Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:14, 3 February 2011

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Sanela Diana Jenkins

Resolved

– 14:55, 25 January 2011 User:Ironholds blocked User:Maximillioner (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Violations of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy)

Following an OTRS inquiry (ticket# 2011012510006899), I went through the edits made by User:Maximillioner. I seems this account serves the singular purpose to harass the article's subject. I'll look closer at the individual statements to see if any of them should be referred to Oversight for permanent redaction. Would you please take whatever action you deem appropriate? Asav (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All edits oversighted. Article looks on first glance quite tidy - Sanela Diana Jenkins if anyone wants to add it to their watchlist in case the user returns Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a watch following the OTRS complaint, so I've got it. Cheers! Asav (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamedou Ould Slahi

Mohamedou Ould Slahi is a detainee at Guantanamo. An editor is claiming that BLPPRIMARY#Misuse_of_primary_sources prevents using U.S. District and Circuit Court opinions issued by Federal judges as primary sources. This is a ridiculous reading of "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." While this section is poorly written, "assertions" clearly means "allegations" not proven in a court of law. The factual findings of Federal judges in habeas cases are the single most reliable sources of information about a current detainee that I know of. They are as far away from unfounded adversarial allegations as is possible. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that whole area is awful , just as you say, primary cites, awful, its like so undue and obsessive , wikipedia is being used through that whole section of articles. Mostly there is only a couple of user identities that have created them. Hundreds of them should be deleted straight away -When I nominated one - User DGG said something like . I thought we had decided all these are notable - just like tittie models. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mnnlaxer and have taken this same position in the past. Trial transcripts and pleadings may contain wild unsourced allegations, but a court's decision is in effect a secondary source, a synthesis of the raw material and should not be treated the same way. I think the best practice is to look for reliable sources such as newspaper articles which discuss the ruling, but in the absence of those, I would freely use court decisions as sources rather than leaving out the information. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no reliable independent report has been written about the verdict then its just not wikipedia notable at all and likely, as no one has written about it in a WP:RS then the whole story has no place being here in the first place. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A federal court opinion is a reliable independent report. I can't imagine anything more reliable and independent. Or are we to delete all quotes of Supreme Court written opinions? Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its just not an independent secondary report that asserts any notability to the content at all. Such primary reporting is not what we are supposed to be doing here - why not get a blog and primary investigate and report there. - the best thing about this whole section that imo is like a third grade school project is that most of the articles are unread or have low viewing figures - this is because the articles are not notable and no one has reported about them. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very next citation in the article, http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=2988, is an independent secondary report. The fact that the American mainstream media could only manage this, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/09/AR2010040905050.html, is immaterial to the notability of the decision. There are still Americans who care, http://www.aclu.org/national-security/mohamedou-ould-slahi-challenges-guantanamo-detention. And thanks, but I already have a blog. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob--I respectfully disagree on this one. Published court decisions are authoritative, public syntheses of facts which, unless disturbed on appeal, stand as permanent outcomes. Their notability should not be completely dependent on newspaper coverage, though most will have at least some. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, right. Most will have some. Give over. - if its not been reported on it isn't notable and shouldn't be here, get a blog.Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has not addressed the relevant issues of this specific case. Very large sections of Mohamedou Ould Slahi‎ have been written based on the interpretation of REDACTED court documents. Like for example this 32 pages long one. (redacted). This is not about picking out a single fact like the courts decision of the case. Mnnlaxer has written whole sections about this individuals life based on the linked document and similar court papers. This is clearly against WP:BLP and WP:BLPPRIMARY and if someone wants to change policy there are other places. The article Mohamedou Ould Slahi‎ is a mess and violates BLP by any standard. I have removed the worst cases of BlP violations and have added ^{[citation needed]} tags but found myself just reverted what is also a no no in case of negative information in BLP's. Have just a look at this section Mohamedou_Ould_Slahi#Germany where he extensively uses these REDACTED court papers as source for his own interpretation of these REDACTED documents. This gross violation of original research and adding of poorly sourced negative information to BLP's is a mess and needs urgent fixing. IQinn (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that any of the uses of the habeas opinion are against any WP and also that they are negative. Please list the specific sentences that you feel violate any particular WP. What WP forbids the use of anything at all in a redacted court opinion? See the talk page for more Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please get yourself familiar with our core policies and stop writing biographies based on redacted court papers what is a no no. I think WP:BLP, WP:BLPPRIMARY specially WP:OR would be a good start. As said here in the discussion you might start a blog or use another place on the web to publish your opinion on what is written in these redacted papers or not. IQinn (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of "redacted" in any of the three WP you cite. And it is not my opinion on what is written in the habeas court decision. I use direct quotes and very close paraphrases. Again, please provide an example of how any citation has violated a WP. If you haven't provided any, and still oppose their use in the article, I am going to request a Third Opinion on this dispute. Mnnlaxer (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please get yourself familiar with WP:OR I have pointed you to Mohamedou_Ould_Slahi#Germany. To cherry pick sentence for from this redacted document without understanding the document and context is WP:OR. Feel free to find a mentor on WP who can explain the policies in more detail to you. IQinn (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to cite a particular sentence I wrote and the original document section to show that I have "interpreted" the judge's ruling outside of a common sense understanding of his writing. If I am "cherry picking" then every other quotation or citation of material that doesn't quote the entire document is "cherry picking". Again, redacted documents are not mentioned anywhere on WP:BLP or WP:OR. You cannot decide who has understanding of the document and context and who does not. I have tied all of my citations to a particular page of the habeas ruling, while you have generally spoken in no-no's without once referring to any particular sentence or issue. Claiming that citing a judge's ruling is OR is ridiculous. I wasn't involved, wasn't there, didn't write anything, or had any other experience which differentiates me from any other person on the planet who has read the ruling. Why can't you be my mentor and explain the policy that you are citing in more detail to me? You haven't even attempted it. But worst of all, you have deleted a common practice that has been in use for years without convincing one single person that you are right. You can't remotely claim that your actions are at all related to a consensus. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if we could take the tone down a notch. We are arguing an issue which is not really clear under Wikipedia policy. I took a quick look at the court decision in issue, and I don't think that the fact that it is redacted prevents it from being used, carefully, as a primary source. Policy here is that primary sources can in fact be used under certain circumstances. WP:PRIMARY says: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Under WP:BLPPRIMARY, a judge's decision is not a trial transcript or court record. It may fall under the ban of "other public document", but that is way too vague to give guidance and needs clarification. To me, a "record" or "document" indicates a filing such as a complaint or motion, or a docket sheet. A decision or opinion of the court is the result of processing and evaluating these documents, and indicates a higher level of reliability and notability. In other words, a judge's decision is a synthesis with authority, and in my opinion should be citable, carefully, for assertions along the lines of "the judge stated...." This discussion has so far not led to any consensus, so it would be great to hear from other editors.Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds exactly right. A decision establishes (for example) that someone is guilty of a crime (or not), in a way that testimony by itself does not. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a judge's decision is a secondary source for facts relevant to the case, because it is a third-party synthesis of the evidence presented to the court. It would be a primary source for courtroom events in which the judge was an actor (e.g. decisions on what evidence was admissible). Whether the redactions introduce a non-neutral POV is a separate issue. --Avenue (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I have attempted to use the opinion carefully and am very willing to discuss changing or deleting any particular use. However, I strongly feel the need to defend the ability ("may be used") from blanket condemnations. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree that a judge's decision in a court case should, under most conditions, be considered a reliable source of information about the result of the case, or for issues of fact that were adjudicated in the case. By definition, a judge is expected to listen to all sides of the argument, weigh them impartially, determine their credibility, and issue a fair and neutral decision based upon facts. That's consistent with the highest ideals of Wikipedia policy. It's also a far higher standard than the editorial policy of almost any "reliable source" newspaper one could name today. Although decisions are sometimes overturned on appeal, those overturns typically hinge on one or two narrow procedural issues or matters of fact; it's rare that there are wholesale errors in a judge's findings of fact. Moreover, when there are errors, there's a procedure to catch them and publish the mistake. A judge's findings of fact and decision are legally considered to be the truth once issued. To interpret Wikipedia policy in a way that prevents editors from citing the best, most legally solid, and almost certainly most accurate source of information about a legal issue would be a perversion. I'm with Jonathanwallace and the others on this one. As for redaction: editors must be careful when dealing with redacted material; it's usually apparent when a clear statement is likely to be altered by the context of an adjacent redaction. In those cases, I think the material should rarely be used, and then only with caution, to avoid an error of omission due to the redaction. However, there's often plenty of material in redacted decisions whose meaning wouldn't be meaningfully affected by the redactions; there's no reason to toss that baby out with the bathwater. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph D. Scurfield

Article is getting edits relating to firings at subject's company, obviously from people involved as detail is being added which isn't in the source, including naming a person involved not named by the sources. Article was semi-protected yesterday but there have been further edits by an autoconfirmed account inactive since 2006. Help watching the article would be appreciated. January ^(talk) 07:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits look justified to me. I watchlisted the page. I also made a couple of edits, changing the second mention of Calgary Herald from an inline external link to a reference, and revising the language of the sentence to reflect better what the article actually says, as I don't think the statement that they were speaking on behalf of other employees was supported. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a closer look at the overall article, it's based almost entirely on primary sources which makes me question the notability. Sunshine Village, which he is CEO of, is notable but I wouldn't consider that necessarily makes the CEO notable. January ^(talk) 22:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Schapira

Y

This user is a member of
Generation Y.

has been persistently adding this ethnicity claim to the infobox and article on Schapira, despite there being nothing in the article itself about this. He's also added it to the article's lede and to other articles. For some background, here is Unitrin's first edit using this account, and here are some others:[1][2]. Is this material appropriate for this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Jewish references in the article (infobox and cat). There's no support for either, let alone that it has anything to do with her notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's added it again, insisting the material is sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw, and I reverted, this time citing three different category-related policies that are applicable.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it's highly problematic for editors to yellow badge biographies of living people, particularly people they quite obviously disagree with. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, see the yellow badge in the infobox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Enderlin Unitrin (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel some other article is violating WP:BLP in some way, remove the material, or bring it up on this board, in its own section. We're discussing BLP violations in the Esther Schapira article here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, you persist in not understanding others. The edit was done in good faith to make Esther Schapira's infobox consistent with Charles Enderlin's. Your quip about "yellow badging" is a mean-spirited and BAD FAITH accusation, and shows you lack understanding about the edit. You should avoid Israeli topics if you cannot be fair and/or consistent.Unitrin (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I understand you all too well, and what happens in that other article is irrelevant here. Also, Schapira is German, not Israeli. Anyway, I'm just acting administratively and enforcing policy here; unsurprisingly, every other editor who has commented here agrees with me. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not consistent, please see infobox for Charles Enderlin.Unitrin (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not responsible for administering every single article on Wikipedia. As I've stated above, If you feel some other article is violating WP:BLP in some way, remove the material, or bring it up on this board, in its own section. We're discussing BLP violations in the Esther Schapira article here. Don't waste our time bringing up other articles here again, it is disruptive. I am increasingly concerned that this new account of yours is behaving in ways no different than your many previously banned accounts. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop attacking others. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks, please review this policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia! Thanks.Unitrin (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop insisting we amend articles without providing proper sources. If you continue to do so, you may be ignored... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is insisting anything, please stop persisting in using the word insisting. Thanks.Unitrin (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And he's added it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source being cited, israelinsider.net has previously been rejected as WP:RS, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_28#IsraelInsider. I'll revert, and point this out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well found Andy - it is often a quick guide to reliability I use to check the usage - if an external is is only used two or three times o]n the whole of the wiki then its very likely not a WP:RS - Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know this discussion was occurring, Jayjg..... It's relevant. She did 2 documentaries on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's only fair that people know what her religion/ethnicity is, as is done with Arab/Muslim sources for the conflict. Why hide it? She won a Buber-Rosenzweig-Medal, because of her Jewish contributionsUnitrin (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you were to provide a reliable source for her supposed ethnicity, as you were asked to. As for why she won the Buber-Rosenzweig-Medal, our article says it is awarded "to individuals, initiatives, or institutions, which have actively contributed to Christian-Jewish understanding". Can you explain how this relates to the statement you have made about 'Jewish contributions'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders if Johann Baptist Metz, Henryk Muszyński and Johannes Rau also won Buber-Rosenzweig-Medals because of their "Jewish contributions"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, please stop wasting our time. Do you have a source that shows she won the medal for being a Christian or has ever done any documentaries related to Christian topics, please show your source.

Andy, I provided a source where it's clear that she self-identifies as being Jewish. She won the above Buber-Rosenzweig-Medal for contributing as a Jewish person from that perspective. It's relevant to her life, she's also spoken publicly on behalf of B’nai B’rith. I see no reason why this info should be hidden or censored. I do understand that the israelinsider source is deemed questionable, and I did read through the discussion link about whether israelinsider is a reliable source (it was inconclusive overall). There is no reason why her infobox shouldn't be consistent with others' on Wiki (i.e. Charles Enderlin, and many others), but I accept that we could use a better, Reliable Source and all Wiki editors could work on improving the source. Thanks. Unitrin (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unitrin, I'm not wasting anyone's time here. However, I'm rather concerned that you've begun editing Wikipedia again, and in the same way, considering how many of your socks were previously banned. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request that a reliable source is provided for a statement about someone's ethnicity isn't censorship, as you should be perfectly aware. As for the rest, again provide proper sources, and we can make a sensible decision on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Among the distinguished speakers we had the pleasure to welcome were Mrs. Simone Weil and Mr. Arno Klarsfeld from France, Mrs. Esther Schapira from Germany, Chief Rabbi Bent Melchior from Denmark and Rabbi Awraham Soetendorp from the Netherlands." http://www.bnaibritheurope.org/bbe/content/view/1022/120/lang,en_GB/ Would Jayjg like to maintain that Ms. Schapiro was invited to speak with the other Jewish speakers, to Jewish youth, because she's Christian, atheist, or not self-identifying?Unitrin (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this state that Esther Schapira is Jewish? No. Find a reliable source that does. Wikipedia doesn't rely on guesswork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could help us find the source to help Wikipedia. She stated to Channel 2 new in Israel that she's German-Jewish, maybe we could locate that video and/or report? That would clear it all up. Thanks.Unitrin (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Foundation Wiki feedback

There is some incorrect information re: Marlene Danielle longest running performer in Broadway history.She replaced Wendy Edmead and was Bombalurina for Eighteen Years. She has also not been included in your list of American dancers. I am her mother and can provide a biography approved by her.Moved from FWF by PeterSymonds (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marlene Danielle hangs up her whiskers - sept 2000 "for 18 years ... Marlene Danielle, the last remaining actress from the original cast of "Cats"" - Cats (musical) - Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Caplinger

Justice Nancy Moritz needs her page updated - I get in trouble with moderators because apparently I don't know the rules for retitlting and redirecting pages. Her former name is Nancy Caplinger and I have a discussion on that page with info. Thanks for your help Alphachimera (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a major revamp of the article to incorporate most of your concerns. The only thing I haven't squarely addressed is the issue of her name. I've updated her name within the article but not changed (moved) the name of the article itself. It's not clear to me what to do because her name is apparently Nancy Moritz Caplinger. I'm assuming Moritz is her maiden name but don't know for sure. According to the Kansas court website, she is using Moritz as her name, but I'm not sure for how long that's been true. It would be good to find a source that explains all this. I haven't looked for one, though. I just concentrated on bringing the article up-to-date.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts. Her name is Moritz now - she started going by Moritz Caplinger last fall, preceding the switch back to Moritz (maiden name). The Kansas Courts website (http://www.kscourts.org/kansas-courts/supreme-court/justice-bios/moritz.asp) has the most up-to-date information. The news articles and the Washburn Law website reflect the transitionary period back in Novemeber; news articles that appear on Google as recently as a couple weeks ago call her Moritz Caplinger but they seem to be just quoting the older articles. Aside from the Kansas Courts website, there isn't a source directly confirming her name as Moritz. Does anyone know if there's a rule for handling name changes with marriage/divorce? Alphachimera (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know why she switched back to her maiden name? Did she divorce? It would be helpful to have a source on the issue (other than the Kansas court website). If we did, we should be able to accomplish a name change in the article and then redirects in case someone enters the Caplinger name.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she and her husband (Mark?) divorced. It's not exactly something that goes in the paper, though, so there's nothing to meet WP:RS. Alphachimera (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul D'Ambrosio

This page was most likely authored by the article subject. The bio is straight from his website, with the exception of some edits. The moniker of the author ends in 221. D'Ambrosio's twitter alias also ends in 221. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.204.118.6 (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People creating and editing their own bio is frowned upon, WP:AUTOBIO. An editor who is active here has already done significant clean up on the article. If you think the article still does not belong here, the solution is to propose it for deletion. I believe you would need to create a free Wikipedia account. However, I think the assertion he was a Pulitzer finalist, and won other significant awards, if correct, would be enough to make him notable.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Mubarak

Suzanne Mubarak, Egypt's First Lady, seeking asylum in London? Not so sure about that

The page for Suzanne Mubarak says — in two places — that she is reportedly seeking asylum in London. Given the current unrest in Egypt, this is not outlandish, but I haven't seen any major news organizations reporting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfrench39 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still not seeing reliable sources for this--just a lot of blogs and non-RS cites citing Twitter feeds and saying its "unconfirmed". It would be better to delete the information and wait a day; if its true it will be in the Guardian, the Times etc. shortly.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have reverted so the assertion is not currently in the article. Note that all the gossip is based on her supposedly having been seen arriving at Heathrow. There is a big leap from "X took a plane to London" to "X fled the country". Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/104960/20110125/suzanne-mubarak-of-egypt-has-fled-to-heathrow-airport-in-london-unconfirmed-reports.htm - from a few days ago - according to a post on twitter. Yes, its just nothing reportable and as you say, even if it is true, fled is just an opinionated claim, you wouldn't blame her if she has decided this is a good time to go shopping somewhere outside of Egypt. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nargis Fakhri

Incorrect information about the living person. birthdate is wrong real date 10/20/1987 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusrite21 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the article was a cut and copy violation from http://www.usnewstime.com/nargis-fakhri-hot-photos/2379.html which shows the incorrect date of birth, I can't yet find a WP:RS for a dob so I have presently removed it.Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marine le Pen

This article is written in rather poor English, and is ridiculously praising of Le Pen. To quote: Marine Le Pen is described as the « revelation of the 2010 year » : « a political phenomenom first », « a media phenomenom secondly » As Marine Le Pen is popular among workers, political analysts speak of « social marinism » Opposed to the accession of Turkey to the European Union, she prefers the option of a « privileged partnership » As well as the superfluous vanity shots like this one: Chess photo Could we have a neutrality banner on this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myster Pacific (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, reports like this are better reported on the article talkpage, at least in the first instance. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and many of the assertions given as fact are sourced to the National Front site itself or to sites which appear also to be right wing nationalist in nature and therefore not WP:RS. I deleted the statement "As Marine Le Pen is popular among workers, political analysts speak of « social marinism »" for that reason and will give the site some more attention.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

jacques fresco

Resolved

– semi protected and watchlisted

Repeating defamatory phrases was inserted in article, i was edited and removes some of phrases. please, watch this bio and protect them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzaloon (talk • contribs) 14:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted. Scott MacDonald has also protected it to autoconfirmed editors only. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Falk

Moved to article talk page per Bbb23's suggestion

I came across Richard A. Falk through a discussion on another site; I'd never heard of him til a few minutes ago. I found an overstatement in the lead paragraph that I was about to fix, but I saw on the talk page that he is wound up in the Israel/Palestine conflict, a traditional Wikipedia battleground, so I'm bringing it here I don't want to mess with it myself at this point.

A 9/11 truther,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] Falk has been condemned by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and others for suggesting that the George W. Bush administration, rather than al-Qaeda, was responsible for the September 11 attacks.^[11]

I have looked at all 11 of those footnotes and not a single one of them labels Falk as an actual 9/11 truther. They establish pretty well that he has expressed truther sympathies and gotten criticized for it, but that's not the same thing. Falk himself writes, in one of the editorials that drew the criticism:

It is not paranoid under such circumstances to assume that the established elites of the American governmental structure have something to hide, and much to explain. What has not been established by the “9/11 Truth Movement” is a convincing counter-narrative – that is, an alternate version of the events that clears up to what degree, if at all, the attacks resulted from incompetence, deliberate inaction, and outright complicity.[3]

That seems to say: there are gaps in the official report, but the truther 9/11 conspiracy theories aren't supported either.

The sentence also says "Falk has been condemned... for suggesting that the George W. Bush administration" sourced to the Jerusalem Post. The Jerusalem Post article uses the word "questioning" rather than "suggesting", which comes across slightly differently IMHO.

I'm also not sure how to assess the neutrality of the various sources cited. I.e. I have to wonder to what extent Falk is being attacked by proxy because of his role in the I/P conflict, using this 9/11 stuff as a pretext. Falk replied on his blog (http://richardfalk.wordpress.com) but that is not mentioned.

Anyway, I think the sentence should be rewritten. While writing this post, I found there was also an NPOVN thread January 20[4] and there has been some edit warring related to the sentence (that's why there are so many footnotes now), so I figure bringing it here is still the right thing.

71.141.88.54 (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better place to bring all this up first is on the Talk page of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that but decided it was better to bring it to uninvolved editors, given the edit warring and that the article is already under sanctions. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'll put it on the article talk page per your suggestion. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Grammer

There have now been four different birth years given for Camille Grammer, covering a span of nearly a decade and a half. Discussion on the article's talk page has failed to produce any progress. All of the sources seem remarkably coy about mentioning the piece of information in question. Can anyone with a bit more experience in dealing with such things, discover a plausible year backed by a WP:RS ? Thanks --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP changed the birth year from 1968 to 1964 without any explanation or source. I've restored the 1968 year. I've also changed the birth place. That was changed much longer ago, again without any explanation or source. Theoretically, if challenged, both the place and the year would require sources. I've found sources for both, but they aren't the most reliable, e.g., IMDb and gossipy web pubs that caused my browser to go a little haywire. :-) I've also removed Caucasian from the infobox. Completely unnecessary. As well as her height, same. I've responded to the birth year issue on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vundavalli Aruna Kumar

Appears to be an attack article, complete with accusation of "malicious targeting intentions in vendetta politics." I'm kind of busy right now, but someone might want to confirm and correct this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have ruthlessly hacked out most of the "Career" text, which seemed to be half unsourced attack material and half unsourced positive puffery. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Brody

Resolved

– added a couple of citations and removed some cut and copy text

This bio entry has extremely few cited sources and reads like a press release. In fact, I just attended a talk by Leonard Brody, and his introduction read almost word for word like this entry. I propose deleting this entry on account of notability, tone, and lack of citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elpuma70 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bio definitely needs proper sourcing if it is to stay. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few externals with mentions of him, he appears to be kind of noteworthy - I also ragged it around a bit as I discovered the content was a copy paste from here - I added resolved but if you still think what is left is not noteworthy you can either WP:prod it or open a WP:AFD - Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Burnett

71.33.195.86 (talk · contribs) added some information to the controversy section of the Erin Burnett article saying that critics say she implied the U.S. must support dictatorships to keep oil cheap. This is was removed by MarnetteD (talk · contribs), and then re-added by the same IP address. I removed it, thinking it was a BLP violation. The article itself says nothing about what people think she implied; the only thing that mentions it is the title of the source story. I'd like to get another opinion on this, but I'm not sure if this is the correct board for this. Also wasn't sure if I needed to notify people as is done at WP:ANI. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't have to notify as at ANI but I find its often a good idea and allows for both sides of the story and helps to move the issue from reverting to discussion. That addition was a bit close to the blp bright line, what happened or what it looks like to me is that the editor used the title of the article and included it in the addition. As I understand it, article titles are not wikipedia reliable and reporters are given a degree of leeway with what they title their pieces with - a title is by its very nature a dramatic header with the attention of titillating and drawing readers in to read the piece... also .. "critics argue" a claim like that even when cited would need a more specific attribution to a couple of the notable people that have claimed she was doing that.Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, what you've said basically echoes my own feelings. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 50 Most Loathsome Americans

Resolved

– deleted - as per comments at the AFD

Sourced only to The Beast, I doubt this site meets the sourcing requirements for Wikipedia. Ought it be deleted? Tentontunic (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without even looking at it, I would say "yes" asap. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the list is commented on by other (mainstream) sources, I'd think it should go. It is a new article though, with a single editor (User:Limulus). ~~Perhaps he/she just needs reminding of this: I'll leave a note on their talk page.~~ Rob has notified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creation has doubled the number of externals to www.buffalobeast.com - clearly not independently notable and not very encyclopedic and clearly has BLP issues, I would suggest speedy as an attack page is worth a try. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was going to speedy G10 but an admin User:Nancy has rejected one speedy request already, G10 says -- These "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met.....seems to fit the bill apart from it has a exzternal to a source - perhaps AFD and snow delete it... Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 50 Most Loathsome Americans - if anyone wants to ~~pile on.~~ comment. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gottfried

IPs are inserting various Jewish categories into the Paul Gottfried article, based initially on this website, and more recently on this blog. I've warned them that if they continued, I will be protecting the article. Is either source adequate or reliable enough for the insertion of these categories? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They can't add cats unless there is content cites reliably and discussing the issue in the article, as I see you told them, WP:BLPCAT. The Jewcy article is self written, I think we can accept that, as pretty certain? As a WP:SELFPUB if there is confirmation that it is , then a comment about himself might be acceptable. He seems to write quite a bit there http://www.jewcy.com/author/paul_gottfried and he says in the article -"in my early thirties, I belonged to a synagogue in Westfield, New Jersey," .. and talks about his parents generation of Jews and says "my fellow jews" - the other link is not a wp reliable source for anything. The other one http://www.jewcy.com/ we have only around 20 to 25 external links to BLP articles. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not its accurate, or the source reliable, since the article says nothing about it, it doesn't appear to be in any way relevant to his notability, does it? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next source that is written by profesor: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Gottfried.html and another by far left group: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/summer/irreconcilable-differences?page=0,1 --Dezidor (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty rich. The "professor" you refer to is none other than Kevin B. MacDonald in the Occidental Observer - quite obviously not a source one can use for BLPs about anyone, particularly alleged Jews. As for the SPLC, it only says he has "Jewish ancestry", not that he is Jewish, and regarding it being a "far left group", please take your irrelevant POV battles elsewhere.[5] Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Jayjg says, its not related to his notability, if it was there would be reliable sources discussing it, he has written about Zionism but there is nothing reliable discussing any connection to that and his ancestry, adding and he has some Jewish ancestry is a pretty worthless vague statement. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH that is pretty much the same with all these stupid categories and associated stupid lists. For example List of Jewish American biologists and physicians] Category:Jewish_American_scientists hardly any are notable because they are Jewish. But you could just as well pick on List of Jews in sports or Category:Jewish cricketers, it seems to be enough that they self identify as such to be included in the nonsense. Are we to assume that different rules apply here: that when someone that identifies as Jewish, opposes Neoconservatives, and writes about Jews critical of Zionism that his Jewishness must be denied? John lilburne (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're all pretty much the same. No-one is being "denied" anything. Feel free to discuss and/or enforce BLP policy about other individuals in the relevant articles and threads. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is being "denied" and "hidden". I agree with John Lilburne, your reasoning clearly follows Wikipedia guidelines, Jayjg's interpretation does not. It's relevant to Paul Gottfried's bio, he often discusses it in his columns -- and it does not violate WP:BLP.Unitrin (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that there does appear to be double standards at work. Here we have an agreement that regardless of a RS for ethnicity, the ethnicity should be a part of the persons notability before it is acknowledged in categories and lists. Yet further down this page we have a the reverse argument that it is enough for there to be a RS on ethnicity. Perhaps I'm missing some subtlety on the issue, but I'm finding it hard to square the two positions. John lilburne (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised that Jayjg likes SPLC and doesn´t like MacDonald. The next source is article written by Gottfried: The chance that such radicalized Protestants, who live in their own social bubble, would have picked up their lunacies from any Jew (me perhaps?) is next to nil. [6] --Dezidor (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "like" or "dislike" either. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised either that Jayjg likes SPLC and doesn't like MacDonald who, despite the hate directed towards him by some Jewish people, is a tenured college professor at a notable public American university. Paul Gottfried is Jewish, that's a fact, and it shouldn't be hidden. It's relevant and instructive in his positioning vis-a-vis Jewish Neoconservatives who he often writes about. This is helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_and_paleoconservatism#1987:_The_Catholic_University_of_America Unitrin (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Harris

Someone who's sign-in is Astockradio keeps posting a photo of me with a python on my site,and I keep removing it. Can you stop that from happening?

Heidi Harris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obzervant (talk • contribs) 21:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "on my site", I assume you mean on the article about you? I'll go over to Wikimedia Commons (which actually hosts the image) and get it deleted, because the copyright claim of it being public domain is clearly wrong. But it would help enormously if you could provide and free-license a more acceptable photo of yourself: it is much easier to defend keeping an appropriate photo on the page than keeping the absence of one. - Jmabel | Talk 22:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to point out that we don't actually know that you are Heidi Harris, but then I realised that we don't know whether the photo is of her/you either. On that basis, it shouldn't be used in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Marshall (sociologist)

Through another user I have been told that the subject is unhappy with this article. Prof. Marshall is the Vice-Chancellor of Reading University, and during his term of office a number of departments have been closed on economic grounds. It is reasonable for this to be mentioned in his article, but I agree that the present text gives it undue WP:WEIGHT. The University of Reading article, in the penultimate paragraph under "history" describes the closures in a much more neutral way, and ascribes responsibility to the Senior Management Board, the Senate, and the Council, not personally to Prof. Marshall.

It is apparent from the article history that there has been a slow-motion edit war since 2006, mainly by IPs, with these passages being added, tagged POV, taken out again, and re-added. I think they should be replaced by a more neutral paragraph, perhaps linking to the University article, saying that during his term of office the University decided for economic reasons to close several departments and that this caused controversy. I invite comments and suggestions for wording. JohnCD (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Dix

Ongoing activity by a WP:SPA of a COI nature at this article has introduced deliberately defamatory material intended to attack this leading New Democratic Party leadership candidate; the recently-added material tonight is skewed and "victimizing" and likely does not represent what the linked sources actually say, or focuses only on the most negative wordings possible, including the phrase "bags of cash". The news media cited are notable anti-NDP organs, also famously pro-BC Liberal ones. The SPA also removed the POV template I'd placed, as well as attacked me for being allegedly an "NDP fanatic" on the talkpage, and also added Category:Forgers, which is for people convicted of criminal forgery, not accused of it as is being attempted here. A previous addition by this SPA, User:Sirjohnhackett, attempted to introduce defamatory material about former Premier Glen Clark suggestive that he was guilty of conflict of interest, when in fact he had been acquitted and exonerated in court. The same SPA has also on the Christy Clark bio, which is for a major BC Liberal leadership candidate, tried to (repeatedly and well over 3RR) tried to remove material on her relationship to the BC Rail Scandal. After re-placing the POV tag, I have also added the COI tag given the obvious partisan and biased nature of this SPA's work on this article and given his history on the other article....he will probably try to remove it, and the POV tag, again, and also re-instate the Forgers category and make some kind of accusation against me in the process.....BC politics is a can of worms on both sides of the political polarity that typifies the place; all BC leadership candidate articles, NDP or BC Liberal, should be placed on more watchlists than my own....I'd rather recuse myself rather than be repeatedly accused of hypocrisy by someone who refuses to read BLP, COI, POV or SOAP, and also because I am in the real world a fairly notable "anti-Liberal" blog-participant (though without my own blog - because of Wikipedia I just don't have time). I'm also, for the record, anti-NDP.Skookum1 (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note also my commdents on WP:CANTALK's noticeboard.Skookum1 (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has since re-added the Forgers category with this note on the talkpage at the saem time, and in the meantime has undertaken to attack-edit the Glen Clark article, adding legitimate material at the same time as BLP-attack materials.....he has also continued to remove material from the Christy Clark article, restored by me, which someone else has added, accusing me of adding it.....Skookum1 (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Berlinski

The article says he is a critic of evolution but not a believer in intelligent design, in fact an agnostic. However the opening sentence says that he is "within the intelligent design movement." This does not seem to make sense. When I removed the phrase it was put right back. There might be a possibility that being known as an intelligent designer could affect his career.Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the material a second time. Jaque Hammer (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaque Hammer would have us believe that David Berlinski, a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, author of Deniable Darwin & Other Essays, co-star of Expelled, is not a leading member of the intelligent design movement (of which the CSC is the hub). It is bleeding obvious that he is, but to satisfy Jaque, I've provided an explicit citation for the fact. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ID is an argument of form 'not(evolution) therefore intelligent designer(i.e. God)' (a false dichotomy), with most of the emphasis on the 'not(evolution)' bit. Berlinski explicitly agrees with the 'not(evolution)' bit, but has never stated a preferred alternative. Therefore he can quite happily join in with the IDM's evolution-bashing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the "therefore intelligent designer(i.e. God)" bit is so vestigial that Berlinski's 1996 Commentary (magazine) piece The Deniable Darwin, was described by Ronald L. Numbers as "a version of ID theory". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, being a "member of a movement" does not necessarily mean believing everything we assume one ought to believe in order to be a member of said movement. Of course with BLP this might get tricker. Does the subject have to identify themselves with the movement? This is an innocent question as I do not actually know. I'm not sure how often people do self-identify with social movements. A social movement, after all, is an informal collection of people.Griswaldo (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, Berlinski has never disavowed the movement (which he has prominently participated in on many occasions), just ID's alternate conclusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a sociological perspective I'd say he's a member of the movement, even if he's not as strongly connected to it as others may be. I'm just not sure of the BLP requirements here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I've got a citation for that -- Giberson, Karl (2002). Species of Origins. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 202. ISBN 0742507653. explicitly names him as one of the leaders of the movement. And as a CSC Fellow he is definitely "strongly connected" -- so the claim is hardly controversial. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your addition again. I don't see how you can, for instance, be a leader of the communist movement without believing in communism. Even if some book says you are. I also don't see why the phrase "within the intelligent design movement" is needed in the first sentence which already says he is a critic of evolution. His relationship with the Discovery Institute is also explained in the article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaque, we follow what sources say and not the incredulity of editors. One's involvement in a social movement comes from one's actions vis-a-vis the aims of said movement, and in relation to other institutions and individuals who are also part of the movement. It isn't a matter of explicitly saying "I'm a communist", or "I'm a believer in ID". The ID movement is not synonymous to the sum total of all ID believers either. Perhaps that's part of your confusion. I would say that a vast majority of ID believers are not part of the movement. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested on the article's talk page that it "just give the facts." It already says he is a critic of evolution and is cited as such by the Intelligent Design people. He is also a member of the Discovery Institute, which supports ID but also does other things. All this is explained in the article. I don't see the need for the opening sentence to also say his work is "within the ID movement." Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The FACT is that a WP:RS states that he is a leader of the IDM. The FACT is that this claim is supported by his being a Fellow of the CSC. The FACT is that this claim is uncontested in reliable sources. The FACT is that I have explained the apparent anomaly. Therefore the FACT is that you haven't got a leg to stand on. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The words "within the ID movement" are rather confusing. However, Jaque's version of the lede does not give enough information. May I suggest the following instead, as the last sentence of the lede: "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement. Though he criticizes the theory of evolution, Berlinski, an agnostic, has said he reserves judgment on intelligent design."Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more factually accurate given the available information.Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and like that sentence. As I said on the talk page, WP readers are generally smart enough to understand complex concepts. Jaque Hammer (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is all rather confusing -- Jaque Hammer just took the fact that Berlinski is a CSC Fellow out of the infobox on that article. The "within the ID movement" wording was a compromise due to Berlinski's ambivalence over "ID's alternate conclusion" (i.e. the intelligent designer that is God). Given concerns over its being confusing, I've replaced it with the less-equivocal (but fully supported by sources) "leader of the intelligent design movement". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got a source for "reserves judgment on intelligent design"? Guettarda (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no independent knowledge of this guy, but am trying to help find common ground here. My "reserves judgment" phrasing is based on the first paragraph of the "Views" section of the bio, particularly this: ""Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, [he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life."Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not so much a 'reservation of judgement' as a 'not letting not having an alternative get in the way of a bit of evolution-bashing'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "reserves judgment on intelligent design" claim would appear to be WP:SYNTH of the "Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, [he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life" quote. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about substituting the wording from the "Views" section? In place of "reserves judgment", " refuses to theorize about the origin of life". Or suggest your own which says that he has not come out in favor of intelligent design in his own statements and writings.Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not notable in the context of ID. It's like saying that Dembski "reserves judgment" on ID because he refuses to speculate on the nature of the designer. Guettarda (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"Although he criticizes the theory of evolution, Berlinski, an agnostic, refuses to theorize about the origin of life." would be acceptable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifier on the above -- it is acceptable as being accurate, but whether it is WP:DUE weight is questionable -- see question below. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I don't think that's an accurate characterisation of what he has said. "Warm but distant" isn't "reserves judgment". As for that quote - I think it misses the point. The ID movement doesn't speculate about the origin of life. Intentionally. Behe in particular has said that ID could just as well point to an alien genetic engineer as it could to the supernatural. I don't think anyone takes him seriously on that point, but it's an important part of the ID movement not to speculate about the identity of the designer, even though most individuals will admit (usually with some prodding, though it depends on the venue) that their personal belief is that the designer is the Christian God. You need to take the Slate article with a grain of salt, and avoid drawing too great a conclusion from it. Guettarda (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but this is veering rather sharply away from being a BLP concern at this point. It sounds like a workable compromise has been reached.Griswaldo (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, do we have any evidence that Berslinski's occupation is "Academic philosopher"? This seems to be based upon his CSC bio -- which is rather vague, and gives as his last-listed academic post the Universite de Paris -- which split up in the early 1970s. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "writer" would be a better description if he doesn't have an academic post currently. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he is no longer actually working as an academic then he shouldn't be listed as one. However, a "philosopher", more generally speaking does not need to have a faculty position somewhere. That might be doable. Writer clearly works as well.Griswaldo (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question: why is Berlinski's "refus[al] to theorize about the origins of life" any more "factual" than his being one "of the leaders in the intelligent design movement"? Both are inferences that third parties have made about him based upon his statements and actions. Neither is a concrete fact -- but then WP:SECONDARY means that articles should contain "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims", not just 'concrete' facts (which we can get from primary sources). I would further note that the latter claim probably has more prominence, and thus probably is WP:DUE more prominence in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that directed towards my usage of "factual"? What I meant was that the following is more "factual" than your proposed text:

"Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement."

"refus[al] to theorize about the origins of life" ... wasn't in Jonathanwallace's proposal and in any event isn't a replacement for the "leader of the intelligent design movement" text. Maybe it was not directed at me.Griswaldo (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is directed at Jaque's "just give the facts" complaint against "leader of the intelligent design movement". If that isn't 'factual' then how is "refuses to theorize about the origins of life" factual? I am not claiming that one is the replacement of the other, but that the argument against "leader" applies equally to "refuses to theorize" -- and thus the former cannot be excluded without also excluding the latter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. This thread has become rather confusing. The text you said was accurate, but perhaps not DUE, sounds good to me, and could be included if it is DUE.Griswaldo (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that we have numerous sources, including some quite prominent ones, discussing Berlinski's leadership/prominent role within the IDM (which goes well beyond his being a Fellow in the CSC), but only a couple of fairly minor sources discussing his equivocations over ID. Yet these equivocations are mentioned in the lead, but readers are left to infer his leadership role in the IDM from his being a Fellow of the CSC. That seems to me to be both WP:UNDUE weight and violation of WP:Principle of least astonishment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are probably veering into WP:RSN territory. Calling him a leader of the ID movement without being able to reference a statement "I believe in ID" doesn't work. You could source statements under "Views" to your references, along the lines of "X has said Y provides covering fire for movement Z". But I don't see how it belongs in the lede. Again, I have no dog in this hunt. I believe in evolution, never heard of this guy, and was trying to help you out (and the opposing editor) with a compromise. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IDM spends 99+% of its times evolution-bashing -- Berlinski is happy as a clam evolution-bashing. Where's the conflict? Further, we have a source stating unequivocally that Berlinski is a leader of the IDM. I do not have to rely on weasel-wording "along the lines of 'X has said Y provides covering fire for movement Z'" -- I have a source saying the exact words. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets get down to the sex - do you have a source for him believing in a supernatural origin? John lilburne (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but then the fact that Hermann Göring claimed not to be antisemitic does not mean that he wasn't a leading member of the Nazi movement. Agreement with a perfect 100% of a movement's agenda is not necessary for being a leader of it -- particularly in this case where the point of contention is a point de-emphasised and equivocated over by the movement as a whole. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surly if you want to declare that some one is directly responsible for the extermination of millions of people you need a little bit more evidence of their involvement in the slaughter?

One might well be sceptical about Darwinian evolution without involving the gods. Currently the way the article is slanted the implication is that he believes that the origin of life was supernatural. John lilburne (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your analogy, we have plenty of evidence that Berlinski is "directly" and prominently involved in the IDM. "One might" -- but when one does so without any particular expertise in the subject, and in the constant company of members of the movement -- then third party commentators are hardly to blame [or incorrect] for considering one to be acting as part of that movement, nor is Wikipedia violating WP:BLP by presenting their "uncontested assertion" as a fact (per WP:NPOV). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the old "Those that borrow clothes of others, shouldn't object to mistaken identity" or the WP:DUCK argument? I note that Dawkins believes that he might be evil, or at least trolling the biological scientists, but that still doesn't mean Berlinski is a believer in ID. John lilburne (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) I don't see any evidence that the "identity" is "mistaken" -- merely that like any group, the IDM has a degree of intra-group variation. (ii) "Is that the old..." 'arguing that it's not a duck by arguing about the colour of its plumage'? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)ID is wider than some weird fundamentalist Christian teaching? Does it incorporate a Hindu creation story, an Aztec, and a Inuit version too, or is it mainly variations on a conservative young earth Christian myth? The Jews don't appear to have a problem with Evolution (probably far too sensible), so I'm not convinced that Berlinski would be arguing for a Christian Creation myth. Seems more likely that he has a problem with some of the evidential claims of evolution and is using the ID movement as a soap box. John lilburne (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It involves at least one Muslim (Mustafa Akyol), at least one Orthodox Jew (David Klinghoffer), and at least one Unificationist (Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)). As stated above, "The IDM spends 99+% of its times evolution-bashing -- Berlinski is happy as a clam evolution-bashing." -- "Seems more likely that..." Berlinski knows sweet FA about "the evidential claims of evolution" (argument from ignorance, anybody?). "...and is using the ID movement as a soap box" -- and this stops him being a leader of said movement, how? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A mutant individual is not a representative of a species, you should know this. You make much play on these people being Fellows or Senior Fellows of the Center for Science and Culture what does that mean? Do they get together monthly to devise strategy for the IDM or something? Seems from looking a the website it refers to people that the Centre regards as 'good' scientists, some of which they have funded, but not all. It doesn't seem to imply that those so listed are in total agreement with the goals of the Center for Science and Culture or indeed that they have ever applied for some sort of membership. I'll repeat tell us does being a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture mean. John lilburne (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which "mutant individual"? Berlinski, Akyol, Klinghoffer or Wells? When you start looking at a sufficient number of 'mutations' they start to represent normal variation in the species in question. "...what does that mean?" It means that they are the leaders of the organisation that runs the IDM -- the movement that is the SOLE reason for this center's existence Most of them aren't even scientists at all, let alone your WP:OR "'good' scientists". "I'll repeat tell us does being a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture mean." It means that they are the leaders of the organisation that runs the IDM -- the movement that is the SOLE reason for this center's existence

Shorter John lilburne: la-la-la, I can't here you. Shorter Hrafn: What WP:Complete bollocks! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having found two Jews, a Muslim, and a Moonie, does not mean that Jews, Muslims, and Moonies (well probably them) are major supporters of ID. You keep mentioning leader what exactly do you mean by that. It implies that they have some authoritative or directing role in these organisations: I can see none. John lilburne (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean "exactly" that I have reliable source saying that Berlisnsk is a leader of the IDM. And now I want to ask you why E_X_A_C_T_L_Y you are asking these pointless, time-wasting knit-picking questions. And why E_X_A_C_T_L_Y you don't just look up wikt:leader? Why am I refusing to answer this question? Because I can see no point whatsoever in getting bogged down on exact meanings, flavours, nuances, etc of "leader". What exactly do you mean by "exactly"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way, Berlinski works primarily to bash evolution, the CSC (which he is a leading member of) exists primarily to bash evolution, the IDM (which the CSC is leads) exists primarily to bash evolution. Where's the disconnect?

Beyond that, we have the opinion of the foremost expert on Creationism that Berlinksi's widely-publicised The Deniable Darwin (which he later used as the title-piece of an anthology) is "a version of ID theory", numerous sources placing him in a prominent/leadership role in the IDM and a RS explicitly stating that he's one "of the leaders in the intelligent design movement". What more do we need? A confession signed in his own blood? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can wax lyrical of the nonsense of Trotskyism but that doesn't make me a Stalinist. I do not see Berlinksi being mentioned as having any role in the IDM or CSC, except as a Senior Fellow (whatever that means). They do seem to have a collection of his articles, papers, and reviews. In some of the independent reviews on his works the the argument seems to be that he casts ID and Evolution as being on par in the nonsense category, and that he is not sufficiently tough in his execrating of ID. It is a bit odd for a supporter of a position, to be saying that the position they are supporting is nonsense. RS's are not always reliable in every instance one should actually check for one's self. From what I've read it seems that he doesn't hold with ID and he doesn't hold with Evolution. John lilburne (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John lilburne: your analogy is WP:Complete bollocks -- in that it completely fails to capture any relevant details. For example, whether your your lyrical ~~wanker~~ waxer would be considered a Stalinist or not, would probably be affected quite considerably on the basis of whether or not he was a member of Stalin's politburo and appeared in Stalinist propaganda films. Given a choice between caring what RSs (including a very authoritative one) thinks and what you think, I'm afraid I don't really give a stuff what you think -- you are neither a RS (nor have cited any), nor provide any convincing arguments for your frankly delusional view that the CSC and IDM are in some way completely unrelated. So please feel free to huff and puff at my disregard of your pontification. And pleasre assume that I won't be answering any more of your pointless questions. Good day. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What has this got to do with the relationship between CSC and IDM, their STUPID website says they are the same. What it doesn't say is that Berlinski is some leader of either. To accept that proposal on the basis that he's a Fellow one would have to believe that each and every one of the 1350 Fellows of the Royal Society is a leader of the group ignoring the Governance structure. John lilburne (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, as Guettarda has pointed out, there's very little distance between Berlinski's 'I don't want to discuss whether there's a designer' and Dembski et al's 'I don't want to discuss who the designer is.' Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence, from the lede, is problematic, "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement." I don't know why the "...a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement" is included there. The Discovery Institute, as I understand it, is more than just a promoter of the ID theory. The sentence should probably just say, "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture." Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CSC is purely "a promoter of the ID theory", and of associated evolution denialism. But in any case, we have sources corroborating Berlinski's leading role in the IDM directly -- so should state it directly rather than implying it via the CSC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

marley watkins

There is a section in the page which has obviously been put in as a joke by a friend.

Under 'Personal life' the last three sentances should be removed as they are joke comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamberini8 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the vandalism. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sante Kimes

This article about an American convicted criminal attracted a new SPA with the unpromising username of Sktruth (talk), who came in with all guns blazing and was swiftly blocked. Following talk page assurances that he/she now understands Wikipedia's processes and will discuss on the talk page and not edit-war, I have unblocked: the article does indeed seem unsatisfactory, with unsourced statements like "are thought to have committed the brutal killing.." More eyes requested. JohnCD (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were all guns blazing but the article was very poor indeed, presently the editing has reduced the content and imo its a better for it, and the editor has calmed down and likely gone for a refreshing drink - lets see, if it settles at that I think their edits were beneficial as in my more is sometimes less position. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran Broadbery and Michael Cox (clergyman)

Can others take a look at these BLP articles about some sort of Independent, splinter Catholics? I came across them as a posting on on NORN [7]. Both have been edited by an editor called User:Ciaranbroadbery, who disputes some of the material.[8] I am pretty clear that Ciaran Broadbery does not meet the notability guidelines; I can find only one (opinion) piece in a secondary source that mentions him briefly.[9]. I will Prod it, but I don't even really see a claim of notability, so perhaps a speedy is in order? Michael Cox (clergyman) looks more notable, but has lots of unsourced information, some of which is apparently disputed. Some others taking close looks would be desirable. --Slp1 (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Michael Cox (clergyman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Copy edited - removed the uncited and tidied. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Turi

Resolved

– deletion is likely without improvement

I have no knowledge about the legitimacy of Louis Turi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I never heard of him before, so I have no axe to grind, but I encountered the article during Recent Changes patrol, and found some pretty severe BLP problems in the article, all of which (I hope) I've removed. I don't see much there to make the guy notable enough to maintain an article, so I've listed it for AfD, but in the meantime, it would be best if more eyes were watching this article. Corvus cornix_talk 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Vandalism was reverted back and the article was sent to AFD for discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Turi - Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Habineza

User:Habinef is repeatedly removing sourced material from this article and replacing it with unsourced and puffy content. My notes on User talk:Habinef do not seem to work. Rwandan politics are messy. Some sources such as The New Times (Rwanda) may be biased, and decapitation is a somewhat extreme method of removing political opponents. But puff like this does not belong. Not sure what the best action is. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the additions - I reverted back to what looked to me like a recent decent cited version and I left him a note informing him of this thread and asking his not to replace the disputed content again without discussion or consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The User name might indicate a conflict of interest. Corvus cornix_talk 22:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Officer,

Resolved

– wrong location

Dear Sir / madam,

I am trying to find out the exact name of the 'Founder of Red Rooster '. I gathered from these pages that it is " Kailis Family" , but recently at a graduation ceremony at Edith Cowan Uni in Perth , my son had met this lovely gentleman who said he was the founder of Red Roodster.

he wants to talk to him again and see a picture of him.

pls. do let us know how we can get hold of a picture of him and his e-mail or normal mailing address in Perth.

Thanks Warm Regards Rasika SriLankan Holidays Executive SriLankan Airlines —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.43.41 (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should have a good read of our article and check some of the externals out , investigate a little - we don't answer such questions at this noticeboard, perhaps the Wikipedia:Reference desk - or here - http://www.redrooster.com.au/about.htm

Jaafar Aksikas

Resolved

– wrong location - please see WP:Articles for creation

Jaafar Aksikas (born October 5, 1974) is a cultural studies scholar whose work focuses primarily on the post-colonial Middle East and North Africa and on the histories and methodologies of cultural studies. His publications include the forthcoming Practising Cultural Studies (2011); Arab Modernities (2009)[1] and The Sirah of Antar: An Islamic Interpretation of Arab-Islamic History[2] He currently teaches cultural studies and Middle Eastern Studies at Columbia College Chicago.[3] He is the Founding Editor of Cultural Landscapes: A Journal of Cultural Studies[4], and Director of Education and Media of the Moroccan Congress in the USA, as well as a Chicago representative of this body.[5] He also serves on the editorial board of the international journal, Cultural Studies and on the Executive Board of the Cultural Studies Association (USA).

References ^ [1] author Arab Modernities: Islamism, Nationalism, and Liberalism in the Post-colonial Arab World, accessed 01-12-2009 ^ [2] author The Sirah of Antar: An Islamic Interpretation of Arab-Islamic History, accessed 01-12-2009 ^ [3] Columbia College Chicago, accessed 01-12-2009 ^ [4] Columbia College Chicago, Cultural Landscapes: A Journal of Cultural Studies, accessed 01-12-2009 ^ [5] [[Morroccan Congress]: Chicago representatives, accessed 01-12-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.76.222 (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- You seem to be asking for the creation of an article that does not exist. This is the noticeboard where we discuss problems with existing biographies of living persons. If you believe this individual meets Wikipedia standards of notability and can be documented with reliable sources, you can submit your article idea at WP:Articles_for_creation--or sign on for a free account and start writing the article yourself.

Jesse Colin Young

Resolved

– dob corrected and cited to the official website

Just want to point out that Jesse's birthday in the box on the right-hand side (November 22, 1941) doesn't match the date given in sentence 1 of the article (November 11, 1941). Not sure which date is correct.

Sincerely, Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.121.93 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the only website that has given a date (actually two dates) for his birth. The other ones I have found have listed only the year Imasomething (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His personal website states the 22nd as the correct date, so I have updated the article and included the primary source. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's not really written about independently enough for a separate BLP - he really wants merging back into his main band - The Youngbloods - Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see over 1500 google news hits including coverage of solo work and acts outside of the Youngbloods, (including from the NYT: "In the five years since the dissolution of the Youngbloods, Jesse Colin Young has established a firm niche for himself in the world of popular music. ..."), so I think he definitely merits his own article, it just needs to be expanded. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got that link Ponyo, my searching techniques are not top notch, I can't see the nyt one and I am getting 300000000 google hits. Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link for the google news archives search, the NYT article is the second one listed (note it's Pay-per-view, but there are many free sources available). Google books also has tons of coverage on him. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yea a lot of pay per view there, someone should get us a group subscription to a couple of them - I read his bio and he is growing organic coffee up in the hills of big island Hawaii and releasing the occasional album. http://www.jessecolinyoung.com/downloads/jcy_bio_v3.pdf - Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ranveer Singh

Hi Editing Team,

I officially manage the online reputation for Ranveer Singh (public figure).. Currently some information provided on the page is not correct and I would like to get rights to edit the same.

Incase you need an official declaration from Ranveer Singh, I can provide you the same.

Kindly let me know next steps to edit the page.

Thanks Ankur Pujari <redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.29.237 (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi, feel free to let us know the actual false details in the article and we can assess the issues for you. Please be aware WP:RS reliable sources are required for additions. I left the new user a welcome note with a handy list of internal link and a COI template. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler family

Please remove possible living people of non-encyklopedic interest.--Nerd (talk)12:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have removed all the living people. I have also removed a few dead people, per WP:UNDUE and six degrees of separation. The tree had grown to the point that it would soon have included half of Austria and a good part of the German and US population as well. Hans Adler 17:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janelle Pierzina

Janelle Pierzina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

With a history of edit-warring (some in defence of BLP, some in disregard) and one particularly persistent (for well over a year, in spite of a 6 month block) unregistered editor, this article needs a thorough going-over by someone experienced with the relevant policies. Given the history here, I am more than prepared to do whatever is needed to sort this once and for all (i.e. blocks, protection etc.) but really need a "good" version as a basis on which to act. CIreland (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , I had a look at the content - a minor tv game show person with limited reliable sources - there are a few minor issues with the content, not much, I tagged a couple of issues and opened a thread to attract discussion on the talkpage. The worst issue is the warring, I left the new account a template of helpful links and a note about 3RR - either they edit within policy or the best it to report at the 3RR noticeboard. I also left the BaldPete a note as well, I think if these two guys calm down a bit through getting them to stick to policy the disruption should stop, I think the disruption is worse than the article content. Like this, seven reverts in around a day and no discussion or talkpage message - a redlink talkpage, they are just going to continue on in the same way. As Cireland has now autoconfirm semi protected the article that just leaves accounts - another option would be to pending protect it as neither of them have the user right. Personally I will keep my eye on them and try to get them to discuss more or they will get reported to the 3RRNB. A bit much weight might be being given to the minor offenses and I might look to try and take a bit of that out - very minor - dui and shoplifting or forgetting to pay - I would remove them myself as they are minor and nothing to do with her notability - but if I take a bit of the weight out at least they are less undue.... ? One of the supporting cites is the smoking gun, I don't like it at all is it acceptable for BLP content support? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0721052bigbro1.html - Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

from this - Pierzina had a DWI infraction in 2000 in Minnesota. She failed to appear at her arraignment on February 2001, and she pleaded guilty in June 2002. She violated probation by missing alcohol education program, and the court ordered her to complete the course. Furthermore, she was charged with misdemeanor theft in Los Angeles in 2001. In June 2005, after having missed three hearings, and with a bond of $30,000 on her head, she appeared in court only two weeks before the start of Big Brother 6 and pleaded guilty to petty theft from Macy's [1][2][3]

to this - Pierzina was convicted of misdemeanor DWI infraction in 2000 in Minnesota for which she was fined and sent on a alcohol-awareness program, and in 2001 she was charged with misdemeanor theft from Macy's, she pled guilty to petty theft and was fined. [1][2][3].

Rob, may I just note that I concur with your thoughts re: removing the paragraph about the misdemeanor offenses from Janelle Pierzina's article replacing it as you have suggested above? I guess I don't quite understand how like The Smoking Gun, TMZ, and the like are considered "reputable sources" and, like yourself, I don't see any of this having to do with Janelle Pierzina's noteworthiness (or lack thereof, whichever way you view it). Anyway, just my thoughts on the subject. Thank you, and I want to also thank you for not only warning myself about the 3RR, but BaldPete, as well, as I got the feeling that he/she felt that they were immune as they went about reverting over and over again, many more times than 3, in one day alone, without any warning or banning (or at least that person's talk page does not indicate any such disciplinary measures against the editing warring). Fair is fair. I don't mind being warned about "warring" as long as the person who is "warring" with me is warned likewise. Thanks. Talkaboutitnow22 (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who was involved in inserting the citations now questioned, it MUST be mentioned that, in keeping with good wiki procedure, I created entries on the reliable sources noticeboard for both Entertainment Online [10] and The Smoking Gun [11], and retained these cites after getting a positive response. It's not certain what, if anything, TMZ as mentioned above has to do what these cites, and I sincerely hope that the veracity of the third source for this material, United Press International, is not in question. Certainly, all three are better sources than Reality Fan Forum, Reality BB Forum, or even the suggested Reality TV Calendar websites. I'm somewhat surprised and maybe even a little disappointed to learn that, given the evident scrutiny given to my edit history, the fact that I did invite discussion on the sources has escaped notice. It would appear all commenting so far concur on the need for correct citation, which makes the repeated removal of a citation tag that I had recently put in the article even more questionable, perhaps even coming close to disruption

As far as the content itself. It somewhat ironic that changes are being proposed to what is, with the exception of one other sentence, the only cited material in the article. However, it will be mentioned that for a long time, this section was only two sentences (which IMHO better summarize the issue then the rewrite you've proposed) and was expanded by another editor. At the time, this extra material made sense, because the article was considerably longer than it is now. This is no longer the case, so I can see where a paragraph might be considered undue weight, so have no issue with reverting it to its previous length as long as the subject is covered in enough detail. BaldPete (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for commenting - it is ironic that the subjects notable claim and personal detail can be harder to reliably source than minor controversial detail,the modern media focus is often on the titillating. I don't see any objections to the trim of the minor crime content and I made that edit, any additional improvement to the content and citations is appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Behbahani

Hamid Behbahani needs reliable sourcing on the impeachment. Corvus cornix_talk 22:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.khaleejtimes.com - Done - Hamid Behbahani#Impeachment - Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jews in sports

- User:Epeefleche's continued BLP violations on sportspeople articles and List of Jews in sports

In cases where there are not sufficient sources for a Jewish category, Epeefleche uses the "External links" or "See Also" section to directly link to List of Jewish sportspeople -- an interesting way to "circumvent" the system. He's been doing this to literally hundreds of articles. (Here's just one of many examples: [12])

It's worth mentioning that Epee is the sole contributor to List of Jewish sportspeople and often uses non-reliable sources (e.g., [13], [14]) or self-published sources (e.g., [15]) to include as many people as possible. Furthermore, a lot of the individuals added as of recently are of questionable notability in their field (see David Merkow). The whole list is beginning to look like one big "Jews are good at sports too" propaganda page and a mass BLP and categorization by ethnicity concern.

I'm bringing this to noticeboard because a simple revert is not going to work on this user, who often doesn't hear it. Bulldog123 22:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I notified User:Epeefleche of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a point of reference its not enough that one is Jewish, or Spanish, or whatever, but part of one's notability ought to be that one is Jewish, or Spanish, or whatever. John lilburne (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Bull has an editing issue to raise, he should address it on the appropriate talk page (not here). I seem to recall that Bull's edits have exhibited a strong distaste for Lists of Jews and for articles on Jews, and am sorry if their existence troubles him. But that is not to my knowledge a reason for deletion. I also note that, despite a number of warnings, Bull continues to state untruths, in support of his position, as he has done yet again above. As he knows, he misleads other editors when he says that I am "the sole contributor" to the indicated list. It does the project little good for him to ask editors to make judgments based on his misstatements (and this is the second time today I have brought this issue to his attention). The list that Bull complains about is a list that has withstood AfDs -- there is no legitimate reason for him to attack it, and if he wishes to discuss wikipedia's list policy this would not appear to be the appropriate page. Finally, Bull's reliance on the AfD discussion at David Merkow strikes me as curious -- as it is rather obvious that the majority there support the notion that the article is on a notable individual (though Bull if of a different, minority view). I hope that I have not unduly irritated Bull by being of the majority view there, but for him to bring this baseless complaint here seems to me a somewhat aggressive and inappropriate way for him to address his distaste for the existence of Jewish lists and articles on Jewish individuals. Thanks to Off2 for bringing this to my attention, as I may otherwise have been aware of the discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that there's any way to legitimately discuss these things with you anymore, but for what it's worth, you have yet to prove that David Merkow passes any of the required notability standards. Bulldog123 06:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Saying that there are other editors on the page isn't the whole story though you have made 1092 edits to the page the next highest editor has made 82 edits. But based on the above what part of Lawrence Seeff's notability is due to his Jewishness? Mandy Yachad, Yakov Rylsky ... ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs) 23:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how being Jewish contributes to one's being an athlete. Or for that matter how being Baptist, Muslim or Lutheran affects one's being a baseball player or cricketer. But I do know that a perfunctory look through the reliable and verifiable sources available shows that there is a strong focus placed on the nexus between being Jewish and being an athlete. A search in Google Books for "Jews in sports" turns up such titles as Jews in Sports, Emancipation through muscles: Jews and sports in Europe, Great Jews in Sports, Jews, sports, and the rites of citizenship, The 100 greatest Jews in sports: ranked according to achievement, Encyclopedia of Jews in sports, Jews and the Olympic Games: the clash between sport and politics, Jewish Sports Star: Athletic Heroes Past and Present, Jews and Baseball: Entering the American mainstream, Jewish sports legends: the International Jewish Hall of Fame, Judaism's encounter with American sports, Great Jews in sports and Sports and the American Jew, and that's just on the first two pages. I couldn't find a single book with the corresponding searches "Baptists in sports", "Muslims and sports" or "Lutherans and sports" that showed any connection between those ethnic / religious communities and being an athlete. I could probably find a dozen other books on the subject of Jewish athletes with a modicum of additional effort. The standard we have on Wikipedia is coverage in reliable and verifiable sources, and Jews in sports is the subject of an overwhelming number of texts specifically about this defining connection between being Jewish and being an athlete. Alansohn (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going on quite a few years, here is Alansohn making a correction to the List of Jewish American sportspeople over five years ago. Are you suggesting Alan that there are a proportionally high number of books about Jews in sport or that Jews in sport is more notable than Muslims in sport? Or that there is a specific increased correlation between notable sports people and Jews? Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I've edited this article seven times before today, though I'm not sure what the fact that I've edited the article in the past is supposed to imply. I can make no explanation for why there is so much coverage, as to do so would be WP:OR. If there were sources supporting "Irish-American tapdancers" as being a defining connection, I would be more than happy to support an article on the topic. What I am pointing out is that this intersection of being Jewish and being an athlete is one that is deemed to be relevant by multiple reliable and verifiable source. There need be no explanation of how a person's religious / ethnic background influenced their athletic performances. Alansohn (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my comment was vague Alan, I was just looking at the long term support for and existence of this list and similar lists, the comment came out wrong and I meant no slight on you - it was past my bedtime and I was even confusing myself, so please excuse me. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn, that's not the issue. Everyone knows there's a cultural interest in the intersection of "Jews" and "sports." Rather the issue is whether a specific individual's Judaism effects his occupation as a sportsperson. You need to show the notability of this intersection for each individual, else it's an irrelevant intersection -- like "Irish-American tapdancers." For Matt Bloom, there is no evidence him being Jewish makes him a Jewish sportsperson. Furthermore, there is little evidence that he is even Jewish at all (Note: This is the ref Epeefleche uses to source Bloom's Judaism: a blog entry). Five years on wikipedia, and I'm supposed to believe that Epeefleche still doesn't know you can't source wikipedia with somebody's blog. And yet, Epeefleche still pigeonholes Matt Bloom as a "Jewish sportsperson" by adding the "See Also" link to his page, circumventing the "category add" that would inevitably be removed. There's a clear agenda here. He's done this for literally hundreds of articles. Bulldog123 05:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we still arguing this one? Can I suggest a general solution to the problem: for the purposes of Wikipedia, everybody is Jewish unless proven otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I point out, for the benefit of those who don't understand irony (see [16]) that my last comment was intended as a joke. I'd assumed this was obvious, but evidently not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- On the subject - http://www.jinfo.org/ ..... we have a fair few externals to this website - is this site a WP:RS - used on 177 externals , none on any BLP articles but used on a lot of lists, actually its worse than that, as the duplicates don't show up, for example there are 30 links to the site from list of Jewish scientists but through duplication only eleven are included in the 177, so we likely have many more than 177 lists as a result of its multiple use on the lists, and then in a quick check - the website is then used on the lists to cite living people such as Lynn Ahrens on List of Jewish American playwrights - on Lynns BLP there is no mention of Jewishness but she is included in the "Category:Jewish American musicians" - Same website is also used to add Leslie Valiant to List of British Jewish scientists still alive - no mention of Jew or Jewishness in the body of his BLP article but he is in two Jewish cats - British Jews and Jewish Scientists. Klaus Roth, David Deutsch David Levy (chess player) all still alive - no mention of jewishness at all in the BLP but included in Jewish cats and added to the same list using the same website. All these lists are the same. half of them are much worse, completely uncited. List of Serbs was one I tidied up a bit recently, I think people that came along were just adding their name, it was totally uncited and full of relinks, its still uncited but at least the redlinks have gone. But these lists must be useful , look at the List of Jews in sports - viewing figure for Jan 2011 - over 45 thousand views - Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jinfo.org isn't a reliable source because it appears to be self-published (one guy runs it) and it conducts it's own research into people -- often making assumptions like, "This person's background is completely indicative of a young Jewish boy's." (I think that's one of the refs for citing a Hungarian Nobel Prize winner as Jewish). Also, it neglects to supply sources for controversial cases, often leaving the citation section blank if they think it's "obvious" enough. I think it's been deemed unreliable long ago but users who refuse to listen continue to ref with it because it's the easiest way to ref-bomb someone without doing some real research. Bulldog123 21:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Epeefleche is now reverting the tag I put on the list as disruptive editing. He still has over 24 blog entries and unreliable sources "confirming" living people as Jews. Bulldog123 21:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Guys, this isn't a very big issue - disputed reliability of sources - there are over two hundred sources on that list - if a few of them need improving or aren't reliable and need removing then considering the article improvemet and the relative repairable issues , lets either discuss specific issues here or move to the talkpage and try to improve there. I have to say, compared to its improvement within policy, this particular list has imo only minor easily fixed issues - a little more working together and discussion for the benefit of the content, we are all here to improve the project. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it is a big issue because it has to do with living people. And it's an even bigger issue because Epee is blatantly circumventing BLP requirements by adding the See Also links to about 100 articles in place of WP:N categories. Bulldog123 23:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention that I realized long ago there is no co-operative editing with Epeefleche. That's been reinforced recently, and only continues to be reinforced when Epee starts talk-page "dicussions" with the header Disruptive Editing by Bulldog (which, by the way, if you read carefully... is just one big anti-semitism accusation, not a discussion about reliable sources. What a surprise!) and then calls up his friend to come support him in that egregious claim. Apparently adding a legitimate RS tag to his owned article is "disruptive editing." Can we please stop pretending like this user is going to cooperate when it's clear he won't? Bulldog123 23:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the premise of the list is that being a Jewish sportsman is discussed extensively as a way for Jews to overcome issues with participating in society then, really, members of the list should be related to that topic. i.e. sources discussing how hard it was for them to enter the field, or how it has affected how they are treated in society. Either that or, to validate the current inclusion criteria, a source should be found demonstrating the notability of a Jew winning a top flight sports event (i.e. basically the same thing as the original premise, but more explicit) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list and some similar articles appear to be created by people acting from ethnic pride, rather than prejudice. Still, the whole enterprise seems unencyclopedic and dubious, as one person's statement of fact is someone else's prejudiced exclamation (watch the movie Ordinary People for Mary Tyler Moore's expression and nuance when she asks, "Jewish doctor?") Why wouldn't a "Jewish athlete" list support the idea of a Jewish banker article? I would like to see the Powers that Be here hand down a rule that applies the approach suggested by ErrantX and others above, that someone's ethnicity is only to be mentioned if it somehow is material to their notability (first black baseball player in major leagues). I doubt that we'll ever reach consensus on ethnicity without some kind of administrative action--maybe one of the few areas where action from the top is needed, rather than waiting for the grass roots to reach consensus.Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of the statements above and have to say that there will never be wikipedia-wide consensus concerning anything about ethnicity unless it's handed down from the top, and that we just have to use the tools allotted us until then. Right now I've removed most of the "See Also" links from BLP pages (though I'm probably missing some). Bulldog123 21:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Sheen

- Outside intervention needed - Recent edits to the article Charlie Sheen include language such as "Sheen had been partying at the home with several porn stars, including Kacey Jordan whose now deleted tweets alerted the media". Cs32en Talk to me 23:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cs32en removed ALL of the material about Sheen's recent hospitalization, entry into rehab, and effect on the show Two and a Half Men. I reverted the removal saying it should be discussed, and I contributed my comments on the Talk page. No other editors have joined the discussion. I have no problem with scrutinizing each sentence in the paragraph to make sure it conforms to reliable sources and that it otherwise warrants inclusion, but the wholesale removal of the material clearly was not warranted. Cs32en has since reverted again, removing the material.

Sheen has a long history of problems that have made the news. They are noteworthy in and of themselves, AND they affect his career. Before this material was added, there was (and still is) material on his problems with Denise Richards, Brooke Mueller, his voluntary entry into rehab in February 2010, and the Plaza Hotel incident. What makes the latest material different to justify its removal?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article already documents these aspects of Sheen's personal life. The urge to cover every single detail of it is driven by sensationalism, in my view. I have indeed removed the text, because for BLP-sensitive material, consensus should be built before adding text to an article. Cs32en Talk to me 02:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The article already documents these aspects of Sheen's personal life." My point exactly, and what makes the new material any different? Was the other material vetted for consensus before being added? Wikipedia isn't being sensationalistic in adding the material. Sheen's rather sensational behavior is simply being reported.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the other material was indeed being discussed before the current version of it has been added to the article. I do not think that the information would be false or would not be verifiable. Those that want to go into each and every details of Sheen's personal life should add more content about Sheen's career, though, in order to maintain a balanced article that covers the respective aspects of Sheen's life according to their due weight, and consistent with the BLP guideline. Cs32en Talk to me 02:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is not, or at least should not be, a two-class system in which some peoples' privacy is being protected, while the privacy of others is not. Cs32en Talk to me 02:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't in general protect the privacy of celebrities against information which has been widely reported in reliable sources. "The WP:NICENESS standard does not exist."Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, we do in general protect BLPs against excessively focusing on the private life of people. There is no doubt that the information is sourced, but as with any other article, sourced content may well be WP:UNDUE in relation to the other aspects of the article. In that case, the article becomes biased, in violation of the BLP guideline. Cs32en Talk to me 05:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This biography may be a good reference point for what content is due or undue in the article. Cs32en Talk to me 05:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is also being discussed on the article's talk page here. Shearonink (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the talk page for specifics but in general I would say that an article should reflect the best quality sources while at the same time maintaining a balance and giving a full biography. Giving undue weight to criticism or scandals is not appropriate.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WELLKNOWN example: " A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source." what you have now is the lede saying the show has been delayed as a result of the current rehab...to which there is no reference in the body. The delay of the show and the rehab are in today's New York Times.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert T. Craig (scholar)

- Requesting assistance - I created a new BLP article on the communication Theorist Robert T. Craig (scholar) and additional assistance would be appreciated. I have already posted to Wikipedia project philosophy and am not sure if this is the right place to be posting this request.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat

- Requesting assistance with Prem Rawat - Someone claiming to be Jimbo Wales has inserted (without discussion) that Prem Rawat has been termed a "cult leader according to anti-cult writings" with the edit summary "This is, without a doubt, the most important thing readers need to know". "Jimbo" cites Bob Larson and Ron Rhodes as the authorities for this "important" info. Regrettably Bob Larson is a Christian evangelist who preaches against "sexually suggestive lyrics, Eastern religious mysticism, and antisocial behavior of rock musicians" and is justly famous for "performing exorcisms of callers on the air". And Jimbo's other expert, Ron Rhodes, is the author of such classics as "The Wonder of Heaven: A Biblical Tour of Our Eternal Home", "Homosexuality: What You Need to Know" and "Correcting the Cults: Expert Responses to Their Scripture Twisting". Perhaps it was Larry Sanger playing a joke?Momento (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's Jimbo. He's commented on his talk page that he doesn't intend to edit the article again. I see someone has removed one word of his addition (so far). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's always disappointing to see how reluctant people are, particularly admins, to remove negative material from Prem Rawat. If any editor put "termed a messenger for peace" in the lead without discussion and cited the sort of biased sources Jimbo used, it would be reverted in minutes.Momento (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Momento's topic ban includes "all related discussions". He should not be starting noticeboard threads. Will Beback talk 01:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What even if they discover libels in the articles? John lilburne (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an exception to every rule. But there's no assertion of libel here. However Momento's own statements might approach defamation... Will Beback talk 13:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Shane

biography of rita shane contains wrong birth date: it should be august 15, 1936. how do i know? i was married to her for 47 years, starting in 1958 (she was not 17 years old at the time, nor did she graduate barnard college at the age of 17). the error was by a sanctimonious english fool named stanley sadie who invented this error for a work he was editing at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.30.238 (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'd actually need a reliable source to correct this properly - something published or similar. On the other hand, since the article gives no source for her date of birth, I've removed it entirely for now. I'll do a bit of digging around to see if I can find anything to confirm this, and leave a note on the article talk page too, explaining the situation. Meanwhile, I'll ask whether you know of a source that has the correct date - one that we can verify for ourselves. If you do, let us know. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up on this, all the sources I've found seem to say 1940 - but they are probably either Wikipedia mirrors, or based on the same source that the IP suggests is incorrect. If it wasn't WP:OR, and not the sort of question you ask a woman (!), I'd be tempted to contact Shane herself - she still seems to be active, and teaching a new generation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughn Walker

There appears to be a serious misunderstanding regarding the WP:WELLKNOWN policy. I would like to receive comment from other editors who have worked with these issues in the past. The understanding of some editors seems to be that the only way something can be included in a BLP article, is if it is explicitly acknowledged by that person. Thus, in the article about Vaughn Walker any attempt to include any reference to the column ran by the San Francisco Chronicle have been deleted. Coincidentally, I am having difficulty with getting people to engage on the talk page. It seems to be that the individuals invoke a policy that "we don't repeat rumors" and then delete the material without responding to substantive points. If this is indeed the policy, then the WP:WELLKNOWN policy page needs to be corrected, as the example in the policy is incorrect. As I read the policy, reprinting of allegations, provided that they are sourced by reliable third party mainstream sources is not only allowed, but encouraged. I would like to get clarification of the policy here in an attempt to solve this issue. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to use the example of Charlie Crist as a guide, the situation in which is exactly analogous in my mind. I find it a bit puzzling that the allegations are explicitly permitted in the Charlie Crist article, despite the fact that he has denied them, but they are unceremoniously deleted from the Vaughn Walker article, when he has not denied them. In fact, the sources that I published show that he doesn't attempt to hide his orientation at all. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point to the Anderson Cooper article as another example. Also David Dreier, Larry Craig, Ed Schrock, Jim McCrery, Ed Koch, (anyone seeing a pattern here), do I need to find more examples? I am sure I can find others if I look. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the mention of homosexuality as a problem as long as it is sourced well and impartial in tone. The mention of his homosexuality is a crucial part of the critical response to actions Walker has taken as judge, in fulfilling his duties. Talking about Walker's handling of California Prop 8 without discussing the pro and con reviews—both sides saying the judge is gay—is a failure to talk about one of the foundational political issues. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that it is NOT well sourced. It is one newspaper article that has framed the claim as "an open secret" - and not one that anyone is willing to stand behind, and then that "open secret" is the source for the other coverage. Wikipedia is not an echo chamber to repeat unsourced rumors. PARTICULARLY because there are numerous attempts to assassinate Walkers character as an impartial judge by the implication that his "open secret" has affected his impartiality. We need FAR better sourcing for the claims than have been provided.Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There we have it folks, as I suspected all along. The reason that some are so opposed to including this very real part of the story, is a fear that it might somehow "undermine the impartiality" of Walker. Hence there is seen a need to "protect" Walker here on Wikipedia in a manner not given to Charlie Crist, David Dreier, Larry Craig, Ed Schrock, Jim McCrery, or Ed Koch. Indeed, the Sources that we have for Walker's orientation are far better than ANY of the sources in the other examples I have given. The fact is, including this information does nothing to undermine Walker's impartiality, indeed the very source that I used said that he had a record of impartiality, and the proposed edit that I offered included a quote from a Law Professor that said his orientation doesn't matter. However, his orientation is a very real part of the story, in that it was part of the reason that some groups cited in their efforts to impeach him, rightly or wrongly. As I said before, Information is power, and we don't whitewash things on Wikipedia. Moreover, Walker is NOT denying or trying to hide his sexuality. The SF Weekly article and other newspaper sources quoted a federal judge who said that Walker doesn't try to hide his orientation at all, and that it doesn't affect his handling of cases. What I suspect we have here, is people trying to apply a different standard to Walker, because of the nature of the Prop 8 case. That is just unacceptable, especially when we have so many other examples on Wikipedia of the policy being applied in the way that it reads. We can't create one standard for Walker out of political expediency and have another standard for all the other examples that I listed. I have yet to have anyone actually give me a reason why unnamed sources from the film Outrage are so much better than a mainstream newspaper with stringent standards for editorial review. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles are worse is not a suitable excuse for violating WP:BLP on yet another article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 03:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except the other articles are not worse. Each of those decisions were reached in accordance with the WP:WELLKNOWN policy which is just glossed over. The fact remains that your rendition of the BLP policy isn't the actual BLP policy. Above, you alluded to your real concern, that being "the impartiality" of Judge Walker. Might I ask, doesn't your position actually confirm that this is a real issue? You acknowledge that some are using the allegations to "undermine Walker's impartiality", which you characterize as "character assassination", given that the allegations and uproar surrounding that were a very real part of the coverage after the Prop 8 decision, what is served by trying to hide them from the public? Should your concerns about "impartiality" play any part in the process at all? Can you point out how your rendition of the BLP Policy fits with the WP:WELLKNOWN policy? The fact remains, that if your policy is the real policy, then many articles on Wikipedia need to be fixed, immediately, and the policy as written needs to be corrected. If my reading of the policy is correct, then some acknowledgment, in a neutral form, needs to go in the article. (I would also point out that you are invoking policies that are completely inapplicable to your case. For instance, the policy you quote here, is in relation to the DELETION policy, and it has NOTHING to do with comparison of other editorial decisions as a guide for the application of the BLP policy.) Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The awful addition to Christ by user Binksternet was after user Birkenset had gone on and an and on for months after adding the gay claim - every time I see it it makes me squirm and its all I can do do stop myself removing it every time. I will remove it completely as soon as I can get away with it. Wiki is not a gay activist of gay outing website for rumors that accuse people they don't like of being gay, with reports and films written by gay activists. BLP well known is not a excuse to promote rumors of someones sexuality in benefit of an activist position. Off2riorob (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "awful addition" is your version, not mine. I wanted more detail to separate Crist's 2006 local newspaper outing from the 2009 film which says he is gay. Your wish to "get away with it" has already been expressed here where you crept into the article and took out the section against consensus, without making any talk page announcement of you controversial action. This kind of page ownership, non-neutrality and lack of collegiality you demonstrated at Crist and elsewhere is why your attempt to join ArbCom was so poorly received. Expressing your wish to change the Crist article as soon as you "can get away with it" is an expression of tendentious editing, of an edit warring mindset. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was you that wanting to add that rubbish , that addition has nothing to do with me at all - I object to it then and now - you went at it for momnths - relentlessly - to add a worthless speculation that a subject of our article was gay - because john and harry said he was, the gay activists like to do that - they say about anyone that stops them propagating their POV - oh they are gay, yada yada yada - and all the gays taslk aboutr it and its well known in the gay village POV. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ghostmonkey as to the use of this article from the San Francisco Chronicle in the Vaughn R. Walker article. While we should treat this issue carefully and avoid implying that Walker is biased (whether or not individual editors think he is biased), it is not an "unsourced rumor" that Walker is gay. The San Francisco Chronicle, the most prominent newspaper in the city where Walker works, and one of the top 25 newspapers by circulation in the United States, is the source. If we don't accept the San Francisco Chronicle as a reliable source, then I don't know what we can accept as a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree as well. The allegation seems also to have had repercussions in the notable debate, and as such it is more than random gossip. WP:WELLKNOWN covers explicitly well-sourced allegations. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WELLKNOWN covers the matter neatly. News reports about Walker should be introduced in an impartial manner, describing how some California Prop 8 advocates declared Walker's treatment of it to be biased because of his homosexuality, and also how other news reports declared Walker to be unbiased despite his homosexuality. The homosexuality is assumed by both sides in the conflict, and Walker has neither confirmed or denied his orientation. In bringing this material to the article, make certain that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is followed to the letter. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WELLKNOWN is key here. I agree with the above editors that the matter should be referenced in a very careful and deferential way, focusing on the news story rather than any attempt to paint him as biased. The fact is, this is a major part of the story that Wikipedia has removed, to the detriment of informational exchange. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Egan

www.timothyegan.com is actually not the website of this Timothy Egan. It is unaffiliated with him and is another Timothy Egan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.160.74 (talk • contribs)

- Removed by User:Active Banana - Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the blog website, there does not seem to be anything to tie that Timothy Egan to the TE of the article. (thanks for following through here for me, Rob!) Active Banana (^bananaphone

Mike Masnick

Article seems to have been subject to a subtle form of vandalism by someone with a grudge, judging by the "Masnick Effect" "jab" made in the final paragraph (seen here) and the unsatisfactory reason for adding this paragraph given in the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadialSkid (talk • contribs) 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This statement, which an IP user acknowledged on the Talk page is point scoring, has now been added and reverted a number of times in the last few days. I reverted it again, but it probably will be re-added quickly. I also don't think this guy is very notable (the point the IP was trying to make). Page would benefit from an admin's attention, and might either be nominated for deletion or protected. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Yarber

Edit war continues, with defamatory information posted and removed by diverse editors. The strange thing now is that no revision is listed in the history but it has been changed to include the libel. When the page is edited, the libel is nowhere to be found. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetwarexpert (talk • contribs) 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material to which you are referring was removed by another editor as WP:UNDUE. Not sure what you mean by the statements about the edit history, as the add/revert/edit trail seems clear.Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soham murders

The "Soham Murders" article notes that Maxine Carr "won an injunction on 24 February, 2005, granting her lifelong anonymity on the grounds that her life would otherwise be in danger from lynch mobs." Yet the article publishes a photograph of Maxine Carr. I believe the article is (1) endangering Maxine Carr and other women of similar appearance, and (2) in contempt of the court injunction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wodnala (talk • contribs) 11:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the photo and watchlisted the article.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motiur Rahman Nizami

The article Motiur Rahman Nizami is on my watchlist. I forget why. There seems to have have been some recent edit warring/section blanking shenanigans. I had a quick look and noticed the "blp issue" section on the talk page which didn't give me a good feeling. The article probably needs a few more eyes on it as it involves things like war crimes allegations, rape, extortion, loot, capturing/killing/massacre, and such like. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[NR012511-1] Shaffer, Matthew (25 January 2011). "Amb. Susan Rice Condemns Prof. Richard Falk". National Review.

[2] ttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369122,00.html

[atlantic012511-3] Goldberg, Jeffrey (25 January 2011). "Not The U.N.'s Most Helpful Employee". The Atlantic.

[4] ttp://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5056-911-more-than-meets-the-eye

[5] ttp://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0111/Rice_blasts_UN_rapporteur.html?showall

[6] ttp://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/25/republican_congress_to_un_drop_dead

[7] ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8281125/UN-human-rights-official-claims-911-was-US-plot.html

[8] ttp://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gWCTbMwqBJ_I-srVglLLJsX1hoTg?docId=CNG.148a6c382024ebbebe64021de441dac9.631

[9] ttp://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70O56420110125

[10] ttp://www.nysun.com/news/foreign/un-official-calls-study-neocons-role-911

[11] Falk's 9-11 remarks are 'condemned' by UN sec.-gen., Jerusalem Post 25-01-2011

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

@@ Line 605: / Line 605: @@
 ::::::::The awful addition to Christ by  user Binksternet was after user Birkenset had gone on and an and on for months after adding the gay claim  - every time I see it it makes me squirm and its all I can do do stop myself removing it every time. I will remove it completely as soon as I can get away with it. Wiki is not a gay activist of gay outing website for rumors that accuse people they don't like of being gay, with reports and films written by gay activists. BLP well known is not a excuse to promote rumors of someones sexuality in benefit of an activist position. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 04:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 :::::::::The "awful addition" is ''your'' version, not mine. I wanted more detail to separate Crist's 2006 local newspaper outing from the 2009 film which says he is gay. Your wish to "get away with it" has already been expressed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Crist&action=historysubmit&diff=407083824&oldid=406510389 here] where you crept into the article and took out the section against consensus, without making any talk page announcement of you controversial action. This kind of page ownership, non-neutrality and lack of collegiality you demonstrated at Crist and elsewhere is why your attempt to join ArbCom was so poorly received. Expressing your wish to change the Crist article as soon as you "can get away with it" is an expression of tendentious editing, of an edit warring mindset. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 17:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
+:::::::::It was you that wanting to add that rubbish , that addition has nothing to do with me at all - I object to it then and now - you went at it for momnths - relentlessly - to add a worthless speculation that a subject of our article was gay - because john and harry said he was, the gay activists like to do that - they say about anyone that stops them propagating their POV  - oh they are gay, yada yada yada - and all the gays taslk aboutr it and its well known in the gay village POV. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 22:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 *I agree with Ghostmonkey as to the use of [http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-07/bay-area/17848482_1_same-sex-marriage-sexual-orientation-judge-walker this article] from the [[San Francisco Chronicle]] in the [[Vaughn R. Walker]] article. While we should treat this issue carefully and avoid implying that Walker is biased (whether or not individual editors think he is biased), it is not an "unsourced rumor" that Walker is gay. The ''San Francisco Chronicle'', the most prominent newspaper in the city where Walker works, and one of the top 25 newspapers by circulation in the United States, is the source. If we don't accept the ''San Francisco Chronicle'' as a reliable source, then I don't know what we can accept as a reliable source. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 16:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 **Agree as well. The allegation seems also to have had repercussions in the notable debate, and as such it is more than random gossip. [[WP:WELLKNOWN]] covers explicitly well-sourced allegations. --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">Cycl</font><big>o</big><font color="green">pia</font>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 17:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards