• Carrie Prejean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User TharsHammar and User Exploding Boy repeatedly places highly negative, unnecessary material into the article.--InaMaka (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit in question by me, [1] conveys the full context of Perez Hilton's stance and quote, and is needed to explain the situation. It explains Perez's view that it was how Ms Prejean answered the question that cost her the crown, not her beliefs. It is also needed to show the language that Hilton used, which helped to stir up this tempest in a teapot. On a related note, InaMaka continues to post edit summaries calling Perez Hilton a "facist" [2], which to me is a much bigger BLP violation. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to repeat Hilton's comments. TharsHammar simply wants Wikipedia to repeat Hilton's comments about Prejean in the Wikipedia article for the whole world to see each and every time they log on to look up her article. The attempt to jam Hilton's comments in the Wikipedia article and make Hilton's comments the focus of all of Prejean's life is a violation of BLP and place an undue weight on the opinion of one person concerning Miss Prejean. TharsHammar is clearly engaging in POV pushing and he/she wants the whole article about Carrie Prejean to be focused on the mean, nasty comments of Hilton. TharsHammar wants to repeat those comments over and over in the article and he wants Hilton's beliefs about Prejean to be the official Wikipedia bio of Prejean. It is tantamount to having the comments of Sirhan Sirhan be the focus of an article on Wikipedia about Robert Kennedy. It is silly and simply POV-pushing.--InaMaka (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I think InaMaka has violated WP:NPA in the above edit, and I am deeply offended by the user's characterization of my work and intentions, completely ignoring WP:AGF. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Both TharsHammar and Exploding Boy have been highly distruptive and appear to be POV pushingn not only on the actual article but also on the talk page. Both have reverted and removed sourced content more than once, but especially Exploding Boy. It's so bad it's led to the talk page. InaMaka is correct concerning the content issue in regards to Hilton's hate speech over Carrie Prejean. Let's not forget Prejean is a living person i.e. WP:BLP. Does Wikipedia need to have so much focus based on this (Hilton) hypocrites's biased POV over Prejean? I don't think so as that would be undue weight. Let's face it, Hilton is a hateful bigot out to promote an agenda but Wikipedia is not the place for the Prejean article to be used as his platform for that agenda. This is an encyclopedia and should be treated as such. Yes, his controversial comments are hateful and evil and they should be used but not to the point where it takes over the article. Also, let's not forget NPOV. The article is already in danger of becoming a biased one sided POV disaster. Caden ^{is cool} 03:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets remember that Perez Hilton is a living person too! The above comment by Caden is disturbing on a noticeboard about living people. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What's disturbing is your behavior on both the article and talk page. It's unnacceptable. Why do you fight so hard to insert that IPs offensive anti-Mormon attack? You very well know it's wrong so why do it? Why do keep engaging in a edit war over sourced content on the article? Why do you keep removing the NPOV content and changing it to your POV? As for Hilton, he's shown the world his true colors. Thank God for that! Caden ^{is cool} 04:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Caden, did TharsHammar fight so hard to insert the IPs offensive anti-Mormon attack after it was revealed that Mormons donated a lot of money to the Protect Marriage - Yes on 8 campaign? -- Rico 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I do know he fought very hard to include the offensive anti-Mormon attack which led InaMaka to feel that the IP was possibly TharsHammar. The thought actually crossed my mine as well to tell you the truth. Caden ^{is cool} 17:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly, I came to the same conclusion without knowing this discussion was taking place. I hadn't read anything on the Talk page, beyond finding the section for the "controversy."

Were I out to destroy Carrie Prejean, I would have written the Wikipedia article sections on her exactly the way they have been written, carefully crafting them to present Miss Prejean in the most negative light possible, carefully selecting facts and omiting others. All of the elements I would expect to see are there, and even some that I was surprised to see.

The result is a destruction-of-a-living-person opinion piece, in the guise of encyclopedia sections!

When I pointed this out on the talk page, TharsHammar challenged me to provide examples -- apparently just so s/he could rebut them (immediately, in every case) in a never-ending series of unpersuasive Wikipedia gaming.

For example:
Me: Why is it notable that "Hilton called Prejean's answer 'the worst in pageant history'?"
(TharsHammar and I went back and forth on that.)
Me: Why is it notable that, "[Hilton] stated that 'There are various other ways she could have answered that question and still stayed true to herself without alienating millions of people' " -- or do we just want that idea in there?
TharsHammar: Because we want to provide the proper context and not chop up his quotes to make it look like something it wasn't. If we don't provide his reasons we violate NPOV.
Me: So we quote his groundless opinion, and then the substantiation that doesn't substantiate it?
TharsHammar: Yup, thats the way it should work. Althought we should leave off any indication that it does or does not substantiate his opinion, and leave off all wording calling his opinion groundless as all those things would be serious NPOV violations.[3]

TharsHammar knows, or should know, that just because an outraged gay blogger stated that "dumb bitch" Carrie Prejean could have answered the question differently, that doesn't mean that "Prejean's answer [was] 'the worst in pageant history'."

Furthermore, I had never suggested writing stuff like, "does not substantiate" or "groundless" into the article -- yet TharsHammar goes off on tangents to write me unpersuasive, non sequitur lectures about NPOV. So while insisting on the result of the one-sided attack on Miss Prejean, TharsHammar acts like s/he's the one that's concerned about NPOV.

TharsHammar does not appear to be acting in good faith. It's pretty clear to me that s/he has an agenda and is just fighting for it.

The sources used are not very reliable. Most of the carefully crafted attack uses yellow journalism for sourcing.

As with all the outrage being expressed on the Internet, by 'tolerance champions' that can't stand it that a televised beauty queen dared express an opinion they hate, those that fight to use Wikipedia to destroy Miss Prejean do not admit their true motivation -- but their motivation is revealed by how hard they are working to get and keep the negative trivia in this 'encyclopedia'.

Carrie Prejean's honest, straightforward answer to a highly politically-charged question has been politicized, and destroying Miss Prejean's reputation makes perfect sense to many same-sex marriage advocates.

Wikipedia is not the place for that though.

The extent to which the attack has been carefully crafted is evident in the way that the "Controversy" section waxes on about how terrible Carrie Prejean's answer was (using quotes from the openly gay blogger to write that), but what Miss Prejean actually said was left out.

Naturally, same-sex marriage advocates don't want that it there.

It's a lot easier to write that it was a 'history-making' "worst" answer, without putting what she said in there.

What she said wasn't different from what President Obama said, or what the majority of Americans have said -- so it's only even a "controversy", to a small minority of the population.

Some intolerant same-sex marriage advocates want people that oppose them destroyed, as was evidenced by attacks on the Mormon church, the use of Google Maps to pinpoint contributors to the Yes on 8 campaign (for retaliation) -- and now, Carrie Prejean.

Wikipedia is not the place for that.

The bias must be completely fixed. Wikipedia's reputation depends on such fixes.

Otherwise, long past the time that everyone has forgotten about Miss USA California, the one-sided attack on her reputation will remain here.

The president of Venezuela said Bush was the devil. Should we add that to the Bush article just because a lot of periodicals reported that? -- Rico 19:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

InaMaka has a bee in his bonnet about Perez Hilton calling Carrie Prejean a bitch, and insists that we make no reference to it anywhere on Wikipedia. Indeed, it seems he wants no mention of Hilton's actual statements at all, including his remark that hers was the worst answer in pageant history, but only vague references to "negative comments." A quick look at my edit history will show that I personally haven't placed that information anywhere for a couple of days, and all I've done on Carrie Prejean is fix some erroneous statements (eg: people kept claiming she'd joined the National Organization for Marriage, which she hasn't--they deny it on their website) and sources (for example, a Facebook page that didn't even mention Prejean), so frankly I don't know why I'm even mentioned here except that he's got it into his head that I'm bound and determined to include Hilton's comments: actually, I'm not, although in my opinion they're as worthy of inclusion as any part of the story.

Meanwhile, as some of us are trying to sort out the 5-article mess created by this whole Prejean nonsense, InaMaka has gone on a veritable rampage, reverting changes without discussion, leaving message after message on my talk page and edit summaries such as this one: "If Hilton's nasty, fascist, hate-filled comments are re-inserted in the various articles then I will remove them as violations of BLP" [4], and vigorously defending "Miss Prejean's" honour. He has refused to discuss changes on talk pages despite repeated pleas, and extended his accusations of fascism to some anon user who had the temerity to remark, in the context of an on-topic post, that "Mormons are weird"--hardly the "bigoted," "fascist," "anti-Mormon attack" that is being claimed. His edit summaries and actions on other articles are also problematic. In my opinion, InaMaka needs to be told to take it down a few notches in general and try to be more civil and cooperative. By the way, it would have been nice to receive notification from InaMaka that I was being discussed here, as is both common courtesy and standard practice. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

All of these claims are wrong. There have admins who looked at the negative comments about Mormons and have determined that they are offensive, violate BLP, and must be removed as trolling. That is a fact and no amount of comment by Exploding Boy will change that fact. Those hate-filled comments have been removed from the talk page and it will stay that way. Next, I have no problem with pointing out that Hilton obviously dislikes Prejean, but to repeat the b-word c-word clearly violates BLP and you and TharsHammar have led the way in reinserting the b-word and c-word in the article. I will also point out that Exploding Boy and TharsHammar re-inserted the hate-filled comments toward Mormons over and over again on the talk page even though the negative comments did NOT serve any purpose whatsoever. Hilton's highly negative sentiments toward Miss Prejean must be pointed out in the article but the use of the b-word and c-word is merely an attempt to use Wikipedia to assist Hilton in his desire to ruin and destroy Miss Prejean's career and reputation. That is NOT what Wikipedia is about and it clearly violates EVERYTHING that Jimbo did to set up BLP. So to focus on the only issue that is important here: Repeating Hilton's hate-filled comments (use of the b-word and the c-word) toward Miss Prejean is a clear violation of BLP and as such must be removed over and over again.--InaMaka (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

InaMaka: Please don't edit other users' comments, particularly to make it appear they wrote something they didn't, as you did to mine above. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell me what to do. Ok, if we are going to do that then listen to me: Quit using the word "bitch". You are merely using this forum to repeat the hate-filled words of Hilton again. With your actions, you have proven that you want to jam your POV into the article about Miss Prejean. You have no desire to compromise, you are just demanding that the b-word be used. You are not acting in good faith. You are being uncivil or uncooperative. You are simply trying to jam our narrow POV on the article and defame Miss Prejean and if you can't defame her over there then you are more than willing to use the b-word here and defame her on this talk page. Learn how to be civil and learn to stop using or repeating hate-filled words on this talk page or the other talk pages and especially in the actual articles. You have many things to learn about Wikipedia.--InaMaka (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

InaMaka, did Exploding Boy and TharsHammar re-insert the hate-filled comments toward Mormons over and over again on the talk page, after it was revealed that Mormons donated a lot of money to the Protect Marriage - Yes on 8 campaign? -- Rico 17:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let's try to assume good faith. Second, why are you asking InaMaka? You have the same access to the edit history as everyone else. Third, I reverted InaMaka's deletion once, in order to preserve an on-topic post. TharsHammer has stated that he also wanted to preserve an on-topic post. Fourth, the fact that NOM contributed to Prop 8 has been common knowledge for some time. And finally, would you please alter your signature to provide a direct link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page, as required by WP:SIG. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Question, if he made the comment later on his video blog and stated her remark wasn't the reason, why is it so important to include it? Soxwon (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Because Hilton has been directly contradicting himself. Sometimes he says nicer things about her and says that the remark was not the reason, then he says mean thing, and then her ogles over a picture of her near-nude on his blog in a way that seems to me to be a bit disturbing.

Of course, Hilton is a living person and I am not accusing him of repeatedly lying about the isses (that would be inappropriate even if I did privately think that). But the point here is: The variation in Hilton's positions is a notable part of the controversy. The Squicks (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Civility break

OK folks, let's keep this civil on all sides please, this is not 4chan. – ukexpat (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made one edit to this article, and it was simply polishing a sentence about her modeling portfolio. For all intents and purposes I am uninvolved in the content issues, and have made edits to try to rein in problematic talk page activity. Now, A couple of points:

BLP applies to everyone, including Perez Hilton. The descriptions of him as "fascist" and "hate filled" have to stop.

The bad faith and uncivil edit summaries must stop as well.

I also have a few questions. Are Miss Californias inherently notable? If it weren't for this controversy would she actually warrant an article? AniMate^talk 19:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No. A Miss California is not inherently notable. However, this particular Miss California is for several reasons. Her modeling career and now participation in this particular controversy. Also, to a lesser extent her participation in the Deal or No Deal. There is a reference to her in the article about Deal or No Deal, a small bit player. Taken as a whole she is notable.--InaMaka (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I hope you see that not everyone is acting in an uncivil manner. Some of us are trying to remain respectful despite the constant stream of personal attacks and the ignoring of WP:AGF. For the Miss California's, past champions also have articles, mostly recent winners [5] have blue links, but all past champions have either a red or blue link indicating someone out there thinks that they are notable to get an article one day once someone puts the work in. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We currently consider all professional athletes to be notable. I don't see why we wouldn't consider the winners of major beauty pageants notable as well. They have received a major award, which is one of the criteria for notability, and they receive more media attention then many professinal athletes.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking my question from before, why does the comment in question need to be inserted? Couldn't it be paraphrased as mentioned in wikipedia quote?? Soxwon (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be. I proposed what I feel is a reasonable compromise [6]. That appears to have held up in the recent round of editing today, yet I still have been attacked multiple times on this page. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The current version doesn't seem that bad or that far off from what you proposed, perhaps paraphrase the quote a bit to get the key information? Soxwon (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't we have a long standing consensus that senior beauty pageant people are notable? (Not asking sarcastically, really asking) The Squicks (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we even have a project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Public image of Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - See Talk:Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#BLP. Soliciting thoughtful input. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So you know, this issue has been here before. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive59#Parodies_of_Sarah_Palin See User:Wikidemon's comments here and User:Dsol's comments here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Some entries about suspensions, shoving, etc with no citations. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This entire article reads as if it were titled "opponents of christina hoff sommers", not an actual biography.

The actual criticism section is SIX-to-EIGHT times longer than the actual biographical part, and looking over previous edits, you notice that any information about her keeps getting shortened, but more and more information about what her opponents think is being lengthened.

Its not so much an issue of NPOV or lack of credible sources to the criticisms... (I'm not even going there, I don't care)... Its just that it breaks the BASIC format of an encyclopedic biography.

How can you say who a person is in 2 lines, and not actually show who this person is or what they do, and then go on a 2 page rant on how much they're wrong.

Again, I have no problem with 2 pages of criticism, if the person actually covered has 4-6 pages of her own views life covered.

--77.29.245.231 (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How about taking out both the "ideas" section (which is totally uncited) and the "criticism" section? Then you would have the basic facts about her and a list of her books. Debate about the issues could be discussed on articles about the various issues, linked to this article of course. Every article about a feminist, socialist, or whatever doesn't need a section debating the topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The ideas section could go, since it's uncited, but I think a far better solution would be to source it, seeing as that does seem to be what she actually advocates. Likewise, the criticism section could do with some trimming, but it does look to be reasonably well cited. Perhaps the answer is to expand the rest of the article, thus making the criticism section less of the overall volume of the article? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Simon Darby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Right-wing politician in relatively far right party, was photographed at an Italian political convention receiving Nazi salutes. Today, various IP editors (probably same editor on a dynamic IP) trying to insert POV into previously agreed paragraph. They won't engage properly in the debate without re-inserting badly sourced (translation from Italian newspaper) and potentially OR additions. Help! Bigger digger (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for a month. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ta Bigger digger (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Issue about including sourced negative info about a relative in a BLP. See this edit. Contributor seems to be in good faith. Comments appreciated, Skomorokh 16:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That information about an adopted brothers vehicle accident has no place in the article, IMO. Kevin (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it, Kevin. Skomorokh 01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

--NE2 16:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I lol'd. Skomorokh 18:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

HE'S ALIVE AND WELL and broadcasting from a Madrid radio station every morning… can't say which one, for obvious reasons ;) Physchim62 (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

David Weber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have reverted three times (of which 2 in the last 24 hours) the addition of the exact birthdate of David Weber (as opposed to just his year of birth). I have indicated in the edit summary that this is because of this Wikipedia guideline. When this was nevertheless reverted together with the claim that his birthday is widely publisher, I reverted again, stating that this is not the case. Being that I have been a main contributor of this article and have researched many articles about David Weber, and in view of the fact that I have checked again using Google, I am in the position to state that his birthday is indeed not widely know. Debresser (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Weber's DOB is hardly a secret: [7] [8] [9][10]. This is an obvious misapplication of BLP. Raul654 (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Troutslap both of you for the lame edit war. Debresser, in the absence of a complaint from the subject, what's the problem?--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Raul654 and Scott MacDonald. As Weber has not complained about it, and as it's easily available information, I see no harm in including it just as it's included in thousands of other articles about people famous to one degree or another). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Debresser is apparently not participating here, so I've restored it. Raul654 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Natasha Yi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hello, I made edits to the article Natasha Yi and I type the year she was born on either TV.com, Natasha Yi's official website and on IMDb, she was born in the year 1979 and that's her year of birth she was born and some anonymous user named User:99.7.171.33 made edits to the wrong year to 1981 and that's not the year of birth she was not born, I told User:99.7.171.33 never change the year to 1981 because that's not the year of birth she was born, but kept on changing the wrong year of birth to 1981 many times, I made comments on Natasha Yi's talk page on the year of birth, I said on the talk page "1979" not "1981" but still kept on changing the wrong year. I revert it back to the correct year to 1979, but if User:99.7.171.33 keeps on changing to the wrong year, I want an administrator to go to 99.7.171.33's talk page for a warning and maybe a ban. If you read my comments please let me know, Thanks for your comments and please let me know. Steam5 (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Note - this dispute is currently the subject of a WP:ANI thread - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Steam5. Exxolon (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

One editor has argued on Talk:Rachel Corrie#Reliable Sourcing for "Saint Pancake" that as a "recently" deceased person (she died in March, 2003) the protections of WP:BLP and WP:HARM should be extended to her. When pressed on the matter, he indicated that he believed such protection should be extended "until all her close relatives (especially her parents) are dead". I do not beleive such an interpretation of the BLP policy is supported or accurate. Comments, either here or on the relevant talk page, would be welcomed. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• "She's dead, Jim." Ray^Talk 17:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Er, trying to insert a poorly-sourced nickname from a few partisan blogs poking fun at a person's (relatively) recent death is a Bad Idea, and counter to the encylopedia's principles. It reflects poorly on our efforts here and undermines the goal of creating a serious and respectable reference work. Whether one cites WP:BLP or some other policy is probably secondary. User:Black Kite is correct in his talk-page comments. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Salon (magazine) is a partisan blog? News to me! Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • No, but MastCell means that it's merely mentioning in passing that some partisan blogs have used the term. Which it is. Black Kite 19:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
        • MastCell, please feel free to address the question I posed: Is Corrie's death "recent" for purposes of WP:BLP and/or WP:HARM? Jclemens (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My take - without seeing the sources, six years is *not* recent in regards to BLP. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Agreed. IMHO six months maybe. – ukexpat (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • yes, at the furthest possible extension of BLP, 6 years dead is unquestionably dead. As i interpret it, dead is dead, though we have found it wise to wait a day or two to be sure of the report. DGG (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:HARM is a personal essay. It is meaningless to bring it up in the context of a dispute over policy. WP:BLP does not apply to people who have been dead for 6 years. I find it distressing that the editor who introduced these arguments to the Talk page debate is an administrator, who should clearly know better. One can argue whether or not the Corrie article should include insulting nicknames, but to try and dress these arguments up with baseless appeals to policies which clearly do not apply is bad form. NoCal100 (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to me that not much time has passed from the point of view of her family and friends, who will surely be reading the article or at least may get word of what it says. I don't see the need to put in a trivial item which would cause them a lot of pain to hear about it. WP should have a higher standard than other Internet outlets, or else what's the point? Steve Dufour (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • ... Which is a different issue entirely than whether Corrie is a living person for purposes of WP:BLP, isn't it? Feel free to swing by Talk:Rachel Corrie and participate in the discussion there--you wouldn't be the only one making that argument, although I personally find it quite uncompelling. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • But still the principle of not harming living person applies. What's the point of mentioning an extremely offensive remark when people could be hurt by that and there is no benefit to people's understanding?Steve Dufour (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • And at what point do we stop worrying? Until Corrie's parents die? Until her schoolmates die? Until there is truly peace in Gaza? WP:NOTCENSORED is a core policy, and for good reason. I disagree with your assertion that there's no benefit to including a reliably-sourced critique of Corrie, but again, we can pick that up at the article talk page. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
        • This discussion strikes me as surreal. What part of being a serious, respected reference work requires us to refer to Rachel Corrie as "Saint Pancake"? Every day that passes convinces me that the most vocal elements at this site are the furthest from its actual principles and goals. MastCell ^Talk 17:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
          • MastCell, your point is an entirely defensible one, but does not belong here. If you had thoughts on the issue of whether RC is a BLP, they would be welcome. IronDuke 19:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
            • My point is that it doesn't really matter whether you consider her "recently" deceased or long-deceased. Because this isn't a bureaucracy; it's an encyclopedia. From that perspective, I find it hard to rationalize this thread. MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
              • Well, it matters if you're using her being "recently dead" as your argument against including the epithet, which has happened. There may well be other, stronger arguments for excluding it, but that doesn't mean any argument against it is therefore valid, and this one clearly isn't, IMO. But you know all this, so... <<shrugs, mildly baffled>>. IronDuke 22:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
                • Why are you baffled? It's clear what argument xe is using, and it's clear that it is not the argument that you are countering. Xe wrote it explicitly. Xyr argument is that such content is not what is appropriate for "a serious, respected reference work". Uncle G (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “xe” and “xyr”… but if I’m getting the gist of what you’ve written, the reason MastCell’s comments are baffling is that they have nothing to do with the issue at hand, to wit: is RC a living person, for our purposes? Simple, answerable question. Are there other issues involved in the epithet about her, and whether it should be used? Definitely. Should they be discussed? You bet. Here? No. IronDuke 16:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
                    • If you think that that's the issue at hand, then either you haven't read the talk page discussion that was linked to right at the top of this very section, or you've allowed yourself to be distracted away from the issue at hand. Even though one side of a content dispute may re-frame the issue as a quibble over what the BLP policy applies to, the issue remains the original content issue that it is, and MastCell is right to be sticking to it and to be avoiding being led away by the distraction of discussing whether the person is dead (which does not stop our NPOV, verifiability, and no original research policies from applying). Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
                      • It's no longer the issue at hand because the assertion that BLP applied to Corrie was so laughable and was roundly rejected here that it's no longer being argued at the talk page. Make no mistake, if you look on Talk:Rachel Corrie you can find the arguments exactly as I described them above. By bringing the discussion here, BLP-aware editors stopped that policy shopping in its tracks. Whether the term "Saint Pancake" appears in Corrie's article or not, it is abundantly clear that keeping it out because Corrie falls under the umbrella of BLP and it's a negative thing said about her is not a policy-supported argument. That's all that this BLP/N was asked to adjudicate; the other issues, including whether other policies support or do not support inclusion, are being discussed elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Corrie is no longer living and so BLP does not apply to her (though of course it still applies to living people mentioned in her biography). Regardless of whether she's alive or dead I can't see a good reason to include a silly sobriquet in the biography unless it's truly notable.   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Also there was no such nick when she was alive, so a made up nick referring her tragic death by mocking is really a suspected case. We should discuss whether we should include this or not, maybe even include it. Yet wikipedia need some guidelines on this matters more clearly. Kasaalan (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been various attempts over the years to libel professor Winterberg. The problem became so bad that his article was partially protected. However, I recently noticed two "watch" type pages which imply he has questionable political connections he is trying to cover up, etc. Is this really necessary? The man is 80 years old and doesn't know how to defend himself against such computer based attacks on his character. Various friends and colleagues have attempted to intercede on his behalf, but that doesn't make him a low person. I ask that the following material be removed from Wikipedia as falling outside the guidelines of Wikipedia's policy on living persons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alvestrand/Winterberg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alvestrand/Winterberg_notes

Physiker121 (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

IIRC the article has been protected due to the combination of a succession of IPs and socks of a banned user who have disrupted the article, and the subject or his assistants deleting well-sourced information. Some of the details of this disruption are in the pages that Physiker121 would like deleted. If folks really think the pages are offensive then WP:MFD is the appropriate venue.   Will Beback  talk 

Heh. I'd forgotten that there were two of these pages. I've merged them.

This series of issues actually dates back to before WP:BLP was formalized. The heart of the issue is whether King is a reliable source for Winterberg's involvement with LaRouche, and whether Winterberg's LaRouche involvement is important enough to include in Winterberg's biography. (The original reason why I got involved with Winterberg's article, his support for Christopher Jon Bjerknes' claims in relation to the Relativity priority dispute, have already been removed from the article; I don't think he's objected to the stuff about the Einstein-Hilbert controversy now.)

If we accept that King's book is a reliable source, and that Winterberg's involvement with LaRouche is worthy of mention, I see nothing in WP:BLP that warrants removing the material from the article. I've seen no WP:RS sources claiming the King book is not reliable; I've seen claims made to that effect on Wikipedia, but these aren't WP:RS. FWIW, the book's text is freely available for reading online.

As to the fact of me keeping notes around - I'm trying to keep the notes' facts to what's easy to gather for anyone with access to the history of the pages involved, not adding personal opinion - but at times, for instance when looking up IP-related information, it's unavoidable to document some degree of speculation. I think this is good practice, and don't want to stop doing it. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW - I am very happy to see that Winterberg's defendant has now created an account. I assume this is the University of Reno IP, since the editing styles seem to match. User:Physiker121 is definitely a WP:SPA, but I like having this much better than having to guess whether they're the same person or not. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

An announcement of the death of the poet James Kirkup (born 1918) has just been added to the page. Since there was no supporting reference I have removed the claim. This may well be a factual edit, but naturally we should await a verifiable report. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it too. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The Shields Gazette has reported his death {http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/Internationally-acclaimed-poet-dies.5253830.jp} Jezhotwells (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A tug of war is in progress due to there being two articles on this person. Is he known as a filmmaker and humanitarian, or as a pro-life activist? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV and WP:NC, it sounds like moving the article to a more NPOV name is appropriate. While there are many Jason Jones already known to Wikipedia, Jason Jones (filmmaker) and Jason Jones (activist) both appear free at this point. Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As one of the 'tuggers', I agree. My issue was to merge the two rather than redir one, and a new title would achieve that. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 00:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – by merge & move to new title, Jason Jones (activist/filmmaker) following a talk page discussion. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 05:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Alycia Lane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Eolk71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This new user appears to be involved in whitewashing this article to portray Lane in a positive light - deleting all references to the "bikini photos" and "alleged cop assault" incidents (both of which were properly referenced), and the reference to Larry Mendte's claim in a press statement that he and Lane had an "inappropriate relationship" (again referenced). For a new user they are very familiar with how Wikipedia works, and so far have refused to enter into discussion about this article. – ukexpat (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

John Floyd Thomas, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The guy had been arrested on DNA evidence, which links him to two murders, however the lead says:

"John Floyd Thomas, Jr. (born 26 July 1936) has been named by police and media as the "Westside Rapist," and he may have been responsible for two strings of serial killings in the Los Angeles area during the 1970s and 1980s[1]"

Along with another quote:

"When all is said and done, Mr. Thomas stands to be Los Angeles' most prolific serial killer," Bengston told the Los Angeles Times.[5]"

I think an eye needs to be kept on this article, to avoid statements like this unless he is convicted of the crimes.Martin451 (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have similar concerns as noted above in the Philip Markoff article. The issue is the propriety of posting an article on Wikipedia on the basis of ACCUSATIONS against someone who has not been convicted of any crime. I think it is bad policy and potentially libelous to do an article based just on accusations against someone not yet convicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That's absurd. We should wait till after conviction to have an article? Unbelievable! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

That's why the Wikipedia standard is verifiability, not truth. If major credible newspapers report it, then we presume it to be true and reference them as sources. Banaticus (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No - to be precise, if major credible newspapers report it, then we take that as evidence that it's reliably and verifyably sourced material, and can state in an article "Police claim that he was responsible for X, Y, and Z. (refs)". We do not ever presume absolute truth. This is a subtle but important difference, particularly for BLPs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - It seems to me this woman has received quite a bit of press recently, and at this point seems to have a notability of her own, aside from a) being the daughter of Sarah Palin and b) being pregnant. Particularly, she has been giving a lot of interviews on TV in which she speaks in favor of a pro-life position. It is my opinion that the article deserves to exist, provided that it is very closely monitored and carefully watched for BLP violating material (e.g., no controversy section, no gossip, etc.). Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is now redirected to her mom's, the notable person. Really, supporters of President Obama should pay attention to his example. I am sure he would never engage in personal attacks on a teenager for political gain. Nor would he advise you to if you wrote and asked him. Do you think you are smarter than he is? Why don't you get out and do something that will help him get re-elected? Writing gossip articles on WP will not be productive. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: The protecting administrator has referred the issue to Talk:Sarah Palin, to determine whether there is consensus for such an article (seems like there isn't so far). On a side note, I declined an unprotection request filed yesterday. Regards SoWhy 06:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a series of reliable sources with which you'd propose to construct such an article? Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor has the reliable sources allegedly available in claims that an article on her boyfriend / partner should be undeleted, as currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 7#Levi Johnston. The references I looked at seemed mainly to be about Bristol giving interviews with Levi in attendance also making some comments, does undeletion to discuss this further at AfD comply with the letter and spirit of BLP policy? . . dave souza, talk 17:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How about Time magazine or CNN or FOXNews or ABC News? Maybe, the Associated Press or The Detroit Free Press or Yahoo!7 Entertainment News. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a radical idea: since we don't have a deadline and are not a news outlet, why don't we wait 6 months? If Bristol Palin is still a high-profile advocate, then it will be much easier to justify an article on her. If all of the press coverage is confined to one metaphorical period of 15 minutes, then it will be easy to justify not having an article. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Palin has been the subject of press coverage since August 2008.[11] The six month waiting period you suggest has already passed.   Will Beback  talk  20:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That would mean that Bristol Palin had her 15 minutes and then 9 months more. That is more than 6 months. Thank you for pointing that out. Ism schism (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The link provided by Will consists of people pleading for respect for Bristol Palin's privacy, and asking that her pregnancy not be turned into a political issue. That sort of reinforces the WP:BLP1E (and other BLP) arguments against us covering it. The fact that, 6 months ago, people were pleading for Bristol Palin's privacy doesn't mean that she's had 6 months of "notability". To me, anyway. Perhaps I'm out of step. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You might be out of step; Bristol is now known for multiple events, the newest being an advocate for abstinence. This along with other events in her life place her well beyond a WP:BLP1E - that would be a harsh oversimplification. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bush White House wouldn't have asked for folks to avoid discusing Bristol Palin unless they had reason to think that people would do so. Despite their request, people did in fact make an issue of Bristol Palin and she didn't shy away from the attention. The BLP1E exception requires that people keep a low profile, which Palin hasn't done. She's not a private person but rather someone who has sought publicity, so her privacy is not at stake. While we can disuss whether or not she is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia biography, such a biography would not violate BLP by its mere existence.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment For editors who would like to work on this project, before submitting it; there is an outline started at User talk:Jbolden1517/Bristol Palin. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I see no reason to do this now. The natural point to ask for the redirect to be removed is when the target section is becoming too big and relevant content needs to be moved. Making an article out of it now will just make it a target for gossip and possibly POV-warring over her views. Rd232 ^talk 01:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note Please see The Candie's Foundation website Announcing Bristol Palin: The new Candies's Foundation Ambassador. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Seinfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should the infobox say his nationality is "American" or "Jewish American?" Discussion on article talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have "corrected" his nationality per WP:MOSBIO. Seems pretty straight forward. --Tom (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, looks like trolling. Hopefully this can be dealt with quickly to avoid any more unneeded drama. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• I thought it was pretty straightforward too, but look what is happening now... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the "noise" is being confined to the talk page. As long as the noise doesn't turn into edit warring on the article main space again, hopefully this will resolve itself. There seems to be a few eyes watching now so time will tell. Anyways, stay tuned :) --Tom (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack Lucien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is in a bit of a mess. We've has an OTRS ticket from a fan saying it was full of nonsense. I've taken out the worst uncited and badly-cited stuff, but it needs a bit more care and attention, not to mention reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Stephen Blackehart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I need help with this article. I've found a number of published reliable sources that state Stephen Blackehart is Marlon Brando's son, Stefano Brando.[12][13]. Recently User:Blackehart has posted on my talk page saying that while this has been printed, it's only gossip. I'm assuming that Blackehart is legitimately Stephen Blackehart, based on his knowledge of movies he's appeared in and a recent minor content dispute we had. As of right now, I've changed the copy of the article to only attribute the statement to the sources, and haven't listed it as fact. Did I do the right thing? Should it be removed completely, or should the statement be even stronger with the two or more sources that could confirm it? --Yankees76 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would question the reliability of the sources. This claims Brando's love life was so complicated that in 1967, he fathered actor Stephen Blackehart, whose spokesman said he didn't know who the mother is.

so I would suggest either getting a reliable source, and removing the claim until then. Martin451 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the obituaries for Brando backs up the NY Daily News story (I sourced one in the article). I'm not trying to out this guy or sensationalize the article, however since he did volunteer already in the article who his wife is and his father in law, while searching for sources for those claims, I uncoverd the Brando connection, quite by accident. It seems rather noteworthy. --Yankees76 (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Google Books, the reliable source Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television By Michael J. Tyrkus of the University of Michigan listes Blackehart as the man's son. The Squicks (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Page 54 is its biography of Marlon Brando. The Squicks (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Good find. --Yankees76 (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Julius Malema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to have descended into an attack piece, most recently through edits by Julius.mampara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor whose username is slang for "Julius is an idiot", clearly targeted at the subject. This "new" user has managed to skillfully game the system to evade a previous block, (here) and have an editor who tried to slow him down blocked himself through the Etiquette notice board. Sadly, I'm not going to touch this article with a barge pole after seeing that. But I would suggest administrators have a look at all and sundry involved. T L Miles (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Every page created by 79.66.215.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a potential BLP violation -- user has added the term "Kurd" to each person's ethnicity. Iranian-Kurd, Jewish-Kurd, Kurd (where no previous ethnicity was listed). No references have been given, user hasn't responsed to a post I made on his talk page asking about it.

• Adrian Pasdar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Catherine Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Roya Hakakian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Omid Kordestani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Daron Malakian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Shannon Elizabeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wentworth Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Serj Tankian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Shannon Elizabeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (already reverted at this time)

Banaticus (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A blogger, minor comics editor and writer with not even a handful of credits? Is that really enough for a separate entry?? Slackhurst

If the reference publications are notable in the comic book world, she's probably notable enough. Other thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone from Baltimore, Maryland is continually adding "convicted drug felon" to describe Marion Barry. He was never convicted of a felony and his title shouldn't be "Mayor Marion Barry, known for fill-in-the-blank-crime". The IP(s) is adding a "controversy" to Barry's article that is pure coatrack. He's not a popular man, especially in my gayborhood (he recently voiced his objection to gay marriage), but he's still a living person. The article doesn't need to mention every Barry spat (there are many), especially one so minor. The IP used blogs as sources (no source was added 2 or 3 times) and inserting large quotes from a copyrighted source. See the edit history of Itta Bena, Mississippi, Tim Page (music critic), Joe Madison, and of course, Marion Barry. The IP has been warned, but is still adding "convited drug felon" with the edit summary "tightening up". APK straight up now tell me 00:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Known IPs - 128.125.239.182 (talk · contribs), 209.31.24.235 (talk · contribs), 173.67.63.49 (talk · contribs), 173.75.181.81 (talk · contribs), 96.234.244.119 (talk · contribs) APK straight up now tell me 01:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe try to get article protected vs. anon IPs? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I was contacted through e-mail and the issue has been resolved. Thanks for replying, Carol. APK straight up now tell me 22:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Gwilym Davies (barista) is a new article, the claim to notability seems pretty tenuous, but is made so it's not speediable a I understand it, and the one ref given in the article covers the fact of him winning the World Barista Championship, but none of the other stuff in teh article about his background or political views. What's the best way to proceed? David Underdown (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Masoumeh Ebtekar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - edits by anonymous user or users (more than one address is used but all are from the same country (Iran) the subject of the article lives in) to eliminate factoids about the subject's (Masoumeh Ebtekar's) involvment in the Iran hostage crisis, name change, and plagiarism; while adding not-so-very-notable but more image-boosting information. Examples here here here here here here Talk page complaint here BoogaLouie (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I did a preliminary pass for copyediting and removal of clearly judgmental statements. I haven't analyzed the article history, just looked at what was presently there. More checking is needed. DGG (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This was tagged by an anon for speedy deletion as an attack page with the in text comment "subject of article is editing and making changes that make disparaging comments about those allegedly involved in his own legal issues. content violates court ordered agreements." I've blanked and protected all but the lead which was cleaned up by User:DGG. SPA's-- Special:Contributions/Downeyscan, Special:Contributions/64.52.49.34, Special:Contributions/MediaTruthTracker, allegedly the subject-- Special:Contributions/Hakanyalincak. The article was stable till this series of edits-- by Hakanyalincak. Then came the three SPA's.] I'm all for deleting it in it's entirety for the sake of human dignity, but it's a long standing article with sources and he may be notable. What's your pleasure? Dlohcierekim 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there an event we can merge him to? The "multi-million dollar hedge fund fraud and Ponzi scheme" that the article links him to might be notable in itself. In that case as a BLP1E he should be merged in with that article. Per this source her mother also appears connected with the event. While I don't think either of them should have an article about themselves, their mention in an article about the Ponzi scheme would be appropriate if the scheme itself was notable. ThemFromSpace 23:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is there seems to have been several different frauds; and the major one (the hedge fund) was relatively low value ($7m). [14] Tricky. We could try moving/merging to Yalincak hedge fund scam or something. Rd232 ^talk 01:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea. The article before Dlohcierekim removed most of it seemed to have lots of sensitive content (about his mental health, hospitalization, etc.), and as far as I can tell the individual is not very notable anyway. Making the article be about the incident instead would satisfy notability concerns and maybe ward off people who would otherwise be putting sensitive BLP stuff in there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I was tempted to take this article to AFD, but a quick look shows that there is a whole stack of coverage in reliable sources. So, I think that the BLP route is unlikely to work, although a case could probably be made for BLP1E deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

The issue is that the article is outdated....it was fine the way it was and it shouldn't have been tampered with aside from inclduing updates. What is notable about the scheme was that it was for, getting the facts right, $43 million bank fraud, 8.9 million wire fraud, $30 million insurance fraud, $2.5 million credit card fraud, and about hundreds of millions of dollars in potential exposure to various banks who provided prime brokerage and lines of credit to the hedge fund. That is what makes it notable....what makes it even more notable is that 2 days after wikipedia took this action the Turkish press covered it...that is notable, the fact that Hakan Yalincak was on CNBC with Melissa Lee and she won an emmy for her piece makes him notable. However, there has been no substantive updates to his bio in more than a year, even though he has been released from prison according to the www.bop.gov website. And, the fact that the Yalincaks havent been deported, even though an immigration judge in Hartford, CT ordered them removed, makes him notable (the Second Circuit issued a stay of removal preventing their removal). And, I am a writing a book on Hakan Yalincak as he is the poster child for bank and investor overindulgence in imagination and fancy culminating in the credit crisis. Finally, all of the information that was posted is true, however, it needs to be written in a voice neutral matter. all of the sensitive information is publicly available as are the settlements. I can only think of two people that would engage in vandalism or want to take the site down, and both were defendants in a lawsuit filed by Yalincak and both of whom match the ISP registered by Wiki. To the extent wiki allows them to denigrate a profile that has been useful to everyone from the New York Post to the Turkish press to a book writer like me it would denigrate the priciples wiki stands for: sharing open information. That is a sad tragedy. Mary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marymccully (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yalincak hedge fund scam

Hakan Yalincak was moved to Yalincak hedge fund scam per the BLP concerns. Marymccully restored that to what she claims is the default version, containing BLP violations addressed above. She also undid the redirect,restoring removed contents. I restored the redirect and again removed the BLP content. Needs more eyes and more thought from other users. Dlohcierekim 15:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the redirect is improper and the BLP discussion is of no value if the input from other participants in the discussion are ignored. This page has been standing for over 2 years and according to the statistics has gotten over a 1000 visits in one month....its a bit odd that two people would delete and redirect an entire page that had as many as 17 links to a page that has one paragraph and is of no educational or other value and lists an article as a reference that later issued a retraction.--Marymccully (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Marymccully

That article is a disgrace and I have reverted to a BLP compliant version. Additions should be made with clear in-line citations. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've re-restored the redirect at Hakan Yalincak again, and I would support it being sprotected in the interests of our BLP policies should the article there be recreated once more. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

I support protection. Mary claims to be an expert on the man. She apparently knows much about him, but does not understand our WP:BLP requirements here. In the interest of not having this continual reversion and the risks inherent to negative BLP's until she fully understands our policies on WP:RS and so forth, it would be best to protect the article. It has also been a battleground between the man's detractors and supporters, with no regard for our policies and guidelines. Protection will avoid all that. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've indefinitely protected the redirect until the problem passes. I did this before seeing the above discussin because it seemed an obvious precaution. 'Marymccully' is now at Editor assistance requests asking for help and accusing another editor of being a sockpuppet. [15]. Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge yalincak hedge fund scam with List_of_Ponzi_schemes

Mary does make a worthy point about this article-- it seems that the previous iterations cannot be used again as they wont survive any attempt to reach a neutral consensus on this topic/biography, given the strong disagreement on what is accurate, appropriate, or notable etc. The edit warring crossfire, targeting not random users but even high-level admins, further points to this inevitability. With these conflicts and the time they consume in mind, its should be noted that Yalincak/his story is not something that one would see in a Britannica--his story fails to impart or emobdy a unique idea/concept or a transcendent moment in history that requires strict enyclopedic documentation. Obviously Wikipedia tends to be more expansive than traditional encyclopedias, yet yalincak's presence, even within those more flexible guidelines, is still something of a stretch.

I don't believe Yalincak deserves a dedicated BLP as his biography/life story is certainly not notable in a historic or cultural sense. As stated above, it simply does not provide anything "new" in its content or provide insight to the study of related matters. His crimes, however, do meet some sense of notability in reference to Ponzi/pyramid schemes, and do provide additional reference to those studying such topics. With that in mind, I'd like to propose erasing this BLP and merging what is left of the article with en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ponzi_schemes-- a list of ponzi schemes throughout history. I think that this the most fitting place, as yalincak's scheme, independent of the man himself, is notable in that he was so young, but not for much else beyond that. After reviewing the list myself, its clear Yalincaks BLP was, from the outset, an aberration, as there are ponzi schemes on the list involving ten+ times the amount of money his did that do not have an accompanying/extensive BLP.

Any thoughts on this from the peanut gallery? Yulin23 (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This particular series of crimes is notable in its own right. The redirect to Yalinak hedge fund scam was right, especially because there were two Yalinaks involved. The merge is in my opinion inappropriate. There's BLP, but simultaneously NPOVC, and notable crimes get articles. The reason to merge given by the proposer is "certainly not notable in a historic or cultural sense.", but that is much different from our standard. Notable is less than historic. That this might not be in the EB is also not relevant, what is in the EB is our bare minimum standard in that we cover all they do, and a great deal more also. The merge has unwisely already been done, and it should not have been done without consensus. Since this is BLP, I'm going to wait for additional opinions, but by own position is that I am prepared to revert it. . DGG (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the merge was a bit hasty. I would like to see more discussion of the merits of the Yalincak hedge fund scam article. It may be that the merger is the right way to go, but we do not have a consensus to do so. I also make note that Yulin23 (talk · contribs) has only recently come to edit Wikipedia, and has confined his edits to the matter at hand. His merger after < 3 days for discussion was overly precipitate. Reading DGG argue to keep the article causes me considerable doubt about advisability of the merger. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

apologies for any perceived hastiness, I figured the lack of any response relative to the frequency of posts in the prior week indicated a lack of controversy towards my proposal. More discussion is always ideal, but it seems to me this dialogue has been a rather onesided exchange between one person(marymccully) with no interest in changing her stance, and admins offering not much besides insisting on discussion for the purpose of maintaining wikipedia's idealogical premise. Given that neither of these present a situation that would predicate an actual, relevant discourse leading to consensus on the topic, I would call this a stalemate. ultimately, having a yalincak hf scam page does provide some type of value to wikipedia, but not enough to maintain the page through all this madness, which ends up detracting from wiki's overall integrity as a source of well-considered info. -yu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yulin23 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

and a quick note: Though my account is fairly new on wiki, I've visted the site and made edits for many years. I chose to create a SN for this particular issue given how much input i've provided :)- not everyone is as button down as you guys!!!!!! Yulin23 (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about an author of a theory and corresponding book rejected by nearly all professional historians. But that part seems to be covered and sourced okay in the article. More concerning is it relies on primary sources for other claims about the author. One of them (about his involvement in the HMS Rorqual collision) I was able to source to one of the interviews used about the controversy. The other one though, the claim he is a vexatious litigant is not sourced to anything but a UK government site. Of great concern, a third claim that of his birthname/full name, is not sourced at all and unless that is really his full name we could even have the wrong person. I have attempted to find a reliable secondary source for his name and/or being a vexatious litigant but disconcertingly I was unable to partially because of the large number of mirrors etc of an earlier version that was removed [16]. I've removed these claims but given that they've come back before I would appreciate further watchers. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence for the existence of anyone of the name of Rowan Gavin Paton Menzies except for that vexatious litigant case. I've got no reason to think the edit wasn't a GF edit, since Menzies has threatened to sue people and tried to get them fired (he admits this) - [17]. But I agree that unless we can find evidence connecting him to the legal case, that definitely does not belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, unless there are two Rowan Gavin Paton Menzies', this is our Gavin Menzies, I've seen a copy of the Navy List from Spring 1969. the information is also in the personnel records at the Submarine Museum. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced his full name, referencing The Navy List, which by the way can be searched for a small yearly fee here [18]. We should have a list of who has access to databases like this, I'm sure someone does. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, the Navy List is a publically available publication, published originally by HMSO, and now by The Stationery Office, and can be bought from TSO's website (and probably large booksellers as well). Many UK reference libraries will hold it also. The London Gazette also covers details of his naval career, but in his case only seems to list by initials. David Underdown (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll let the name thing go but as to the vexatious litigant thing, I still believe that per BLP that has to stay out as I've explained on the article talk page Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a dispute at this article between the subject and editors claiming conflict of interest and self-promotion. If experienced editors could get their hands dirty with referencing claims and enforcing NPOV, preferably without rubbing the subject the wrong way, it would be much appreciated. Skomorokh 01:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to note that this is just one of several instances of disputes where article subjects affiliated with buzznet.com are trying to control the content of the articles relating to them by edit warring, recruiting friends and associates to edit on their behalf, and making malicious personal attacks on the editors tryign to keep the articles consistent with Wikipedia policies. For other examples, and I've stumbled into several of them, see Jessicka, Skeleteen, Scarling, Clint Catalyst, and Kyle Justin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I can further attest to the Catalyst article. A number of 'new' editors there have taken to reverting attempts to remove information under a claim that everyone opposing them has an undeclared, undescribed "COI". Perhaps the COIN noticeboard would be more appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I signed up after this war started but had previously edited under an IP. Judging by Hullaballoo's Talk page, I'm not the only one who has come to the conclusion that s/he has a serious issue with the subjects of all of these articles mentioned. (Also, I don't know anything about Skeleteen, but what do the others besides Catalyst have to do with Buzznet?) The user follows an ongoing pattern of removing cited information, often under false edit summaries (such as falsely labeling events "open mic", removing show titles and writing credits despite appropriate citation claiming that they are "unconstructive" or denying that they exist in the text of the citation), which has caused the page to be demoted from Jump class back to Start class. Additionally, this user is the only one I have seen making "malicious personal attacks" - claiming that I know Catalyst personally, and also claiming that I am editor Tallulah13. Granny Bebeb (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • What demotion? The Catalyst article has been at start-class since the beginning and the insistence of citing YouTube as a source has been a part of the problem. The article is still a spam mess and complete inappropriate in accordance to policies and I'm finding the large number of new individuals all crying the same COI complaints very bizarre. This first comment alone from a new user is really, really strange. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Follow-up, the new editor was a clear COI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Due to a recent TV programme, a historic (2002) scandal regarding an incident of group sex has blown up again. The situation is semi in-control and an admin is already monitoring the situation but posting here in to get additional eyes on it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Elissa Sursara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Eliska Sursova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following the blanking of Elissa Sursara by Stephen's black friend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the editorial comment that this person is "likely to be made up", I was led to another wikipedia article for an Eliska Sursova, a page also recently blanked by this user. Both articles have similarities other than their name - child-actress, Brazilian heritage, the same birthdate. I would appreciate some opinion/advice/assistance as to whether these entries are part of a hoax, both here and at imdb (which seems to be a "source" for the articles) or if there is a basis of truth for one or the other entry. Many thanks.  florrie  15:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Article is at AfD, and being edited heavily. Originally, it was a spammy article containing nothing but praise. Now it is turning into an attack piece full of rumor and innuendo, and many many "citation needed" tags. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a major problem, but anons and accounts with few edits are repeatedly changing Jim Cramer's ethnicity from Jewish to Irish. Ignoring for the minute that "Cramer" isn't an Irish name, they have not provided sufficient sources to prove the claim. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I should possibly point out that Eamon de Valera didn't have an Irish name either... or that Bernardo O'Higgins did, but the former is Irish and the latter is not... However, not directly relevent here. That having all been said, Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Eric Limeback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Biographies of living persons // 67.71.138.151 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• • It certainly is. What needs to be done about it?!?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Looks OK. Subject may be taking a hand-- Limeback (talk · contribs). Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Heroin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Heroin#Musicians who have used, or written about, heroin use

This seems mostly to be a list of Musicians who have at some time or other used heroin. Most of this is unreferenced, and some not even backed up by the main articles of the Band/person, e.g. Aerosmith, Miles Davis, Metallica . Martin451 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. The list is not helpful given what the article is about. It seems like some silly ad-on. The Squicks (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of that pop culture section could probably rescued but most of it should be deleted. Volunteers? – ukexpat (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Done? Banaticus (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

the individuals there at the moment seem well-referenced. The list of musicians who have used it/referred it in their work was removed without attempting to source the others, and they probably all could be. Most of them being dead, BLP isn't usually relevant. There is material enough for an article "heroin and popular music" There are at least several entire books about this. [19]

I agree that there is 'material enough for an article "heroin and popular music"' but the same time a huge list in the article itself seems a bit much... though more than just three musicians could definitely be mentioned.sunja (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Does it belong in the main article or a sub-article? I think the association between Music / Musicians & Heroin will be of historic interest, is of current academic interest and is therefore of encyclopaedic interest. Suggest it possibly belongs in a sub-article rather than the main. What's the reasoning behind suggesting deletion - references? While not overtly referenced there is inferential referencing for at least some via links to other Wikipedia articles. Is this sufficient? Amicaveritas (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• An article that is properly sourced called Use of drugs in popular music could be justified, but that's not at issue here. What is at issue is whether or not this level of detail should be included in the heroin page. I personally don't think so given that it is tangent to the purposes of that article, which medically/chemically describes what it is and where it comes from and so on. The Squicks (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a current edit war in the Brian Quintana article. This article is also being AfD'd although it seems like the subject is notable. Right now, an editor through his account, michaeledean, and ip address consistently removes any negative content about the subject even though they are cited to sources. [20] My question is how do we treat the celebrity gossip sections of major newspapers (are they reliable sources?) and is his removal appropriate? I suspect the editor is either Brian Quintana himself or someone closely related to him. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Also consider warning the participants and bringing up a notice at WP:ANEW for discussion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As another aside, see WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE. Merely because it is reported somewhere does not mean it is relevent to the article. If an article is filled with verifiable facts, but it cherry-picks only those facts which paint the subject in a negative light, it could still be a BLP vio even if the facts are somehow verifiable. We should strive for a neutral and balanced portrayal. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the majority of coverage by reliable sources are negative so it is not an issue of picking and choosing. WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE) only requires that all viewpoints by reliable sources are represented and WP:BLP requires that all controversial assertions be supported by reliable sources. Again, the question is how much reliability do we assign the celebrity gossip sections of mainstream newspapers? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

information regarding his middle name and birthday is continually removed, even though it appears in the internet movie database. His birthdate is in his official website. A persistent person continues to remove this information. Can someone please have a look at this case. Just look into history.

Fighting for Justice (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The IMDB is not a reliable source, and the person removing this stuff can claim to be just following WP:BLP. I have re-added his birth date citing his web site. Martin451 (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

All right Thank you. What about facebook? is facebook considered a reliable source? Because I did find this: [21] This would allow the inclusion of his middle name, don't you agree? Fighting for Justice (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I found a TV Guide that references his middle name as "Scott". take a look if you'd like. Fighting for Justice (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate forum to discuss this particular image. It's high time we ensure that this board is used for strictly BLP-related issues. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that an individual who does not have a user name but once an IP address of 67.142.162.35 an once an IP address of 76.211.65.19 I am pretty sure I know who is inserting this both false information about Alexei Yagudin, and libelous information about another I know. I have edited it out several times, but they keep putting it in.Please do something about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrieharris (talk • contribs) 19:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've edited out several unsourced sections. Please be careful when editing pages, you broke a table by deleting it's opening structure syntax. If the problem is serious, please report to WP:RFPP. Exxolon (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Though I am not involved in this article, it would be helpful if a person who has never run into User:Ratel examines this one -- he has placed material on the talk page which, if in the main article, has been and likely ought to be deleted as violating BLP. He seems to think the National Enquirer is a valid reliable source for what appear to be quite negative statements about Mr. Copperfeld. TMZ.com is also used as a reliable source in this article. Collect (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If any user has ever run into Collect, please be aware that this subsection is part of (another) personal attack on me by this individual. The details about Copperfield were widely reported in the press, and the reports in the Enquirer were also reprinted in the media, without challenge from Mr Copperfield. The matters reported are still under investigation by a Grand Jury. No BLP violations have occurred, although User:Collect would love to find an admin who can be persuaded to act against me. ► RATEL ◄ 02:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then it seems that you would love to find an admin who can be persuaded to act against him. The Pot seems to be calling the Kettle black. To address the edit conflict and not the editors: If the negative information is discussed by other, reliable media outlets, then perhaps you should cite those instead of the National Enguirer and TMZ. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the article, there are definitely some valid BLP concerns here. Some might be resolved through sourcing to different media, others should probably be removed or re-written. Please take a closer look. Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

---

• I'd like to ask for more input on this please. A person connected with Copperfield (by his own admission) has repeatedly removed diff the sentence:

Other women have claimed that Copperfield uses his shows to target attractive women.^{[dc 1][dc 2][dc 3][dc 4][dc 5][dc 6]}

1. ^ "FOXNews.com - Report: Document Shows How Copperfield Roped In Attractive Women". www.foxnews.com. Retrieved 2009-05-18.
2. ^ "Copperfield's Lawyer: Illusionist A Victim Of Smear Campaign". www.accesshollywood.com. Retrieved 2009-05-18.
3. ^ "Revealed: Copperfield's Secret Document On How To Pick Up Chicks". www.huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2009-05-18.
4. ^ "ShowBUZZ". www.news.com.au. Retrieved 2009-05-18.
5. ^ "New Charges Swirl Around Copperfield". CBS News. 2007-10-26. Retrieved 2008-09-22. The illusionist reportedly offered a woman accusing him of sexual assault $2 million to drop her allegations, even as other women are apparently claiming Copperfield uses his shows to target pretty women and try to pick them up.
6. ^ "Copperfield Secret Document -- How to Pick Up Chicks". TMZ.com. 2007-11-05. Retrieved 2008-09-22. TMZ has obtained portions of a secret document from David Copperfield's shows, outlining in extreme detail how the magician's assistants were supposed to rope in the women that David found attractive [..] The document describes how the assistants need to be heads-up for attractive women whom David can meet backstage after the performance.

There is also the question of the removal of the fact that Copperfield maintains a "secret" family in Las Vegas, as published by Nevada's biggest daily, the Las Vegas Review Journal. That was also deleted by this individual. Text with cites below. Comments? ► RATEL ◄ 02:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Copperfield was reported to have secretly had two children with a Czech model, Marie Petlickova.^{[ne 1]} Petlickova and the children live in Las Vegas. Petlickova's Las Vegas attorney quoted her as saying: "David is a wonderful, loving and caring father. Please respect our privacy."^{[ne 1]} Petlickova, her mother and the children lived in a $1.5 million home at a local country club since 2006. The National Enquirer reported that property records show the home is owned by Copperfield's company, David Kotkin LLC.^{[ne 2]}

1. ^ ^{a b} "NORM: Michigan pageant success is in genes - News - ReviewJournal.com". www.lvrj.com. Retrieved 2009-05-14.
2. ^ "David Copperfield secretly fathered two children with Czech model". www.showbizspy.com. Retrieved 2009-05-14.

Request redaction of gratuitous PA above. I happen to fail to see how posting here, as requested by an admin, can conceivably be a PA on my part. Also note that several editors have removed this material as violating BLP, and Ratel does not have any consensus for including this material. If it is, indeed, violative of BLP, ot also should be redacted here. Also note that I have made absolutely no substantive edits to the article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing will be redacted. You phrased the topmost question in this section in a way that I interpret as a clear PA. And you asked this question before any admin told you to come here, so do not say "as requested by an admin". As background to your sudden interest in the page on David Copperfield (illusionist) (where I am a longtime editor), you have a long, long history of confrontation with various editors, me included. You are described by many long-time editors as a trouble-making, tendentious editor who plays games of one-upmanship on wikipedia for your own amusement. I ask other editors please to look at my question and not be side-tracked by the red herrings this editor is dragging across the scene. ► RATEL ◄ 03:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just a FYI to other editors thinking of responding: TMZ.com is owned by Time-Warner and run by a fully qualified lawyer who states that everything they publish is checked for accuracy. This is not a tiddlywink little personal gossip blog. ► RATEL ◄ 04:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Having looked into this, the site (TMZ) quite clearly takes a sensationalist view in order to make sales. Does this make it an unreliable source? In my opinion no, but it does mean that caution should be used regarding WP:BLP. The most reliable source on whether it is a reliable source would seem to say: it is being used as reliable source at least (not quite the same a being a reliable source): New York Times. The Washington Post[67] article with the sub heading "Timely Scoops Push TMZ to Top of the Gossip Heap" is less compelling. There do also seem to be a significant number of actions brought against TMZ - again this would indicate caution with regard to BLP and using it as a single cited source WP:Weight In balance I think TMZ could be considered reliable, but not where it is the only source and the content is contentious. With regard to BLP I am not an inclusionist like Ratel. I believe the appropriate treatment of contentious events is brief, neutral coverage and the let the underlying cited sources go into the detail from both sides of the argument.Amicaveritas (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree to an extent which is why I have replaced/supplemented the source with numerous secondary sources. Once a story is "out there" to that extent, it just cannot be kept off wikipedia. ► RATEL ◄ 08:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please note, the reliability of TMZ.com in this article is being discussed here on another noticeboard too. ► RATEL ◄ 16:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In preparation for recently announced campaign for Congress, someone has begun excessively partisan editing on this page, citing polling data in the most favorable light, quoting the National Republican Congressional Committee, referring to mayoral "successes" without references, and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.150.159 (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The slant is bad enough that it's drawn NH media notice from state papers like the Union Leader and Concord Monitor. Presumably the same user has also removed factual information about Guinta's controversial proposals while in office and demonstrated on the Talk page a clear misconception of Wikipedia's guidelines about neutrality, verifiability, and disputed claims. Vote (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Michael_Martin_(politician) article has badly sourced content about a living person who is currently the subject of controversy. I deleted the specific content and explained my action, but it was replaced. Hence my report.
• Content in question: "On 17 May 2009, it was revealed that the Queen was "deeply troubled"^[1] with the issue, leading to calls from Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg demanding that Michael Martin stand down..."
• Issues:
  • The Daily Mail article does not say the Queen was deeply troubled with the issue [of Michael Martin] but that she was "'deeply troubled' by the scandal and had made it clear that she feared it could inflict 'long-lasting damage' to the Commons"
  • The Guardian article does reference "the Queen", far less that the Queen's "deep trouble" had led to Nick Clegg calling for Michael Martin to stand down.
  • The Daily Mail article would not - in any case - not an appropriate source for this kind of information, because the confidence of verifiability of a private conversation between Queen and PM is extremely low, and the requirement of verifiability in Biographies of living persons is extremely high.
• Badly sourced material was replaced almost immediately.

Tsuchan (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Neil Horan is an (allegedly former) priest who has an (undoubted) track record of doing eccentric (and in some cases criminal) things in public. He's in the news this week due to his appearance on a TV talent show (and so, if nothing else, I'd appreciate it if a few more people could add the article to their watchlists (just today people have claimed he's been detained for making terrorist threats, and is a rapist, neither with any evidence). But the article (and regrettably its talk page) makes a lot of unsourced claims about the subject, many of are derogatory (and to my mind entirely violate the WP:BLP policy). I'd either tag as {{fact}} or just delete them (per said policy) but there's so much I'd probably just be blindly reverted. Other than the recent talent show section, the article is essentially unsourced. The article claims he was a priest, claims he was fired (and "defrocked"), and claims his employers recommended he seek mental help - but no source. The grand prix section says he's a convicted criminal - but no source. The Derby section further says he was arrested - but no source. The marathon section (woo, one source) makes more criminal claims, and has quotes claimed to be from other living people - but no sources. Unfortunately the talk page is just as bad, with established Wikipedians (who evidently should know better) speculating about the subject's alleged mental health issues and personality defects. 87.115.168.96 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for a week. I'm also watching the page. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you're watching the article, but by protecting it you've preserved the unsourced material, and seem to be thwarting 86.45.207.249 (talk · contribs), who seems to be working toward fixing the problems. 87.115.168.96 (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(oh, given the proximity of our IPs, I should stress I'm not affiliated with 86.45.207.249) 87.115.168.96 (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, fair enough, I've reconsidered and unprotected for now...but I will reprotect for the same duration if there are any further issues. Generally semi-protection is a standard response to this activity but I'll see how it goes. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This article was recently nominated for deletion by the author on account of ongoing and consistent BLP problems, and kept on the basis that he was notable enough for an article but the issues needed resolving.

He's a notable academic with scholarship in a wide variety of areas, but as the article stands, the entire article has been written by men's rights activists about their disputes with him. There's a massive undue weight here - it warrants about one section at best, yet it currently takes up about 90% of the article. Anyone willing to take a crack at this? Rebecca (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User Lsudude2032 (and others) keeps on adding content to this US Politician's article, and reverting my reverts that is claiming original research and wp:blp guidelines. My concern is that this user describes a speech by the politician as being "widely criticized due to her surprisingly poor use of grammar, and dramatic mispronunciation of several words including "congratulate," as well as the names of Percy Harvin and Coach Urban Meyer." User includes a link to a video of this speech but there is still no reliable source to back up the content.

Do not want to violate the three-revert rule here.

Thank You --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Roger Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I reverted what I saw as an extreme BLP violation, and- in response- I was threatened with blocking if I didn't take it here. In any case, this seems cut and dry to me. User:Whyzeee added to the article that Cohen has "anti-Israel views, as well as his support for the Iranian nuclear program." He has no such thing, and I reverted it. It seems black and white to me. Things that someone does not advocate is being attributed to him, with words put in his mouth. Then, I was threatened. But I stand by my reverting. Thoughts? // The Squicks (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you indicating the source doesn't say what it's represented as saying, or that it is not reliable in what it says? It would be helpful if you could be specific. IronDuke 03:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The source is misquoted. It does not, I believe, say what it has been stretched to support. The Squicks (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you could lay out for us who said what, and why you think the source, as quoted, does not support the conclusion about the source, it would be helpful. IronDuke 04:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a gigantic chunk of the article was just deleted by User:Rd232, who went further than I would support.

The disputed text is=

"Cohen's portrayal of Jewish life in Iran and his anti-Israel views, as well as his support for the Iranian nuclear program.<ref>{{cite news|publisher=''[[The Jewish Journal]]''|url=http://www.jewishjournal.com/videojew/item/live_video_tonight_a_dialogue_with_roger_cohen_and_the_iranian_jewish_commu/|title=LIVE VIDEO TONIGHT: A Dialogue with Roger Cohen and the Iranian Jewish Community|accessdate=May 11, 2009}}</ref>." The Squicks (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

To quote my edit summary for this paragraph deletion [23]: "delete excessive detail (WP:UNDUE) - these people's views of Cohen's writings aren't important enough for inclusion - cf WP:COATRACK for where we don't want to end up". To clarify: a journalist writing on these foreign policy topics gets many responses to many published views. There must be some selection, otherwise we won't have a biography of a journalist, we will have a WP:COATRACK about the issues he's reporting on. Let's have some perspective here: some guys write to a journalist and he meets them; some other guy criticises him. So what? WP:WEIGHT. Rd232 ^talk 04:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Someone else's views about the subject of a BLP should not be included in the article unless that person is an authority on the LP or his/her views are independently important neither of which is true in this case. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 00:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Having just listened to the alleged source for "his anti-Israel views, as well as his support for the Iranian nuclear program" (a long discussion with a live audience), I can report that the source absolutely does not support the edit. Astarabadi (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. For an editor to claim that that source supports that kind of addition is very bad. It seems almost like a personal insult to Cohen. The Squicks (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the relevant quote from Roger Cohen's column where he supports Iran's nuclear program. "I think it’s almost certainly too late to stop Iran achieving virtual nuclear power status — something like Brazil’s or Japan’s mastery of the know-how without a weapon. Iran’s advances of the past eight years cannot be undone. What can be transformed is the context Iran operates in; that in turn will determine how “virtual” Iran remains." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13iht-edcohen.html Also in his more recent column, he expresses support for the Iranian nuclear program http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/opinion/18iht-edcohen.html Whyzeee (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That is analysis, not support. Astarabadi (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the assertion that he is anti-Israel, here is the source. "Though he touts himself as a supporter of Israel, he says virtually all acts of Israeli self-defense, including the counter-attack to halt missile attacks on its southern towns and construction of a fence to keep out suicide bombers, are “a bad thing.”" http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/an-ominous-turn-in-elite-opinion-15135 and there is also video of this event http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhOkVX_uzuw Whyzeee (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to give a properly-cited summary of his views on Israel. It is not reasonable to summarise them using your own interpretation of what they mean, especially not with slogans like "anti-Israel". Anyway the views you cite are opposition to certain Israeli actions, which is only "anti-Israeli" by one pov. Astarabadi (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also the guardian says, "The newspaper, and Cohen in particular, has been accused of being too critical of Israel and an apologist for Iran and its leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/29/new-york-times-roger-cohen Whyzeee (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Verifiably, Errol Sawyer (recently inactive User:Efsawyer) is a photographer of some renown. It's the degree of that renown that's one matter of dispute. Although his article was deleted as the result of an AfD and the current article is similar to the deleted one without such tiresome red tape as a DRV, I am in no hurry to push for redeletion. Indeed, what very little (via little jpegs) I've seen of Sawyer's work makes me hope that more RS for him can be shown.

Sawyer's bio has been created by User:Mathilde Fischer aka User:1027 aka User:1027E; and the contributions of User:Mdeloos are remarkably similar. For background (notably the relationship of biographer and biographee), see this, as a small part of which you'll see DGG's polite but unambiguous advice you cannot scan copyright material and place it on WP, and will need to find some other way of linking. This had no effect; see this discussion of uploading of scans of copyright material. That in turn seems to have had little or no effect; see this latest upload.

Aside from questions of the eligibility of an article deleted via AfD to reappear without DRV, and of sourcing and notability, the history of this article suggests that its primary author regards it has her preserve. COI, OWN: the alphabet soup thickens. And the talk page has a history of tampering, from euphemistic rephrasing to wholesale deletion.

User:DGG has already devoted more of his time attention to this than I think he should. I have too. DGG has been unfailingly polite; I have tried but am finding it hard to remain so. I invite a previously uninvolved administrator or three to take over and decide what should best be done about this article, and to explain this most persuasively to its main proponent/creator. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot talk about the editor involved without violating privacy; as Hoary says, there has been too much communication. I have deliberately kept away from editing the article after some initial efforts. In articles on borderline notable artists, there is a difficulty in finding independent sources because, until they become actually famous, the literature about them tends to be connected with them or their gallery. There is therefore the convenient rule, that one way of showing notability is "The person's work ... is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums," The current article shows it, though the evidence is not as strong as would be desirable. As a practical matter, the unreasonable behavior of an editor can cast a unfavorable light on the article. It can cause, for example, undue skepticism about published print articles. DGG (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG's comment, except for one point, his very first. Perhaps unwisely, the editor divulged this information herself. She may later have regretted having done so; the thought of that would prevent me from advertising it unnecessarily, but here I think it may be helpful, as I hope others would agree. ¶ One clarification. I carelessly wrote that DGG has already devoted more of his time [and] attention to this than I think he should: by this I did not mean that DGG had done anything wrong; quite the reverse, I meant that DGG has provided more help, and done so more patiently, than anyone could reasonably expect of him. -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think DGG is overlooking two important points. First, WP:CREATIVE is part of Wiki's "Additional criteria", and as that section says, meeting one of them does not guarantee a subject should have an article. Second, and more important, the "Basic criteria" section of the same page says Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject, and the assertion of notability per presence of work in museums is supported solely through primary sources. This is still clearly a case of non-notability, especially since Sawyer has no published photo books, famous photographs, awards, or anything else that would legitimately earn a photographer a Wiki article.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of "primary source" differs from mine. But let's not quibble about terminology; instead, let's consider the credibility of museums. If an obscure museum suddenly claims to possess a painting by Rembrandt we should be sceptical. If any museum suddenly claims to have a Vermeer or to be the best or most popular museum in the city, we should indeed be sceptical. If on the other hand a reputable museum claims to have work by Sawyer in its collection, I see no particular reason not to believe it. Although yes, I'd like to see more evidence of critical attention than we get here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a question of time and therefore patience. I'm doing my very best to provide more references but the collector Eric Franck is hard to get in touch with. Hopefully Errol Sawyer's first book is published before the end of this year. For Sawyer's pupils and students it is very important that he is present in Wikipedia. Their respect is a validation of all the sacrifices Sawyer made as an artist with integrity. 1027E (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Until you can provide references for factual assertions, those assertions should not be in the article. (See Wikipedia:No original research, etc.) If an assertion is removed for this reason, it may of course be readded later if sourcing has been found for it in the meantime. -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Eric Franck just responded and he wants to help to keep Errol in Wiki. If he can put Errol on his website it will be sufficient, I think. This will take maybe 1-2 weeks.

Delivered-To: X
From: Eric Franck
Subject: Errol's Wikipedia page
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:34:50 +0100

Dear X,
I received your voicemail's left on Saturday and am sorry there was no one available to answer your call, but the office is not open on Saturdays. I am more than happy to be listed on Errol's Wikipedia page, but I am not quite clear on what it is exactly that you need from me. Is it jpegs of the works? Or proof that I own the works? Do let me know and I will see to getting you the appropriate information.
Best wishes,
Eric

---

Eric Franck Fine Art
Norman Parkinson Archive
61 Willow Walk
1st floor, unit 8010
London SE1 5SF

tel: +4420 7394 9743
fax: +4420 7394 1956

Mbineri continues to take away the Zero Zone Magazine reference which is very important critical photography magazine and Errol is mentioned as a documentary photographer and you can see 5 of his pictures. Can you correct him, Hoary? I am filing a complaint against him for sabotizing the improvement of the article. 1027E (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Zone Zero Los Angeles, California. "From analog to digital photography." Spanish and English. Social/political documentary photography with a focus (but not entirely) on Latin America. "Exhibitions" feature images and text from more than sixty photographers, including Joel-Peter Witkin, Lucien Clergue, and many highly talented but unknown artists. First class site.

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

1027E (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Musee de la Photographie, Bievre just found proof of the exhibition and found 6 pictures in their archives. We will work on their digital reference now.

Delivered-To: X
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:31:55 +0200
From: "Marie PALLEAU"
To: X
Subject: Rép. : Past Exhibition

• • Proprietary **
    

Cher X,
J'espère que vous lisez aussi bien le français que vous ne le parlez. Sinon, dites-le moi, j'essaierai de m'exprimer en anglais.
J'ai retrouvé la trace de l'exposition à laquelle vous avez participé en 1991 au musée français de la Photographie. Il s'agit de l'exposition "Visages d'enfants. Visages des rues. Les années 1970" (3 juillet - 31 août 1991). Vous nous aviez donné à l'époque 6 tirages noir et blanc format 30x40cm dont je n'ai malheureusement pas de titre associé. Ces tirages ont été enregistrés dans nos collections sous le n°92.8386.

J'espère avoir répondu à vos interrogations.
Cordialement,

Marie Palleau
Assistante qualifiée de conservation du patrimoine
Régisseuse de la collection Images
Musée français de la Photographie
78, rue de Paris
91570 Bièvres
01.60.79.99.90
www.museedelaphoto.fr

It will take some time to retrace this digitally.1027E (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added Zone Zero Magazine again and made a link to Pedro Meyer, the founder.1027E (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a list of people who are alledged by Alex Jones and his ilk to be in a succesful conspiracy to dominate the world. People are regularly added to the list with no or poor sources. I try to do what I can to keep the list from defaming random people, but it's a disaster of an article, with huge numbers of IP revert warriors. Help, at this point, to prevent a youtube video purported to show someone saying something from being used as a source for possibly defamatory info about a living person would be nice. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, that list has come up before. What a cesspool. Good sourcing must be demanded. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted almost 50 external links that I felt were not just far too many, but failed WP:EL. I've put it on my watch list. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I also deleted a section suggesting that attendees were breaking the law. On the talk page, an IP is saying I shouldn't have done that. [28]. I disagree. This list is in danger of becoming an attack page aimed at attendees. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's in the Bilderberg Group article. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday I proposed a series of changes on the Talk page for the article about John Ashcroft. I believe these suggestions are fairly straightforward and should be uncontroversial, especially as some of them seek to fix apparent BLP issues. Because Mr. Ashcroft is a client of my employer, I have refrained from making these edits directly, and instead placed a template on the page asking for a requested edit. It's been a little more than 24 hours now, and with no response one way or the other, I figured I would raise the issue here. All the details are on that Talk page, and I'm available to discuss these issues here or there. If there is agreement that it's permissible for me to make these changes directly, I am happy to do so. NMS Bill (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to those who weighed in and helped clean up the article. Much appreciated. NMS Bill (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Siegfried Haag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone take a look at this and make sure it accurately portrays the subject? A ==Terrorism== header seems a bit inflammatory.... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I found a bunch of reliable sources (as opposed to the single source now used in the article) -- alas, the heading is too accurate here. Collect (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am reviewing GAN Robert C. Michelson and it is becoming clear that the (virtually sole) editor of this article, user:Firewall, is either Dr. Michelson himself or a person very close to him. (e.g., because in reply to my comments he in no time provided very intimate details and pictures of the person). Besides, most activity of this user is directed at this article. Advice needed.NIMSoffice (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like it needs pruning very badly. A large chunk of the sources are written by the subject himself, which is frowned on. And there is stuff cited to high school yearbooks. It's all really self-promotional. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please delete this libellous attacks on an academic at Talk:Self-hating_Jew#The_problem_with_Finlay. Contrary to User:Malcolm Schosha's claims very little of what Finlay has published has anything to do with Islam, let alone with advancing the claimed POV. His publications are listed at [29] should people wish to compare what he has actually published with what Schosha claims.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm, wouldn't it be better to zap the whole article into smithereens. I don't see why Jews should be the chosen race to be antisemetic, any more than anyone else. Physchim62 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I could see having an article about the concept and criticisms of the concept (perhaps a shorter version of what is there now), but naming names in either the article or the talk page is a BLP violation (along with a violation of at least 5 other acronyms), and Wikipedia wouldn't be seriously hurt if the term was left for Wiktionary to cover. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be best to prune the article ruthlessly and incorporate it into Antisemitism, just as internalized homophobia is incorporated into the Homophobia article. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm's comments are way off base - Finlay appears to be a psychology lecturer with a focus on learning disabilities. To pigeonhole as an "apologist for Islam" on the basis of a single article decrying right-wing stereotypes of Muslims seems like faulty and partisan reasoning of a type which is depressingly common on Wikipedia, but it is not necessarily a BLP violation. MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Would removal of BLP info in this edit and my subsequent edit be in order? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Done. Warned. Totally unacceptable - especially given that the user asserts they are not the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. You beat me to the edit. Mishlai (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was a little hot under the collar, and did not want to out of irrationality. Dlohcierekim 20:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• James A. Owen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Over the past several days, Evilminion666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 76.113.56.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which may belong to the same user, have repeatedly inserted extensive personal information about the subject, including contentious statements about the quality and success of his publications, his alleged financial problems, and his religion. I'd like to have another user(s) make an independent judgment about the appropriateness of this material. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate in my opinion. I've removed it (again) and semi-protected for 3 months. Kevin (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest it may be time to remove the most graphic material from this BLP and transfer it to pages dealing with the abuses that occurred. Views? Jayen466 20:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. MastCell ^Talk 20:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

this is a possible method for dealing with the images on this article. I think removing them entirely might get some pushback from folks with the article on their watchlist, but perhaps placing them in a gallery in the court-martial section might find less resistance? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 21:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the pictures and their captions seem to be duplicated in Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. I propose we could transfer the one picture that is unique to Lynndie England to Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, and then delete the pictures from her BLP. As for her personal involvement, would a short summary be enough in her BLP? Again, before deleting anything, any sourced detail not included in Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse should be incorporated so we don't lose sourced material. I'll put a link to this discussion on the article's talk page so any editors watching the article can join the discussion. Jayen466 23:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

We could possibly get by with doing that, but it might be a hard sell given that the photos and subsequent scandal are the primary reason for her notability. Nathan ^T 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Two questions: 1) what would be the reason for removing the pictures from her biography?, 2) why would WP:BLP be relevant here (and I assume it is supposed to be relevant, given the fact we're discussing it here)? GregorB (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

See [30]. Even our page on OJ Simpson does not have a great amount of detail on the case he is most notable for; that detail is in a separate article on the case. I am also aware that the woman is bringing up a child who will soon be at reading age (as will their classmates). Jayen466 16:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT merely says that even the articles about notable individuals associated with one event will be less detailed than the article about the event itself. This is quite natural, of course. However, it doesn't say that the bio article should purposefully omit information for reasons other than succinctness. Two cases in point: John Hinckley, Jr. (listed as an example by WP:ONEEVENT) features one image of the event (Reagan assassination attempt has four), while Ira Hayes (who is some sort of Lynndie England's antipode) features two images of the event (same as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima). Noone is contemplating about removing these photos. As for England's kid, that's just too bad, because WP:NOTCENSORED. GregorB (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Ira Hayes is clearly not a living person. Hinckley is still in custody, while England is not. Jayen466 09:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I fail to see how WP:BLP is relevant here. Ivan Frederick and Charles Graner are also alive (and behind bars, but does it matter?). WP:ONEEVENT itself does not differentiate between living and non-living persons. GregorB (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT is part of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. And it matters inasmuch as someone behind bars doesn't have to find a job, etc. I think the images of her with the man forced to masturbate, or the pile of naked prisoners, etc., are not needed in her BLP. Jayen466 15:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither is the picture of people shot by John Hinckley, Jr. really needed in his bio, yet there it is. Ironically, she became famous (notorious?) precisely due to these photos. That's why I thought of Ira Hayes: of course, they were both US soldiers, but also they are both known perhaps more for the photos than for the actual act that these photos captured. As for finding a job and such things, let me put it crudely: it's her problem. (She was not a minor at the time, was not forced, nor her capabilities were somehow diminished.) Wikipedia has an encyclopedic purpose: that means no prejudices and no favors. Making someone's life easier (or harder, for that matter) by sanitizing (or spiking) his or her bio does not cut it. GregorB (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we can fulfil the encyclopedic purpose in a less in-your-face way. I think Wikipedia would make a better impression if we did, but I see and respect that you view the matter differently. Let's leave it at that. Cheers, Jayen466 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it - and I'm sure we'd agree here - is that there is no merit in being brutal on purpose (applies to both real life and Wikipedia). But if Wikipedia comes across as brutal while pursuing the five pillars - and if there is no way of not being brutal except by putting that pursuit into question - well, then I'd say so be it. That's it; that's what I wanted to say. I won't interfere with the article itself. GregorB (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Charlie Crist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I am concerned that adding defamatory content about the so-called "outing" of the Florida governor ("Personal life") is contrary to BLP. A wider consensus on this is requested. It relies on an indie film Outrage (documentary) and opinion blogs such as salon.com and huffingtonpost, without any reliable secondary sources. The article Outrage (documentary) has similar concerns.  JGHowes  ^talk 21:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've compiled and edited in a rewrite of this article, and proposed on the talkpage that it be accepted as a starting point for further development. Comments invited and welcome. Nathan ^T 03:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The section on Outrage the documentary within the Charlie Crist article is well sourced, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle among others- JGHowes  needs to take a look at it. The article page for the documentary itself should have its own section on this page, like the Carole Crist issue, because they are separate articles.

Last night the Charlie Crist article underwent a major revision by Nathan.

The two conservative state supreme court judges Crist appointed were left in the article, however two of the moderate state supreme court judges were removed along with the references.

Over fifty different other footnotes were deleted, purged.

There are sections of the article now that have paragraphs beginning mid sentence with no capital letter at the beginning of the sentence, many misspellings,grammatical errors and it looks very crude--not a good way to represent content for WP image.

This article looks like it is getting Palinized--there is an attempt to only highlight Crist's conservative actions and remove content that details his moderate actions. It also mischaracterizes Crist's relationship to environmental groups.

I would appreciate someone higher up the chain to take a look at what has been done to the Charlie Crist article and the Carole Crist article- how they appeared prior to major purges of information made by Nathan and Hurmata (talk) and to advise on what content should be part of the article and what should not be purged.--4rousseau (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The article on Crist's wife Carole Crist has also had content purged without a good reason: the fact that she has two daughters and the name of her ex husband removed from the article even though this information is well sourced and widely seen in print publications. Details on her divorce date were also removed. And her participation in an expensive and unpopular overseas economic trade trip were also purged from her article. Also, her appearances on the Real Housewives of New York was purged.--4rousseau (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, many of the grammatical and other copyediting errors were present before my revision. I've fixed some of them, and plan to do more polishing, but I think a comparison of the revisions shows that the current version is superior in a number of ways. The article on Crist's wife is something I don't know anything about, although I suspect that we have an article at all is probably inappropriate. Some footnotes were removed, that is true - a chunk of content that chronicled political developments in Florida but weren't relevant to a biography was condensed, and in the process approximately a quarter of the 200 or so references became unnecessary. I wouldn't object to reincorporating some of that content into the article, if it can be done without returning to the former disorganized and disjointed format. Nathan ^T 16:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

due respect, but , Nathan, your response simply is not true. many of the grammatical errors were not present prior to your revision. License plates were not referred to as License place-- broken links to Partial Birth Abortion etc were not broken links prior to your edit.

you also did not address the removal of info on the moderate judge appointments. i simply can't continue to believe that you are operating in good faith if you can't acknowledge that, in your haste to post a new version of the article, you made a lot of errors that make the article read like an elementary school paper rather than a high quality live page in WP- please at least be honest about the facts of what can clearly be seen in the history even if you can't be about the quality of your edits.--4rousseau (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you might be irritated at significant changes to an article that you've been expanding for about a year, but I submit that it would be more constructive to fix problems you identify rather than complain about them on a noticeboard. Copyediting is being done; some errors were made, some already existed. At any rate, issues about the article unrelated to the BLP policy should be discussed on the article talkpage rather than both there and here. Nathan ^T 17:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

what would have been most constructive would have been for you to operate with some collegial respect and to have reviewed your major revisions prior to posting, perhaps if you would have made the effort to correct at least the grammatical and form errors prior to posting- which you now want others to fix for you but not talk about-- perhaps the major revision would have been received better.

the intentional omissions and, in my view, attempts at obfuscation remain a problem however, and I believe others on this noticeboard need to be aware of what is happening to this article. --4rousseau (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you found my edit not collegial; I've made an effort to be collegial, which is why I have been ignoring your accusations of bias, whitewashing, etc. You are, of course, free to not correct any typographical or other errors you see in the article but I'm not sure why you would choose to do that. In the mean time, I've corrected the errors you noted and replaced mention of the moderate judges Crist appointed to the Florida Supreme Court. Nathan ^T 18:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

all details and resources on the Lawton Chiles Fund and the Chiles family potential lawsuit against Crist was removed, as well as Crist's response. instead the article makes statements like "the health insurance reform efforts have been well received - standing next to former football star Dan Marino,"--4rousseau (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

all balanced references that detail pros and cons on Crist's environmental policy have been removed, instead it now states "lauded by environmental groups for his opposition to coastal oil drilling and his efforts to restore the Everglades using land purchased with public funds"--4rousseau (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, thats in the introduction. The Lawton Chiles Fund thing was removed, yes. It seemed extraneous and not really relevant to a biography as opposed to a chronicle of political events. At any rate, it might at some point be good to consider moving your objections (which are not BLP related) to the talkpage... Nathan ^T 21:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note: General discussions about article prose, WP:UNDUE, etc., belong on the article talk page and do not belong here. This noticeboard is to decide whether the defamatory content regarding the alleged "outing" of the Florida governor complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines for a well-known public official.  JGHowes  ^talk 16:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The article for Joseph E. Duncan III needs more refs. He's a convicted murderer, but until he is executed he's still a BLP. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing should go. Notoriety  != notability. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of cites from the Proquest archive.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I will tell the author I have doine so and point her to BLP/H. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oksana Grishuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello my name is Oksana Grishuk I read the information that listed about me on Wikipedia and find so much incorrection. Could please help me to correct that. I added some of the important info about me that people would like to know. Please read it and let me know how to delete something that is said wrong about me and add something that is very important and it's not mentioned yet.

Here is the changes: Oksana (Pasha) Grishuk (born March 17, 1972 in Odessa, USSR) is a Russian figure skater. She began training in skating at the age of four. Grishuk moved to Moscow in 1980, and studied at the Sport University of Moscow from 1988 to 1992. She won two Olympic Gold medals, four World Championships and three European championships in ice dancing with Evgeny Platov. The pair won 22 consecutive competitions during this time. Oksana Grishuk with her partner was entered in Guiness book of record in 1998 for becoming the only team in the history of ice dancing to win Olympic Gold twice. Oksana also won Junior World championship with Alexander Chichkov in 1988. Oksana and Evgeny combined speed and difficult elements, and displayed their mastery of numerous styles of dance. Their magical skating technic was incredible and unbeatable for years.

In 1997 Oksana Grishuk was approached by a famous Hollywood film director John Frankenheimer who offered her a role in his movie with Robert De Niro. Due to her amazing dedication to figure skating Oksana had to turn that offer down because it was a conflict with her 1998 Olympic schedule.

In 1994 Boris Eltchin awarded Oksana with a government medal of Friendship for highest achievement in sport. In 1998 Boris Eltchin awarded Oksana with a government medal of Labor also for highest achievement in sport.

In 2000 and 2001 Oksana was in a very close relationship with prince of Monaco Albert Grimaldi.

Oksana Grishuk give birth to a baby girl. Skyler Grace Grishuk was born on august 19th 2002 in Los Angeles California.

In 2006 Oksana Grishuk Won a very popular reality skating show in Russia Moscow Dance on Ice and Oksana was featured on many popular russian magazines covers herself and with her daughter Skyler Grace. In 2007 she won third place of Dance on Ice show in Russia Moscow.

Also in 2006 Oksana and her Olympic skating partner Evgeny got reunited and start skating together again doing pro shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oksanagrishuk (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing that this user is Ms Grishuk, so she will have to follow the process set out at WP:BIOSELF to confirm her identity, then the suggested changes can be implemented. – ukexpat (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Oksana. If there is incorrect information about you in an article, and that information does not have a good, reliable source to back up the claim, then you may delete it. Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons is very clear on this. If the wrong information comes from a reliable source, then that is another matter.

The information that you wish to add also needs to be sourced - we cannot take your word that it is all correct, because our readers need to be able to check to see where the information came from. For adding material, the best thing to do is add the proposed changes to the article's talk page, and then discuss them with other editors until an agreement is reached about what should or should not be added. That part will often take some time to complete, but bad information that's already in the article can be taken out immediately if it doesn't have a source. I understand that you've already been made aware of the guide at Biographies of living persons/Help. There is a lot of good information there on how this all works. I will be logging off for the weekend soon, but there are other editors watching this page more or less all the time, so feel free to post your questions and concerns here.

It would be helpful to us if you described what information in the article is wrong. Thank you! Mishlai (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

List of people from Orange County, California needs more sourcing WhisperToMe (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this what categories are for? Rd232 ^talk 09:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. This list has the advantage over a category that one can immediately see a brief description of what the person is known for. There's a similar list within Irvine, California#Notable natives and residents (Irvine is part of Orange County) that has proper sources for each entry. Neither the descriptions nor the sources would be possible for a category. But I agree with rd232 that the OC one should be sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The mediation at Mohamed ElBaradei has experienced some intense turbulence following a discussion about an Israel/ME relation. Some users insist there is not enough coverage to support a unique section or place in the article. I've done my best to provide reliable sources and support them with BLP policy, but the discussion has boiled down to essentially character attacks and accusations of "hindering" consensus. For those experienced-BLP editors/admins, it might take awhile to develop an accurate picture of what is going on. You will likely need to read this Article outline discussion and then the more combative section break.

I've listed over a dozen unique sources that reveal a generally-understand relationship Israel has with the ME. It was said that this was supported by editorials, but the references I provided were all from reliable sources and were not op-eds. BLP-violations have become rampant, which explains why the article has become dependent on propaganda/unacceptable sources such as Tehran Times, Xinhua News Agency, and Press TV. Users who have inserted the references and reverted those who remove them are currently in the mediation process.

I don't see how an effective mediation and reasonable consensus can be obtained until all users accept strict-BLP policy. No user has challenged the reliability of the sources I provided, or the reasoning, or even the policies I cited. They just continually say I am being inflexible, hindering consensus, misrepresenting POV, and misconstrue my POV (which is totally dependent on what reliable information is available) as stubborn and unchanging. Now I've been told to basically be quiet because I am the only one who has noticed the supposed-violations. Remember, this is 1 out of 3 active editors.

Thanks to those who have the time to kill on this issue! Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

While I'm an involved editor in the article... As a regular respondent to this board and editor of BLPs, there is no actual BLP issue on this article talkpage (the article is, and has been, protected). Sometimes hashing out a compromise on issues where there is strong disagreement takes time, sometimes it takes a cycle of RfCs on various specific questions. Facilitating that process isn't the role of this board. Nathan ^T 12:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I cordially disagree and would hope an uninvolved BLP admin/user takes a look. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just pointing out in Nathan's defense that he was uninvolved when previous issues were initially brought here and questioning why his viewpoint would be any less relevant than anyone else's.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Nathan has been involved since the RFC. He has been a regular discussion-editor for over a month and knows what's going on. I'm not disputing his viewpoint. Please get your facts right, this has become a pattern. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who has a pattern of wanting to quote an op-ed which can't get its facts right. And you have been involved more than a month, does that make your opinion irrelevant?--68.248.155.2 (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You should be blocked for gross violation of BLP and mediation rules. Please don't hijack my BLP request. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel this posting or your reply is very appropriate for this noticeboard, so have at it.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I will, thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Frank Howard (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came accross this article while doing some DAB page work. It's not uncommon to see unferenced BLP articles and I generally tag them as such, however in this case should the material on his childhood be removed completely until reliable sources are found? I would take the entire childhood section out part and parcel, but that would gut 1/3 of the article. ponyo (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gutted. Hipocrite (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In the future, do not hesitate to remove such material on sight. It's a blatant violation of BLP policy. decltype (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Greg Van Zant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I posted this here many months ago and you reverted it. Nice job, (attack removed) I posted it again yesterday, and you deleted it again. I will not humour you (attacks removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.158.0 (talk)

Ah, ok. I have removed some criticism from the article per undue weight in relation to the rest of this bio. --Tom (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of edit-warring over potentially controversial material, as well as multiple attacks and personal commentary inserted into the article, apparently by multiple socks. I have no knowledge in baseball related things but it looks like some fans and haters using the article to glorify/defame the subject. I have locked it down for now and restored a version from a month ago but I would appreciate it if someone could look at the article and try to filter through the warring. Regards SoWhy 21:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The people involved all seem to be new to WP so I've welcomed them and pointed them to the talk page. I know nothing about baseball though so anyone who does pitching in with the discussion which will hopefully begin now might be helpful. Rd232 ^talk 22:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently has "Wurzelbacher sat down for a lengthy interview with Christianity Today magazine to discuss his views on Christianity, politics and same-sex marriage. Wurzelbacher, speaking of same-sex mariage, said that it was "wrong. People don't understand the dictionary—it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that." He further stated that he's "had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children" sourced to pinknews.co.uk [31] and to 365gay.com [32] which I consider unlikely to be reliable sources, nor sources proper to a BLP. The quotes (albeit elided) are properly sourced to Christianity Today, but the other two sources just do not seem to ring true for asserting that the article belongs in the category "homophobia." (CT quote is "At a state level, it's up to them. I don't want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it's wrong. People don't understand the dictionary—it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we're supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing.") Collect (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the sourcing issue, but I'm extremely uncomfortable with applying Category:Homophobia to a living person here. It may be appropriate for people convicted of hate crimes, or for people widely regarded as particularly notorious bigots (e.g. Fred Phelps), but this particular application seems to violate Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Biographies of living people. If he's homophobic, then that will be apparent from his public pronouncements as reported in reliable sources. Categories are not nuanced enough to capture even the smallest gray areas, and this is, after all, a WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether "I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children" is apparent enough, as it is a public pronouncement of his in a reliable source. Nobody is disputing that he actually said that, right? --Minderbinder (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't, myself, add the category based on a single public comment. There is no particular urgency to categorizing people in this way; categories are meant to be navigation aids, not scarlet letters. Nathan ^T 19:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with MastCell. In this case applying that category doesn't seem to fit with the careful nature we're required to deal with BLP's.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)I spoke of this on the article's talk page, but here goes:

• That he does not allow homosexuals around his children does not imply that he has "is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality, homosexuals, or individuals perceived as homosexual" - from the Homophobia WP article. In fact, according to the pink.com article given by the editor wanting to include the category, Joe went on to say "God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do - what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we're supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins." Certainly he can have a religious or moral objection to something without being fearful (and certainly not necessarily irrationally so).
• Even if even a mild fear or aversion were applicable, the Homophobia Category (unsure how to link to category pages) page precludes the category from being applied because "it is not intended for groups or individuals who have made homophobic remarks and related actions but are not considered widely known for their homophobic stances." To label this article under this category gives undue weight to his views on homosexuality, as he is not considered "widely known for (his) homophobic stance). Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not allowing gay people around your children, whether for religious reasons or not, is absolutely "aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality, homosexuals, or individuals perceived as homosexual." In short, it's homophobic. We have a word: we should use it. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the category should be applied. Apart from anything else, the category is far too general. Rd232 ^talk 15:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you figure, exactly? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Figure what? Rd232 ^talk 15:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, to be more helpful, how is James Anderton correctly placed in Category:Homophobia? He may (apparently) have suffered from it, but so what? We don't put criminals in the Crime category either. If it's necessary to categorise people in this way in general, there should be a specific subcat. And once there is one, criteria for including people in it will have a chance to become clearer. Rd232 ^talk 15:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The article reads: "he declared that homosexuality should be illegal, and he referred to homosexuals and those with AIDS as 'swirling in a cesspit of their own making.'" Seems pretty straightforward to me. We put serial killers in the serial killers category too. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, we put serial killers in Category:Serial killers, not in Category:Murder. Rd232 ^talk 16:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That is... exactly what I said. And we put them there because it's an accurate description of the specific type of murder they engage in. Homophobia is a specific type of discrimination, and there is no denying that this person's comments fit the description. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We put convicted serial murderers in the serial murderer category. We don't put people in that category just because some Wikipedia editors, bloggers, or even newspaper columnists think that someone is a serial murderer.

A comparable category is category:anti-semitism, which does contain some individuals who are closely connected to the concept regardless of their individual views. Likewise Fred Phelsp, who is famous as a homophobe, probably belongs in the homophobia category. But someone whose notability is not connected to homophobia should not be added just because they express an opinion in an interview.   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(out)WP works on consensus. It would appear that your position is not that of the consensus here. Iteration does not change consensus. Collect (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Shirazi to: Mohammad Shirazi Reason: omitting title. Administrative authorithy needed. پوویا (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi — Some users at Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are rather stubbornly trying to insert the opinion of a redlinked associate of LaRouche in the lede of that article. Could an admin take a look at the situation, please? Thank you for your help! Diffs: User:Coleacanth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 6:35 21:04; User:Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:04; User:68.164.112.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:38  Cs32en  22:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected for now, so the discussion can continue unimpeded. Kevin (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!  Cs32en  20:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

An editor (using 2 user accounts and 2 IPs) keeps re-adding unsourced trivia about non-notable people to this BLP. I've reverted 3 times within the past 48 hours and I don't want to violate the spirit of WP:3RR, so I've brought the dispute here for review. Cunard (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The entire article was unreferenced and all or almost all a copyvio of [33]. So I've brutally stubbed it. Someone who cares about basketball please keep an eye on it; maybe someone could notify a relevant wikiproject. Rd232 ^talk 13:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning it up. I've placed the article on my watchlist so that I can catch future vandalism; I've also requested temporary semi-protection of this article at WP:RFPP. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

semi-protected now. Rd232 ^talk 20:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned up this page and added references. I'll keep an eye on it in the future. Oren0 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that the emphasis on t his particular witness in an article of its own is reasonable. I encountered it when nominated for speedy, which I declined. DGG (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is problematic. Is there even a Cyprus v Turkey lawsuit? I can't find one. In any case Olgac's remarks aren't "testimony" - it's stuff he said on TV, and possibly reports of things he's said elsewhere. Seems the author couldn't find a better place to put Olgac's (retracted, and later disproven by Turkish government) claims of being involved in war crimes in the 1974 invasion. Merge to Attila Olgac if he's notable enough, or AFD as WP:NOTNEWS violation. Rd232 ^talk 16:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus v Turkey (Attila Olgac Testimony of Alledged 1974 War Crimes) Rd232 ^talk 22:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Article declared this individual dead yesterday and has suffered recent questionable and vandalistic edits. If someone familiar with the topic area could root out and remove questionable claims in the article or even better find reliable references to verify the text, it would be appreciated.  Skomorokh  08:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rolly_Tasker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The last two paragraphs to do not have citations and are not impartial // 63.116.23.136 (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, but that's not really what this noticeboard is for. Our goal here is to ferret out unsourced negative information (libel).--chaser (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Simon Baron-Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Baron-Cohen or someone close to him is editing this page. Every time someone negatively critiques his work it is deleted by sb205, (people have said this is baron-cohen's email). The article is very bias in support of his work but others in the field say it is controversial. The controversy is not noted in the article and when I add referenced links making mention of it they're always deleted. Can someone help, this is my first attempt at wiki and it is irritating as Im trying to give a non biased view??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelPettersmithHugh (talk • contribs) 09:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that your edits bear close scruitny also. Please review our policies on WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit [34] sorta speaks for itself really. If you do stuff like that anymore, you will be blocked Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is kind of strange. It has a short description of the expression and then a long list of movie star couples who did and didn't get divorced. I'm not sure if it exactly violates BLP policy, but it doesn't feel right to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it really violates BLP, but it does violate WP:V since there are no sources for any of the substantive assertions. I suggest nominating it for deletion, either AFD or simply PROD.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

i will try prodding it. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The prod had been removed by User:DGG, suggesting it may need an AFD, so I have AFDed it. Martin451 (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood marriage Steve Dufour (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cecil Anthony Ince —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs) 00:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC) KEEP The artical meets guildlines.--Cecil Anthony Ince 00:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs)

You should make your argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Anthony Ince (and I see you have done so). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone with more knowledge of the subject than I have should probably check the Natasha Lyonne article. It may well be entirely accurate, but it seems to me to be quite undercited, given the nature of some of the statements made there. I wouldn't be surprised if what it needs is just a bunch of citation, but alternatively it may require some removals. - Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved much of the questionable content to the talkpage pending citation.  Skomorokh  14:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Brianna Tatiana Completely vandalized or not real in the first place. Verification or removal needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.174.48 (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It had been vandalised; I have reverted the vandalism. Thanks for letting us know. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• An update on this one. I had a look at it and decided to prod it as I could not find reliable sources to support any claim to notability. Subsequently, it has been said that the Brianna Tatiana in the article does not exist and is the work of someone who is using the identity and picture of another girl to create a false persona across the web (the picture has not been used in the Wikipedia article but elsewhere). This seems plausible given that there are no reliable sources to be found. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Now at AfD, as a driveby IP removed the prod tag. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• And deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Article includes the statement that subject is "wrongly" considered a political centrist when editing page of article does not say that, and states that "Her own words have repeatedly shown that she is a far-left judicial activist". The quoted matter has no citation, and is wrong and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.23.189 (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All the current version of the article says about her political philosophy is that she is "[c]onsidered a political centrist by the American Bar Association Journal and others". The quotation you refer to does not appear in the article. Regards,  Skomorokh  15:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Contains probably un-sourced and possibly libelous material from someone claiming to be Ed's ex-wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stattenf (talk • contribs) 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed by Onorem; in the future you should feel free to remove obviously problematic content yourself. Joe 18:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I should say that I don't see anything to suggest that we shouldn't indef Connielogg, whose intentions are plainly inconsistent with any encyclopedic purpose, straightaway. Joe 18:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems overly dramatic; wait and see if she repeats it. In the mean time I've requested oversight for that edit. Rd232 ^talk 12:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert I. Sherman

In November 2007 I a was cleaning up the article formerly known as Historical Persecution by Christians. There I discovered some material on an alleged Bush quote concerning atheists: “I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.” diff In that article this material was obviously out of place, so I initially merged into the Separation of church and state in the United States. This resulted in a long an rather ugly discussion on on that articles talk page. Consequently I merged the material another time, into the article Discrimination against atheists. The, in early 2009, another, really long and ugly discussion took place at Talk:Discrimination against atheists, also specifically about this material. Consequently, I merged the material into the article Robert I. Sherman, where if was recently removed diff, and the article is currently proposed for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert I. Sherman. Obviously, a comment like "Removing per WP:BLP. If it isn't verifiable, we don't include it." diff fails to take into account the particularities of this material. IT IS VERIFIABLE that Robert Sherman has alleged that Bush said: “I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.” Going by number of secondary sources, newspapers and atheist lobby groups, this is also notably. If Bush had actually said this (which we don't know) it would be "one of famous quotes about atheists in American society." I think that the current version is a balanced and neutral account of the question:

"Robert Sherman, writing for the American Atheist Magazine, is the only person who has first-handedly reported that, on August 27 1987, at a Chicago press conference during the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign, George H. W. Bush, at the time running up for a nomination as Republican candidate for the presidency, said: “I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.” When asked specifically about his opinion on the separation of church and state, Bush was reported to have replied: “I support separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists”. This story has been taken up by several atheist groups.<ref: The National Secular Society: George Bush on atheists as citizens or patriots)<ref: Positive Atheism: Can George Bush, with impunity, state that atheists should not be considered either citizens or patriots?) With these statements, Bush senior is "believed to have uttered one of the most famous quotes about atheists in American society."(ref:Saxon Burns, Godless in Tucson, Tucson Weekly, November 30, 2006) However, the statements have been impossible to verify. The only source for it is Rob Sherman himself.(ref:cite web|url=http://www.RobSherman.com/information/liberalnews/2002/0303.htm%7Ctitle=Rob Sherman Advocacy: Vice President Bush Quote Regarding Atheists}})

Kevin Drum from the Washington Monthly comes to the conclusion that "apparently it's correct that no other reporters have ever corroborated the exchange" of Bush with Sherman.(ref: "Kevin Drum, "Political Animal", April 2, 2006"., see also: "Kevin Drum, "Political Animal", March 23, 2006".)"

However, in the afd discussion, someone wrote: "This page [the article in question], while sourced, is nothing more then an attack page. This is absolutely no WP:NPOV compliant article, and it certainly violates neutrality guidelines". I WANT TO MAKE ONE THING CLEAR: As an editor, I am only concerned with writing a neutral account of the respective issue, regardless of whether this is an issue from the 17th century or a contemporary one. I am profoundly irritated by my work being mistaken as a propaganda against a certain person. I know that there are often editors whose work on Wikipedia might be considered to be advocacy of a pro-Christian or pro-Atheist world view. If you look at the version history of Discrimination against atheists, you can find an example of the second one. If you think that the passage quoted above is not written from a neutral perspective, please tell me: Is there one side of the issue that is given undue weight? Is there any pejorative vocabulary used?

I can only understand those comments referring to the article as a "BLP nightmare" or an "attack page" to be resulting from a fundamental confusion about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: Neutral does NOT mean uncontroversial. I know that people tend to confuse this from previous debates. When it was nominated for deletion, I was able to rescue 'Historical Persecution by Christians' and turn it into Christian debate on persecution and toleration. I was not able to rescue the article 'Persecution by Muslims'. Obviously the Spanish Inquisition a notable, but controversial topic, and so is Freedom of religion in Iran. of course, Catholic historians have different opinion on the Inquisition than Atheist historians. Would this justify the deletion of the article on the Inquestion? Sherman has alleged that Bush made an offensive quote against atheists. Atheists web sites claim that this is true, other people consider it to be unverifiable. This is controversial, but controversy does not justify an afd, or does it?

In my opinion it does not. The reason I am bringing this to the noticeboard is simple. IF THIS ARTICLE GETS DELETED, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT WIKIPEDIA SIMPLY CAN'T DEAL WITH CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS, at least not, if they are current. Wikipedia would not be able to fulfil its mission, to be an encyclopaedia for the sum of human knowledge. A structural bias would ensue against contemporary, controversial topics. The Situation of Atheist in the United States is such a controversial topic. And it is notable: There already is an article in the American Sociological Review on it. [35] Because this alleged quote from Bush is so fitting for the topic, it is actually plausible that future historians might use it as illustration of the issue. However, just like contemporary historian who write about the debate concerning toleration in 17th century England have to use the original pamphlets of the participants as source, so will future historians have to use the (hopefully archived) pro-Atheist and pro-Christian web pages. Wikipedia is said to suffer from so-called "recentism", a structural bias towards current issues, but concerning controversial topics the opposite will actually be the case. No editor should be able to mistake e.g. a statement from 17th century England, that Catholics should not be regarded as citizens, for a blp issue. But they confuse it with a blp issue when someone from the 21 century alleges that some politician said "Atheists should not be regarded as citizens". If this afd get through, then there can only be one conclusion: I will not work on articles that discuss current controversial issue, say after 1960, AND I WILL ADVISE EVERYBODY ELSE TO DO THE SAME! Honestly, I took me some time to research this issue properly and I would be deeply disappointed if this effort is wasted. Zara1709 (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with controversial. The man is a journalist and the article gives undue weight to two incidents while giving no mention of any of his actual work. It's not a biography, rather it is the details of two events. I think the article pretty much speaks for itself, though. So here is the version to base opinions from, noting the subject of the article has expressed strong objections to this version of the article. لennavecia 06:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This person is notable for these TWO incidents, at least if I've counted the sources correctly. He can't help it. And please don't ignore everything else that I've written. Zara1709 (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Matthew Johns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the subject (a well known sportsman and TV presenter) has been involved in a sex-related incident heavily publicised on Australian TV and in the press. The subject is clearly notable and so is the incident but some editors want to include terms such as "rape" and link the incident and the article to other supposedly related incidents. I have strong feelings about the subject and his conduct and have made that clear on the talk page so I don't feel I am in a position to make a determination; it may need an outside view. // Mattinbgn\^talk 08:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the facts of the case, but the current version of the relevant section of the article is written in a detached and neutral fashion as far as I am concerned.  Skomorokh  06:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Antonia Zerbisias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Two IPs continue to assert that the subject has issued a death threat: "Zerbisias controversially posted on her Twitter site that she wished reknown conservative Michelle Malkin were shot." // J^mundo 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it. The sources are not good enough for this and even if they were, one has to question whether they belong in an encyclopedic article. It has been quiet since. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)