greed.

Edward G. Nilges203.218.133.218 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.133.218 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 

• I don't know who is this guy (is he notable ?) but the description which is provided is not encyclopedic. Hektor (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the worst of it. A google search seems to indicate that the subject actually exists, so I'll see if I can source the NPOV portion of the article.

talk

) 07:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Prodded as nn.--

Doc

^g 09:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've de-prodded and commenced the process of translating the French Wikipedia article on him. I hope to finish tomorrow.

talk

) 10:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've finished the translation. The article still needs a lot of cleanup (and I'd be grateful to anybody who took the initiative on that), but I think notability is clearly established.

talk

) 11:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• James Hydrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is a particularly tendentious editor who insists on including "where is he now" as a section with the inclusion of sex offender information and an external link to a sex offender database for this subject. The subject was a famous con artist who was shown to be a fraud by the Amazing Randi some 30 or so years ago on TV. Since then he has not been notable, yet the editor insists on labelling him as a sex offender, giving what I believe to be undue weight to that aspect of the subject's life. This would seem to fly in the face of the BLP policy and does nothing to better the article in my opinion. I believe the article needs oversight due to the repeated addition of this material by the other editor. // 24.218.222.86 (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been sensibly sorted on the talk page.--

Doc

^g 09:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Could I have some input as to whether it is appropriate to mention a criminal conviction spent under the terms of the

Providing that the conviction is 1) verifiable 2) pertinent to the public record on the individual (by that I mean it is commented on in public sources/media 3) not given

Doc

^g 12:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In this instance, I'd say the offence is quite relevant and should be included. Although, I'd be happier seeing it as a small part of a larger article, rather than one of the four sentence we have on him.--

Doc

^g 12:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the mention in the article was cited to a Guardian interview/profile of him (same ref as used for pupillage with Helena Kennedy). The weight issue was what I was heading towards with my penultimate sentence above. Perhaps I should move the rewrite back up my todo list. David Underdown (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Carla Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article was deleted a few months ago, but immediately reappeared in a very poor state. A user adding unsourced and poorly sourced material to the article today brought my attention back to it. I have tried to clean it up, but I think it needs other eyes on it to insure that policy is adhered to. --

He is the son of Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon and notable as the founder of Kahr Arms, a New York company that makes handguns used mainly by police. The main point of the article seems to not be about him but about: "How terrible it is that the son of a religious leader makes guns." Steve Dufour (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A cadre of editors continue to add the following to her bio. She has a tongue piercing. When asked if she would remove it in the event that she became first lady, Kucinich replied that she considered it too much a part of her to do so.[2]

I have removed it for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is based off a speculative event. Dennis Kucinich is currently polling in the single digits and it is highly unlikely that he will get the Democratic nomination. Only in the highly unlikely scenario that he is elected president will this comment have any relevance.

Frankly, I think the tongue piercing has become relevant to her notability, given how frequently it's discussed in coverage of her by third party reliable sources. In a perfect world, nobody would give a shit, but a perfect world this ain't. I'm also not convinced it's a

talk

) 05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't think there's any

talk

) 05:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, perhaps I wasn't completely clear. The tongue peircing aspect would appear to be undue weight. As for the comparrison to Gravel, that is a completely different situation. One cannot compare a political position on the IRS to a future fashion statement. When it becomes clear that Gravel is not going to be president, his position on the IRS is still valid, however EK postion is not. Remove the "if she is first lady aspect" and you have, she has a peirced tongue. She also has Red Hair (which is noted in those same RS's), should that be mentioned as well? Arzel (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

states "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." As I understand it, this means that things' relative prominence in reliable sources are what matters for weight, not how important the Wikipedia community thinks they really are. Reliable sources, unfortunately, seem to think that her tongue piercing is a big deal.

As for the Gravel bit,

WP:CRYSTAL

. However, this tongue business is not original research, since it's sourced.

Again, I would personally rather see it not included, but I think according to our policies it should probably be in there, and I don't think

talk

) 08:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say ref it and include it but certainly not in the lede; it has gotten mainstream news coverage and it's quite clear that issues of the changing nature of the traditional wife role of the US president are of interest in this closely watched election. Even with a fraction of voters one percent can certainly add up when millions are casting ballots and even more are exposed to the coverage.

Benjiboi

10:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I also want to add that, IMHO, removing it seems pointless if this same info keeps getting reinserted; even if wonky I feel it's better to try to work it in and, if needed, balance it. Hopefully then the cadre can move on to something more pressing.

Benjiboi

10:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, add it. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a WP:CRYSTAL issue at all. It is not Wikipedia making a prediction, it is Dennis Kucinich stating what his wife's intention is. However, I don't think the whole business of her piercing should be in the article. How is it relevant? Someone above said that it has become relevant to her notability. How? What is her notability? As far as I can see, her sole notability is that she is the wife of a presidential candidate. Let's face it, she is getting some extra attention solely because of her appearance (I'll just leave it at that) and the fact that she is a 30-year-old woman married to a 61-year-old presidential candidate. It is the sort of thing that sets gossipy tongues (pierced or otherwise) to wagging. But Wikipedia is "not" a gossip site, it is an encyclopedia, and the jewelry-wearing habits of a minor presidential candidate do not seem particularly relevant. Which, I think, makes it a BLP issue; if it is not relevant to her notability, it does not belong in the article, right? 6SJ7 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Her notability is that she has been covered significantly by reliable third party sources independent of her. I agree that this is likely in large part due to her appearance, and I find that unfortunate (I suspect that she does too). The piercing has been a significant reason for this coverage as well, which is why it's relevant to her notability. Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between coverage by reliable third party sources independent of the subject for good reasons and such coverage for silly reasons.

Dissagree. She clearly would not be known for her appearance if she were not married to Dennis Kucinich. Her notability revolves entirely around that aspect of her life. The tongue piercing is tabloid journalism at its best. Just because it has been reported doesn't mean it need be reported here. She has had her tongue piercing for a long time now, and she was never notably until she married Dennis Kucinich. This is the main justification (IMO) that it falls under undue weight and violates BLP issues. Arzel (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To the extent she is notable at all, it is for being the attractive wife of a presidential candidate, not just for being the wife of a presidential candidate. Kucinich is not enough of a mainstream candidate to justify his wife being a subject of an article on the basis of his candidacy alone. The only other candidates' spouses who have gotten their own articles are those of the front-runners. Oh, wait, there's also Jeri Kehn Thompson, another younger, attractive, spouse. If Elizabeth Kucinich were not the spouse of a presidential candidate, the article would not exist. If she were not considered attractive, the article would not exist. Some (not just wikipedia editors, but he mainstream media, as the many citations that have been provided demonstrate) consider that tongue piercing to be part of that attractiveness. (I don't get it, but some people consider tongue piercings to be sexy.) As such, it's appropriate for the article. Personally, I think "attractive wife of a presidential candidate" is a pretty lame basis for notability; and I would support deletion of the article. But that discussion has already occurred, not just once but twice.--TJRC (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

SO then an unattractive wife of a presidential candidate would not have an article? That is silly. She has an article for being the wife of a presidential candidate, that others feel otherwise is simply an extention of the BLP issues. Show me one other person that is notable for having a peirced tongue. Arzel (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a longstanding attempt to turn the stub on this Rugby player into what I can only describe as a gossip column about the player. He does play with a team in the

Yes, I think I'll take it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and see what happens. --Tony Sidaway 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's now resolved. It's semi-protected. --Tony Sidaway 13:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV. —Wknight94 (talk
  ) 20:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The content under discussion concerns a pair of interviews conducted for a blog with two established sportswriters, employed by ESPN and the New York Post, respectively. The content is not the thoughts of a random blogger; the blog is being used as a reference only because it is the source where the interviews appeared. (There's also a supplemental reference from a Kansas City newspaper.) Other sources that refer to the interviews are available. The content obviously deals with internecine criticism between colleagues, but the quotes themselves are not under dispute, being both verified and reliably sourced (see

WP:NPOV). There are many Wikipages which include similar content; as the NPOV page cites, "The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"." Because the reporter in question was fired by ESPN for giving the interview, the incident should be relevant to the article.208.120.226.72 (talk

) 00:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the content (in greatly reduced form) is acceptable. Blog aren't usually Reliable Sources, but these are by persons notable in their fields. So how about a short summary/short quote from each, along with any reply Lupica may have made to them/criticism of them? Compromise?

IronDuke

00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more likely to agree if a neutral third-party source could be found to report on the tiffs. For all I know, this blog only publishes anti-Lupica content. The quotes can only be considered primary sources at best. We're supposed to be using secondary sources. Just because Jason Whitlock says he was fired because of Lupica does not make it so. Even if ESPN confirmed Lupica's involvement, a line might make sense but otherwise, we're just taking Whitlock's word for it. If we allowed things like this, then every time Howard Stern went on a short rant about a subject, we'd have to allow a line in that subject's article about Stern's rant. But Stern rants about almost everyone at one point or another! —Wknight94 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

wknight, keep in mind that we're not saying Whitlock is right, merely that Whitlock believes X about Lupica. In no way do we take a position on it, we simply convey what was said. And it's no more a primary source than any other interview would be, and interview quotes are used fairly liberally here, no? As for Stern, we only report his rants when it's notable that he ranted, cf,

IronDuke

01:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of an interview is an excellent point. How notable could this interview be if no neutral third-party sources can be found for it? All I ask is one decent source that anyone cared about this interview. Even better would be where Lupica commented on the interview. If he didn't care enough to mention it, why should we? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what? You are approximately 100% right. Yes, of course, if this blog is the only place its mentioned, then it's officially non-notable. 208.120.226.72, if you want any part of this in, you are going to have to have better sources to add to this.

IronDuke

03:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Does Sports Illustrated (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/richard_deitsch/11/09/media.circus/index.html) or AOL Sports (http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/category/nfl/2006/09/29/real-talk-debuts-and-jason-whitlock-promises-never-to-back-down/) or the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292006/sports/turner_calls_cal_sports_andrew_marchand.htm) or or the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060927.TRUTH27/TPStory/TPSports/) or USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2006-09-26-hiestand-tv_x.htm) qualify? The reason the blog was being used as the reference is because it's the ORIGINAL source of the interview.208.120.226.72 (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, yes, those are much more palpable. Given this many independent secondary sources mentioning Lupica by name, I can agree with a brief mention on Lupica's page. I still disagree with including any part of the blog quote in Lupica's page - a link to the blog should suffice. Whitlock being fired by ESPN should not cause half of Lupica's article being taken up by a Whitlock quote. It just doesn't make sense. Lupica's article is supposed to be about Lupica and his life, and Whitlock's firing is simply not that big a part of Lupica's life. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

True enough, as far as it goes. But beyond the circumstances of Whitlock's firing and its non-impact on Lupica, the interview serves as a source for specific, detailed criticisms of Lupica's work and professional status. Lupica's work and professional status are most certainly a big part of Lupica's life. For the purposes of the Wikipage, the content of the interview is more relevant than the result (the firing). I've since found two context-expanding quotes from ESPN personnel, commenting on Whitlock's quotes (one questioning the wisdom of giving the interview, the other disputing Whitlock's characterization), and a second Whitlock interview with a newspaper, expanding on his original remarks. I disagree that a "brief mention" is sufficient to convey the particulars of the criticism. A better and more encyclopedic response would be to build up the remainder of the Lupica article if it's of insufficent breadth, rather than to penalize the Whitlock kerfuffle for being too elaborate.208.120.226.72 (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is I don't hear any of the third-party sources criticizing Lupica. I only hear Whitlock criticizing him. That's not a neutral criticism of Lupica. Lupica didn't fire Whitlock, ESPN did. The whole episode reflects far more on Whitlock and ESPN than it does on Lupica. So why cloud Lupica's whole article with this one incident? This is an especially problematic issue in the sportswriter world where people can basically say anything they want and are rewarded for saying controversial things. I'm sure Whitlock has said controversial and negative things about hundreds or thousands of people. Do we have to give an entire quote and/or half an article to each such instance? And in the targets' articles no less?! You could take up 1,000 pages in the Barry Bonds article just from the quotes of famous people who hate him. How ridiculous would that be? Since there was a firing that took place and third-party sources reported on Whitlock blaming Lupica and the other guy, I can see a short mention in both Lupica's and the other guy's article, and a longer mention in Whitlock's, but that's about it. If you think Lupica's article is of insufficient breadth, then broaden it - but in a neutral way, not starting with one negative event that only one person thinks involved Lupica. It makes Lupica look bad and, for all we know, the whole thing was Whitlock's responsibility. Since he was the one fired and not Lupica, it would seem to the untrained eye (like mine) that that's the case. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A person or persons has been campaigning to include a lot of negative information about this environmental activist; the gist of it is that he is opposed to carbon emissions, yet travels the country spreading his message, thus emitting carbon. This is in itself worth including in a neutral and proportionate way, but he/she/they seems to prefer a rather disproportionate focus on the information, and appears to be citing his/her/their sources quite tendentiously and out-of-context. <eleland/talkedits> 17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is notification that I have blanked the article

FatChris1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This users has been adding unsourced and difamatory material to several articles. It has been warned by me and another admin but it seems they ignore the warnings. I have come to the last warning template and the next step was to report him.
I've contact with two administrators about this issue but because I suspect they could be in a sockpuppetry case. This is because another account with a very similar name was blocked for a week because of adding the exactly same unsourced material to articles. After the block expired, a new accout (which is the one I'm reporting now) started adding the already mentioned content.
I reported the other account ending in a 7 days block. It can be seen here.
I suggest an idef block and reconsider if the user is a sucker sockpuppeteer.

Can anyone response to this?

^{It's a zero!}

23:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you'd have a pretty good case at

talk

) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think so, yes. I haven't report any SSP case before. But I don't know if we should let this report go and go straight to SSP or wait if the user gets blocked for repetly adding unsourced material to BLP articles.

Can I get any help with this user? For Pete's sake.

^{It's a zero!}

01:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This user is still adding unsourced material. Why does nobody gives a damn? —Preceding

talk • contribs

) 20:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed your response to my offer; I should have been monitoring more carefully. Frankly, I don't think he's going to get blocked for adding unsourced material (unless it's deemed to be revert-warring), so if he's a sock

talk

) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. From the first account: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4. That's just a fews, but I'm guessing it's good. The list goes on. Just check the user contribs.

The second account

^{It's a zero!}

22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock-puppet case

talk

) 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

^{It's a zero!}

23:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We have an OTRS complaint about this page (Ticket #2008010410012838). The subject is a politician, and it appears that those who feel his politics & motivations are less than honorable wish his wiki-bio to express that POV. I've reverted a few times and pointed to

This related article should also be examined/watched for BLP issues. --Versageek 17:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not a known soccer player, and I'm not sure if he even exists. Superman3892 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody with some knowledge of Spanish navigate the website of his alleged team to see if he's mentioned on there?

talk

) 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked the official site of the team and he's not mentioned there, anyway, I'm a journalist and soccer commentator here in Mexico, and I can tell you this dude is not a professional soccer player. Maybe he's a "wise" guy trying to be funny.Superman3892 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It was created by an editor with no edits other than to that article, hasn't been substantially edited by anybody else, and turns up no google hits. Combined with your say-so (and the fact that on the article of his supposed team, a different player is listed as having his number 18), I'm prepared to believe you. I've

talk

) 21:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a stage name of an obscure musician - rather than an actual person. Bigraphical (birth and newly added death) information is unverified. It reads like a vanity page Absenter (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have confirmed through birth records that James Clayton Counts was/is a real person, and that he was born on August 19, 1973, in Midland, Texas, just as his article states. Is there any easy way to verify this for inclusion? His article has already been through AfD debate, and the result was keep. It has been maintained by many Wikipedia editors, and is not a vanity page. Multiple, independent, reliable sources mention the artist by name. Rolling Stone, USA Today, and Entertainment Weekly have mentioned him. Hardly an "obscure musician."TrevorPearce (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the use of obscure. The point of contention is the recently update of death rumors, which have not been verified with the exception of a post to the Clayton Counts website. It is my understanding that a user's website should not be used as the sole reliable reference for BLP. I would like to see mention of this rumor removed until it has been validated one way or another thru more reliable sources. Absenter (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My only contention is that a rumor of one's death from their own website should be acceptable, as long as it's clearly portrayed as a rumor. If we were stating it as fact, reliable sources would certainly be necessary. The mention seems relevant to the article and its subject. Many rumors are reported on in Wikipedia, and many blogs are referred to. However, they should never be used to prove or disprove biographical content. In this case, the reference is to a claim made on the artist's website, and it is characterized as a rumor.TrevorPearce (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• WP:V, and an unpublished documentary. As the article names living individuals, the title needs to be restored unless or until a reliable source can be found that’s states to the contrary. The last version by MBC should likely be restored, and maybe protected.// Brimba (talk
  ) 13:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to do some CE but its a real train wreck. Good luck, --Tom 20:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has tags galore and needs tons of work, besides being repeatedly hit by a User who's on his fourth vandalism warning. Is he really a conservative or is he pulling people's legs (the article used to say pulling their collective third leg, which I changed just now). Corvus cornix_talk 00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why he's notable, tempt to speedy it Secret ^account 00:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was tempted myself. Corvus cornix_talk 02:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My name is Derrick Francis and I approve the biography listed as "Derrick Tha Franchise aka Young Fame" and Derrick Francis. The biography was written by my company Ear 2 Tha Street Entertainment and copied to Wikipedia. I may be contacted for verification at [email protected]. "72.218.99.173 (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)"

I came about this new article (Perrie Simpson, that is), and am not too sure wether it's okay. Especially the whole crime description. Could one of you BLP guys/girls look over it? Thanks. -- Pepve (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well,

talk

) 01:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if Stephanie Euro is still alive, it could be a BLP issue (given the detailed account of her role in the crime). I'll look into it further.

talk

) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this murderer is notable for an article, try to AFD. Secret ^account 01:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is some debate over Kelly's sexual orientation on this article and it's talk page. There is no verifiable source that supplies information on this subject. When I requested a citation to the fact that he's "openly gay", the supposed citation/reference is his own website, wherein he specifically states he will not answer whether he is gay. Since I defend Wikipedia to everyone as an reliable resource, I hoped someone higher up with more time and knowledge than me will put an end to this. Thanks --sdream93 (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's a blatant violation of
  reliable source can be cited that specifically justifies the claim. *** Crotalus ***
  03:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just read the website, where he does say it's none of anyone's business, but then he (in the tongue-in-cheek interview of himself) asks, "Yes?" and answers "Duh", so he does say he's gay on his own website. See [4].

(Sing)

04:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• WP:BLP policy. I have reverted twice and warned the user once. I just want to be sure that my actions regarding these course of events are justified and within policy. -MBK₀₀₄
  05:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think your actions were not only permissable, but mandatory. I just headed over to his talk page to add a note, but what you said summed up exactly what I would have. Hopefully that will put an end to this.

talk

) 05:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, that article is a BLP nightmare. It almost needs to be stubbed and started from scratch - none of it is cited. --B (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Deleted and recreated as stub, too many BLP violations to mention.--

Doc

^g 10:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this one, and it currently consists of a list of articles which appear to be uncomplimentary. I keep removing them with a note that there needs to be an article written that uses these articles as sources, but User:Uncle G keeps reverting my removal, with no further commentary. Who's closer to correct here, him or me? Thanks.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 06:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

What's the status of pages like this? --NE2 00:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a talk sub page and relevant to the discussion and AfD debate, as I've pointed out already. There's nothing in it that's a violation of BLP, so it doesn't belong on this notice board. Tyrenius (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted now as unnecessary duplicate of material on talk page. Tyrenius (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to get some outside/expert input on whether or not accusations of

Resolved

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Sanchez (3rd nomination). Based on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop#Removal_request. Lawrence Cohen 00:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there no standards whatsoever on Wikiquote? A page on my real life identity as Chip Berlet was created there for the sole purpose of inserting a nasty quote out of contect into a Wikipedia entry where the quote had already been deleted by admins for violating rules on Biographies of Living Persons. What is even more outlandish, is that my request for deletion on Wikiquote was refused. Is there no one here willing to deal with the fact that Wikiquote is being used to violate Wikipedia BLP guidelines on defamation?--Cberlet (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the quote there while it is being discussed at the Village pump. Cbrown1023 talk 03:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why vendetta? I read about some Chip Berlet first time at English Wikipedia when I saw how he want to censor criticism of him. Then I understand that he also hate Lyndon LaRouche (I read about him also first time here) and he had many disputes in articles about him. I have no reason for vendetta and it is only personal attack when he writes it. --Dezidor (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others#Cberlet cautioned regarding autobiography and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others#Over-involvement by Cberlet in Chip Berlet --Dezidor (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop trolling. Wikiquote has a NPOV policy. Your first reversion cannot be seen as following that. Three admins have also removed it. Get the point. Will ^(talk) 14:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not think that Wikiquote has a NPOV policy : generally speaking if a quote is authentic then it can stay within certain limits of lenght and relevance of course. Different forums, different rules. Andries (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WQ does have an NPOV policy: a) because q:WQ:NPOV exists, and b) because NPOV is a Foundation-mandated policy. Will ^(talk) 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

My name is David Howe. A biography page about me is currently under consideration for review by the Arbitration Committee at my request. It looks as if this will move forward. In the mean time the biography page has been fully protected however the talk page has not. I originally did not have a problem with this. Unfortunately libelous material and claims about me being a sock puppet are being made. Certain editors are added text boxes to the top of the page claiming I have been editing Wikipedia under various user names. This is all part of an ongoing campaign meant to embarrass and discredit me. I would appreciate it if we could get full protection on this page as well. Thank you.--Kingofmann (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms that Lazydown, Kingofmann, Theisles are the same. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bio was written by third parties and contains POV with apparent purpose of slanting Pielke's beliefs and motivations, such as following (this is my response to persons reinserting deletions):

(... I did not agree/like the opening sentence under On Climate Change heading, "Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces." Meaning of nuanced does not fit here (expression or appreciation of subtle shades of meaning - OED). And ..."sometimes taken for skeptism" - by whom? Where is the reference? Skeptism is a relative term depending on the commenters POV. Did Pielke say this about himself? If not it risks POV which should be avoided in living biographies.Dbecher-hamburg (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: ...can't immeadiately find the "skeptic" thingy. Take it out if you like; ever since he started shouting on his web site I've been of the opinion that he has crossed the invisible line William M. Connolley (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly outside of Wiki livinjg person biography guidelines... I don't understand why people do crap like this. The sugject has spent a lifetime doing good climate related research.Dbecher-hamburg (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You failed to notice that a reference had been added to the sceptic part. I've added one more reference to show that Pielke indeed is misquoted/misunderstood at times - precisely because his view are more nuanced than the line that often appears in the news. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

born 16 octobre 1943 - died 26 decembre 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.69.40 (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Template added at bottom of page with offensive,derogatory comments.Tried to edit but cannot seem to remove.Would appreciate the intervention of a more experienced user-Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by User250 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting it. I got it. Sigh. That had been there for about six weeks.  :( Corvus cornix_talk 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Excessive criticisms per

Blatant Political Character assassination

People are getting tired of the partisan slop and blatant hatred of Republican office holders by bias editors with obvious agendas on wikipeidia.

especially by some, whose, agenda is clearly apparent, (See Propol for an excellent example of a one. Some should stop this blatant political character assassination, assuming there is any fairness and decency left here. 68.75.176.242 (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've protected this in the meantime because it seems to have been the focus of a revert war over the same criticism since the month of its creation, and it didn't contain much other than criticism. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody please provide references? See Talk:Dési_Bouterse. Andries (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You can tag the article with the appropriate tag: {{

citations missing}}. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

removed obvious BLP violation. Not sure about the rest, although I would delete most of that.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the alleged section as unnecessary and also per possible BLP issues. Thanks, --Tom 18:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

This entry for the former governor of Salta province contains a number of clear falsehoods, claims that his children may be from another man, that he was the lover of his ex-vice governor, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.76.229 (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Orangemike has removed the BLP violations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

• Ed O'Loughlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This is a fresh re-creation of a previously deleted, controversial article. Previous discussions of the earlier version of the article:
  1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive337#Block of User:124.191.92.25
  2. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive34#Ed O'Loughlin (closed)
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed O'Loughlin
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed O'Loughlin/Anonymous user comments
  5. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 29
  6. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive30#124.191.92.25
  7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive61#User:124.191.92.25 reported by User:Eleland (Result: Admin reviewed - comments left at article talk page)
  8. User talk:124.191.92.25
  9. Talk:Ed O'Loughlin/Archive1

--A. B. ^(talk) 17:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, not this shit again. This article is a blatant
  coat rack and will never be anything more, because O'Loughlin just isn't that notable. I suspect that User:Adon Emett, who created the article, is the same as User:C1818 and the 124.190.*.* IP addresses that were disrupting the AFD. *** Crotalus ***
  21:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed O'Loughlin 2nd attempt‎. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Could we have a few more people watching People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? I was skimming this after reading a news report on them, and found a fairly blatant BLP violation (link is to my deletion of it) - the insertion of attacks on a critic of PETA sourced only to PETA themselves. A bit more monitoring would be useful, indeed, there may be other problems there I didn't spot on a skim, so it's probably worth keeping an eye on it. Problems like this are rarely isolated. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

• Barry Wellman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has numerous unsubstantiated claims that are clearly being maintained by the subject of the article in a self-promotional manner. These claims are then being used in a self-intersted manner. For instance, see http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/vita/index.html where it states the subject received an "award" of being praised for teaching on wikipedia! (When it seems pretty clear the subject is the wiki editor that added the statement (and all of the other promotional language and continues to revert to it) to the listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.11.39 (talk • contribs) 30 December 2007

Given the reference here to Professor Wellman's having been "awarded a “Society Barnstar” and a "Diligence Barnstar" in 2007 for his work on Wikipedia" and the similarity to

WP:COI do seem worth inviting response. I'll let User:Bellagio99 know about this conversation in case he'd care to weigh in here. (Please remember to sign your notes on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

19:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Moonriddengirl: I appreciate the opportunity to respond. I was awarded Barnstars for work on the social network and social network software articles -- by third parties whom I have never met in real life. They were NOT awarded for work on the Barry Wellman article. However, in response to this unregistered user's request (69.113.11.39),the Barry Wellman articles have been further third-party documented and further third-party documentation will be provided as needed. In addition, another editor Tvoz whom I have never met in real life has voluntarily gone through and removed some possibly contentious material. While I question the blunderbuss edits of 69.113.11.39, specific realistic request for third-party documentation will be provided. Thanks once again. I do think the edits I -- and Tvoz -- provided today -- have made the article stronger. Yours in Wikipedia, Bellagio99 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the correct URL for viewing the references to the Barnstars is in this frame, not the parent twin-framed webpage. For the sake of good order. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

conflict of interest; if it is, in fact, autobiographical as she or he surmises when stating that "it seems pretty clear the subject is the wiki editor". If that is the case, you should be aware that autobiographical editing is strongly discouraged and that (as the autobiography policy states) you "must be willing to accept it being neutralized if it is not neutral". For instance, I note that the IP editor neutralized the term "pioneering", but that this term was restored here. The reference provided, however, is a primary source and, I would imagine, not the best choice to verify the use of that term. I see also that the IP editor removed a section led off by an unsourced, vague claim ("It was probably the first study...."), which you later restored without reference and which, though revised by another editor, apparently remains without reference still ([7]). As the autobiography policy emphasizes, "Unconscious biases can and do exist, and are a very common cause of the problems with autobiographies—which is why we discourage autobiographies themselves and not just self-promotion. Not only does this affect neutrality but it also affects the verifiability and unoriginal research of the autobiography. One may inadvertently slip things in that one may not think need to be attributable even though they do, due to those very same biases. Even if you can synthesize an autobiography based on only verifiable material that is not original research you may still not be able to synthesize it in a neutral manner". Respectfully, if you are the subject of this article, you may wish to reconsider contributing to it and instead focus more on your other excellent contributions to Wikipedia, the ones for which you have received peer recognition. In cases where Wikipedia has an article about you, unless removing simple vandalism, it is strongly recommended that you discuss edits on the talk page of the article and allow disinterested individuals to evaluate and implement them according to consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

21:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl, I will remove the edits mention, and keep in mind your general suggestions. They are not Misbegotten (couldn't resist;-) Bellagio99 (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bellagio99 (or should I say Barry Wellman?) and other editors. I may be new to Wikipedia, but I still find much of the language in the article quite self-promotional and certainly not unbiased. If Wikipedia allows such self-focused self-promotion it really draws into question the legitimacy of content overall. It seems that taking Moonriddengirl's advice of avoiding editing your own entry would be a good thing to do instead of trying to write off criticism from a newbie that calls it like they see it - which is self-promotional and autobiographical - both of which even a newbie like me can tell are not acceptable. And by the way, the part on Barry Wellman's Toronto page I was referring to was where it says, "Teaching praised in “Barry Wellman” Wikipedia entry, November 30, 2007: “Students thoroughly enjoy his classes where they are often taught about social networking and various community and technology interactions through an optimistic sociological perspective. As one of his students put it, ‘he uses his wit and vast understanding of his field of study to not only teach us about how society has changed and will change as a result of technology, but makes this learning process an interactive and entertaining one as well.’” which seems like a true joke when it is written by Barry Wellman as an editor. 69.113.11.39 (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The material quoted immediately above does not appear in the Wikipedia article at all, so I don't see the relevance (nor do I get the joke). Is there some other grievance being expressed here? The article seems pretty well sourced to me - 55 notes for an article of this length is pretty good, and more than many others - if there are specific "unsubstantiated claims", it would be helpful to have them highlighted. I do agree with Moonriddengirl that third-party sources are preferred, and that words like "pioneered" can be problematic if not properly referenced, so would be best to avoid using them. Tvoz |talk 03:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

conflict of interest editing; even if the restoration of that one bit was not the specific intent of the reversion (and it probably wasn't, given that it was subsequently removed here), it creates an aura of impropriety when unsourced, POV material that is used promotionally on the subject's own website is restored to the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

13:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 69.x.x.x - the article seems to be quite generous. It's obvious that Wellman is notable, but its difficult to pick out the bits which make him stand out because there's quite a lot of other, less notable stuff in there too. Most of the references are to self-published papers, which should probably be avoided. --h2g2bob (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, please take another look at the Notes: most of the references are not at all to self-published papers -as far as I can tell, most of them are papers published in respected, many refereed, Journals in the field and in published books by respected houses. Here are just the first few in the Notes: (journals)Sociological Inquiry, American Journal of Sociology, Science, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, ; (books) Networked Neighbourhoods: The Online Community in Context, edited by Patrick Purcell, Guildford, UK: Springer; Netting Citizens: Exploring Citizenship in a Digital Age, edited by Johnston McKay, Edinburgh: St. Andrew Press. And there are many more. As for third-party items, look at the "References" section, which it appears is being expanded. I'm not sure what you mean by "generous" - if there is reliably sourced criticism of Wellman's work available, it absolutely ought to be included as well, but there's no rule that I know of that says if none is found that an article should somehow be cut down. Can you point out what you think should be removed and why? Tvoz |talk 07:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) If certain editors believe that the article Barry Wellman should be deleted, or somesuch action, just because he dares to hold a Wikipedia account as an editor, then they should withdraw from this thread. Because this is solely about his editing of Barry Wellman, and nothing else. If you see promotional (or I would say positive beneficial) content in the article, make sure you check the edit history to confirm that Bellagio99 added it, or amended it. There is nothing to stop independent editors, such as myself, from adding properly sourced 'tributes' to the subject, as long as we maintain NPOV throughout. The editor and subject cannot be accused of conflict of interest merely because their article contains positive beneficial content. It must be proved that they had a hand in adding it or amending it. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. I dont understand why wikipedia even allows people to contribute to their own article at all. As was already stated, unintended bias is very possible. Surely the best option is to have a blanket ban? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.182 (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

? I haven't seen anybody argue that the article needs to be deleted. Nevertheless, if

Notable Wikipedian}}, but autobiographical editing is, again, strongly discouraged. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

13:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Strongly discouraged" is one thing, a "blanket ban" is quite another, and it is not policy. This conversation shouldn't really continue here, as it's not fair to the subject who is not in violation of any policy that I've seen. Tvoz |talk 04:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

210.54.238.182, if you wish to pursue this further, you may take it up at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I don't see any reason to do so and suspect no action would be taken. User:Bellagio99 is a good contributor who has been advised of recommendations with this regard. I note he has not edited the article since December. And as Tvoz points out, blanket banning is not policy. Editors involved with subjects are compliant when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In any event, there are no BLP issues in the article, so I am marking it resolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)