Draft:Leslie Cornfeld

An article about this lady existed in a fairly basic form from 2006 until the beginning of December 2013, when an SPA account and several SPA IPs began to expand it considerably, giving it a promotional tone and making it increasingly like a resume. Eventually that drew attention, it was nominated for deletion, and I closed a thinly-attended WP:Articles for deletion/Leslie Cornfeld as delete. The subject of the article then posted on my talk page in some distress at User talk:JohnCD#URGENT - Deletion Error. I replied on User talk:SHurowtiz explaining the background, said that I was not prepared to reverse my close of the AfD, that she should go to Deletion review, and would stand a better chance there with an improved article. I therefore restored the article to the Draft namespace at Draft:Leslie Cornfeld, reverted it to the last version before the COI expansion, and advised her to list on the article talk page any inaccuracies and any suggestions for additions.

The purpose of this note is to ask for some eyes on the draft article, and for volunteers to help in improving it for Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some references would help.--ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I work for Rubenstein Communications and on behalf of Leslie Cornfeld, I propose using the references provided below. To mitigate conflict of interest issues, I will refrain from editing the draft directly unless specifically invited to do so. NinaSpezz (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Career:

• Bloomberg's Interagency Task Force, where Cornfeld was Chair: [1]
• Cornfeld is quoted in this Washington Post editorial from September 2013: [2]
• Cornfeld spoke at Advertising Week social media week 2012: [3]
• Cornfeld is speaking at National Mentoring Summit on January 30, 2014: [4]
• Cornfeld is quoted in this article about New York Cityschools: [5]
• Cornfeld’s feature in PBS/WNET: [6]

Board memberships:

• Children Defense Fund: [7]
• Hospital for Special Surgery: [8]
• Advisory Board at Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain and Behavior: [9]

• James Delingpole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone remove this BLP violation please, despite both its wide acceptance in the scientific community, and having no scientific qualifications himself to make this accusation. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I suggest other editors add this article to their watchlist just in case this finds its way back into the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is this compatible with WP:FRINGE? Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does fringe have to do with an editor persistently adding unsourced contentious statements to a BLP? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barney, since he apparently has (only) a BA in English, the statement is apparently true. But it has to be sourced. And, to avoid WP:OR, don't include the word "despite". But again the main thing is to have a source for the statement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It's an unsourced contentious statement about a living person. Even with a source, it's probably WP:UNDUE to include this in the lede. The body would be more appropriate. And I'd also say that the wording would may need to be tweaked as "despite" may run afoul of WP:EDITORIALIZING. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses. There are subtleties where WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE interact but the two shouldn't be incompatible. It seems that we should (1) structuring the article roughly chronologically, include a statement as to his education, but not directly include those facts in the sentence within a paragraph next to any other topic. We should also then not include any criticism based on this reverse appeal to authority,unless it is specific criticism from a well-known mainstream scientist or scientists and prominently published. (I don't have any sources, but commentary in The Guardian by a scientists would be the sort of level that we're talking about). Finally however, we can and probably should include mention of the fact that his views are contrary to scientific consensus, thus giving proper WP:FRINGE impersonal context. Is that fair and accurate? Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been locked due to edit-warring.[10] There is now a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Kaj_Taj_Mahal regarding this. The lock will expire in 3 days. Can we get a few more editors to add this to their watchlists? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Delingpole‎ (2)

WP:BLP says, "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively" As such is a section in a BLP titled "Anthropogenic climate change denial" suitable? Given the BLP in question has said, he believes in global warming. Please comment here if you wish. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the word "Anthropogenic" in a dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)No need to, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming and anthropogenic climate change are different. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you have a source in which he denies AGW? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source you've just cited, for a start: 'The Warmists lost the battle over "the science" long ago; that's why the best they can do now is resort to the kind of risible semantic ruse like this deliberate conflation of "global warming" with "man made global warming"' AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, nowhere in that article does he deny AGW. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is a continuation of the discussion above.[11] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding whether we should use the term "skeptic" or "denier", we should follow what reliable sources say about the matter. If the consensus of reliable sources calls Delingpole a "denier", we should use that term. If the consensus of reliable sources calls Delingpole a "skeptic", we should use that term. If there is no consensus, we'll have to figure out how best to handle this. Usually, when reliable sources disagree, we don't take sides, we simply document the disagreement. Alternatively, we can default to "skeptic" since this term is less pejorative and this is a WP:BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I had requested it be changed to "Views on climate change", that is neutral and BLP compliant. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section titles should never be judgemental about living persons - they exist to indicate the topic of the section and not the conclusion any source makes. Collect (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Darkness Shines: I think your suggestion makes sense. Also, the word "denier" is a violation of WP:LABEL. But I have no problem with adding "Anthropogenic" per @Nomoskedasticity:'s suggestion on the article talk page. Combining both wordings, that gives us "Views on anthropogenic climate change". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, "denier" is a bit stuff and might fall foul of LABEL. But "views" is mushy. I suggest changing the section heading to "climate change denial" or something along those lines -- that certainly doesn't fall foul of LABEL. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait -- that's what it is. Why are people moaning about "denier"? Red herring… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He does not deny the climate changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But he appears to deny that climate change is caused by human activity. That's why we need (and have) the word anthropogenic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for his denying humans have an effect on the climate please. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because what he actually says is "Pretty much everyone – probably more than 97 per cent, even – agrees that there is a degree of anthropogenic input, even it's just the barely measurable contribution of beef cattle farts or the heat produced by cities."[12] So he does not deny that there is some "anthropogenic input" Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The source you linked first "The case for AGW theory has been getting weaker by the minute, as Marc Morano notes in this characteristically feisty summary of the current state of play"
• http://jamesdelingpole.com/wordpress/about/ "Dislikes : The global warming myth"
• http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
• http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100068044/you-saw-through-the-eu-boris-when-are-you-going-to-see-through-agw/ "how come you're so willing to swallow the big lie of "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?" "in AGW's case it's the now thoroughly discredited hypothesis that the relatively small amounts of CO2 released as a result of human activity are capable of radically altering the climate in a dangerous way."

He seems pretty blatant about being a AGW skeptic. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Being sceptical is not denial. We have NPOV for a reason, and LABEL as AQFK pointed out. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "Pretty much everyone agrees..." isn't saying he agrees. And he clearly doesn't, as, in the very next sentence he asserts there is no demonstration or evidence for the claim that there is "anthropogenic input". This is the opposite of what you say he's saying. In that sentence he is characterizing the mainstream position before offering arguments in an attempt to debunk it. He has said that "GW" occurs but not that "AGW" occurs. In his book, Watermelons, he stated that anyone who thinks AGW is a near-certainty are "liars, cheats, and frauds." You are providing your own citations that he doesn't believe there is evidence for anthropogenic causes. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, in the link he says "But the dangerous bit? No one has come even close to demonstrating it, there is no reliable evidence for it, and very few scientists – certainly far, far fewer than 97 per cent of them – would ever stake their reputations on such a tendentious claim." That is about the catastrophic part of AGW he is being sceptical of. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "it" in that sentence is "anthropogenic input". He is saying that no one has demonstrated evidence of "anthropogenic input". His argument is that 97% believe in a degree of anthropogenic input, but he says no one has ever shown any evidence of it. He does not explicitly place himself in the 97% who believe in something he says there is no evidence for. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is arguing over the "dangerous bit" Nowhere in that paragraph does he say "anthropogenic" Anyone who writes "Pretty much everyone agrees" is obviously including themselves, he does not say "Pretty much everyone agrees, but I do not" Darkness Shines (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it for other people to read and decide. Your interpretation is not convincing to me:

Pretty much everyone – probably more than 97 per cent, even – agrees that there is a degree of anthropogenic input, even it's just the barely measurable contribution of beef cattle farts or the heat produced by cities. But the dangerous bit? No one has come even close to demonstrating it, there is no reliable evidence for it, and very few scientists – certainly far, far fewer than 97 per cent of them – would ever stake their reputations on such a tendentious claim. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DS, you keep saying "LABEL". There is no problem with LABEL, because we're not calling him a "denier". Your repeated attempts to spike the discussion in this regard are getting disruptive, in my view. It surely doesn't help your efforts to convince people that you're not likely to misuse BLP policy in connection with articles related to climate change. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: I'm confused as to why say that there isn't a problem with WP:LABEL. It seems pretty clear that this runs afoul of WP:WTA. Can you please explain your thought process here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Denial" is not a label. "Denier" is a label -- but the article does not contain the word denier. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: So, you're saying that all anyone has to do to circumvent WP:LABEL is to simply change the tense (or whatever it's called) of the word and that makes it OK? I don't think that was the intent of WP:WTA. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A label is a label. If someone wants to make an argument here invoking a policy, it's best to be precise. The article does not use a label for Delingpole. There would be a big problem if we lacked sources regarding his repudiation of scientific consensus on climate change -- but the sources have been provided here and I do not agree with the contention that we are doing him an injustice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except we do lack sources, and arguing that "denier" is a completely different word than "denial" is WikiLawyering, no offense. I don't think we can simply change the tense of a word to bypass core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I'm shocked that anyone would even suggest such a thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to bypass anything. It's plain as day -- we are not labelling this guy. And if you think we don't have sources, you're not clicking on what has been provided to you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing that simply changing the tense of the same word makes it acceptable. That's nonsense. And no, nobody has provided any evidence that this is the consensus of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the big lie of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'" -- in his own words. That's a repudiation of scientific consensus, by someone with no scientific credentials. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> What exactly are you arguing? Are you arguing that Delingpole‎ is a denier, but that it's OK, because technically speaking the word "deniar" is not the same exact word as "denial"? It's hard to tell. Or are you arguing that saying "the big lie of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'" -- in his own words" means the same thing as something else? If so, that's WP:OR. Honestly, I'm having trouble understanding your arguments. They seem to be all over the place without any sort of logical organization. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that WP:LABEL does not prevent us from using "denial", because it's not a label. Following your logic, we would have to refrain from using the words "deny", "denies", and "denied". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So, you are apparently arguing that simply changing the tense of a word allows us to bypass WP:LABEL since it's a label. Just know that most editors take WP:BLP seriously, and if you violate WP:BLP, you may be sanctioned. You have been notified and warned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's inappropriate to imply that an editor is risking potential sanctions for stating an interpretation of policy on a noticeboard. A "warning" under those sanctions would come from an uninvolved administrator, and would be specific in nature. It's fine that you want to give a personal reminder between editors, but be careful that you don't sound like you're attempting to impersonate an administrator in any way. That could be interpreted as actions beyond the normal course of editing and would take you away from finding consensus here. If they applied here, discretionary sanctions would also suggest we pay closer attention to WP:EQ and avoid any unjustified failures to assume good faith about other editor's goals. I'm sure everyone here recognizes that BLP policy is serious. In the interests of keeping things civil, I would suggest you avoid sounding like you were giving formal or official warnings in the future. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per a query on my UT page, this discussion ensued:

MOS states A title should be recognizable (as a name or description of the topic), natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with the titles of related articles

Main page is WP:Article titles

Which states the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable.

Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy

Which states:

In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity.

Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

So yes -- multiple Wikipedia policies impact on this - and clarity and neutrality are key issues per policy. Collect (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result of which statements of policy would seem to indicate that a clear and neutral section title is required. I suggest Views on anthropogenic global warming as being clear, concise, and neutral here. Collect (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally irrelevant -- all that is about article titles. What you need is WP:MOSHEAD. C'mon, do it right. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That which is true for article titles should also work for section titles -- would you want section titles not to be clear and neutral, for God's sake? Really??? Collect (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that we are being unclear and non-neutral. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically we have The provisions in Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well

Which I think clearly states that "the provisions in Article titles generally apply to section headings as well"

Or did I misread what the words actually state? Is this clear enough for you since I cite the exact words stating that the rules for article titles also apply to section headings????? Collect (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to look at the "above" on that page? Obviously not. So yes, you misread. Anyway, it hardly matters -- again, I don't agree that we are being unclear and non-neutral. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted from that page. And from the page it gives as the main page on the topic. How dare you say that I did not bother to look at it! Wikipedia:Section_headings#Article_titles is "above" Wikipedia:Section_headings#Section_headings and links directly to Wikipedia:Article_titles] each of which I not only read and cited, but actually endeavor to follow as policy)

That is not only non-collegial, it is palpably false and inapt. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has self identified as as someone who denies the factualness: "the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Kaj Taj Mahal has now been given a 6-month topic ban for violations of WP:BLP[13] and I've reverted most of their changes. I tried, as best I could, to explain the reason for each edit in the edit-summary and referenced the applicable policies and talkpage discussions. However, this entire experience has been extremely unpleasant for me and I think it's best for my own mental health for me to walk away from this. So, I'm removing this article from my watchlist. I don't find it remotely acceptable to turn a BLP into a WP:ATTACK page, but whatever, that's somebody else's problem now. I'm done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am having an issue with Ebdòmero (talk · contribs) adding an unsourced IPA to Étienne Capoue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Can somebody please explain to them the importance of WP:BLP, I have tried (and clearly failed) and am going out for the evening in 30 minutes. GiantSnowman 18:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you sufficiently explained why this particular pronunciation is controversial or the reasons you think it should be challenged. Looking back, it seems the consensus was that IPAs needed sourcing if there was "a reasonable challenge" to them not that they all needed sourcing from the start. Maybe there's a consensus I'm not aware of, but it looks like you just said it was "controversial" in an edit summary without trying to talk it out on the talk page at all. If there is a "pronounciation rule" as stated, is it written down somewhere I could see? __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how we source IPAs (do we?), but the editor seems to be correct in this case, based on my (admittedly slight) knowledge of French. I found this video where the narrator uses the full name at the beginning and the last name repeatedly after that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that you sent some messages to the editor's talk page as well; I have to say that it doesn't seem to include much support that the pronunciation is "controversial". In the future, it might be better to talk it out a bit more? __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's not so much an "issue" as an edit-war - you appear to have three reverts within 24 hours. Why is there no discussion on the talkpage of the article? Anyway, for what it is worth, I believe that you are right to challenge the IPA and that it should be ​[etjɛn kapu] not ​[etjɛnne kapu]. If the double n were to be pronounced, the final e would I think at most be sounded as a schwa. But please note that I am not a native speaker of French; it should be easy enough to find someone who is. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, is very much is an issue, it is the repeated addition of unsourced information about a BLP - and it wasn't edit warring, please see WP:3RRNO. The information was challenged (by me) because I have no idea how the name is pronounced - and I'm saying this as someone whose own surname is mis-pronounced all the time. There is, of course, also a wider BLP issue with IPAs being added to articles with no source. GiantSnowman 11:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an issue at all. Unlike english language, french is very regular as for pronounciation and I see no controversial matter. Usually pronunciations according to the IPA are added without source and nobody protests. To my eyes GSM is attempting to impose his own point of view without the support of any policy, without consensus and against the the routine procedure. --Ebdòmero (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, French is very regular. One possible source of controversy might thus be the pronunciation you gave for Étienne Capoue, ​[etjɛnne kapu], which would ordinarily be the pronunciation of "Étienné Capoue", which is not the gentleman's name (compare with henné ​[hɛnne]). I suggest that the correct pronunciation is ​[etjɛn kapu]; compare with penne ​[pɛn], benne ​[bɛn], senne ​[sɛn], etc. (pronunciations sourced from The Concise Oxford French Dictionary, 1968 printing; not the best source, but probably adequate for this). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so we now have two different possible pronunciations? I thought this was not an issue/straightforward/regular etc. etc.?! GiantSnowman 12:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a vanity page created by the subject of the page. The pseudonym "Adonis123" is very similar to his previous online name "AdonisPete". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockamy (talk • contribs) 22:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "He first gained notoriety within popular culture in 2001 with his appearance in the famed Abercrombie and Fitch Quarterly" doesn't really cut it, no matter it uses words like "notoriety" (which means ill repute, but that probably wasn't intended) and "famed". And the mention of his poetry being compared to Pablo Neruda, Algernon Charles Swinburne, and Lord Byron (no citation) is kind of funny. It's not really something for this noticeboard, nor for speedy deletion, so I suggest you PROD the article, Lockamy. Bishonen | talk 01:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I have PRODDed the article.[14] Thank you for drawing attention to this, User:Lockamy. Bishonen | talk 19:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It's not that singer that sing with rammstein. It's a fake. THe singer was to young to register with her true name 'cause she was to young (and had'nt the permission of her parents.),you have no prooves to say who sing with them. THere is no voice prints. you just had lies. More over they don't have the same voice, you can hear it by songs of white house.

This doesn't make any sense. -- John Reaves 01:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This editor believes that the backup vocals for the song "Stirb nicht vor mir" on the album Rosenrot by Rammstein are incorrectly attributed to Christiane Herbold (stagename: Bobo). But the credits on the album state Backing vocals on "Stirb nicht vor mir" by Bobo. We would need better sources before calling someone a "stealer" per BLP. It looks like Bobo was the backup singer only on the english version, but was not the backup singer on the German version. That's probably from where the confusion stems. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elaqueate, that's impressive. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Elior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is unnecessarily negative. Biographical articles normally give the subjects positive achievements, but this one resembles a hatchet job. It lists one failure after another for a subject who is a leader in her field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowGoldman (talk • contribs) 05:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every quotation is from someone who disapproves, criticisms are included before the introduction or explanations of what is being criticized. This needs some work. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an odd one: check out my work. I just updated this article: it's a huge stink (just look at this Google overview) and I want to make sure that we get it right. Frankly, I'm surprised his article hasn't been edited yet; perhaps some eyes will be handy in the coming days and weeks as well to prevent abuse. Anyway, please have a look at the section I just introduced and the one sentence I added to the lead. The line between character assassination and objectively representing the facts is a thin one. Oh, before you ask, as far as I know Nijkamp himself has not responded publicly to the accusations (which, by the way, are well past the "accusation" stage in the ordinary sense). Drmies (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 2014? Has the dust started to settle on this? I see no problem with your additions.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No, no dust yet, not even pixie dust. They're trying to figure out to which extent self-plagiarism equals plagiarism. The outcry is humongous, as you may have seen (it's only the most recent of a couple of Dutch plagiarism/academic dishonesty scandals). For the record, the VU is my alma mater, and I really don't enjoy this but it has to be done. I have little doubt that he will lose his job over this scandal and that the VU's reputation is seriously harmed. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since he may lose his job over this, is there a remote possibility that this addition will exacerbate it? Thats the only reason I could see not adding this now. Probably a resounding "no", but dot your i's Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few tweaks, primarily restating the accusations in the voice of the newspapers. I also commented out the section about his student - as written, it's unclear how the actions of Nijkamp's student relate to Nijkamp, and I can't read Dutch. If you think it belongs (and it may very well belong), please rewrite to better explain - are they viewing Nijkamp as complicit or responsible for his student's plagiarism? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nice work, Drmies, and I also agree with NorthBySouth's fixes. I was just going to dampen down the intro sentence, when I found NBS had already done it.

About the student: the thing is apparently that Nijkamp, her supervisor, was credited as co-author of the criticized piece(s). Indeed the first reference states outright that she wrote her text "samen met" (=together with) Nijkamp. (Speaking as an academic, the credit to the supervisor as co-author may or may not have been a mere formality, but by taking the credit, he would certainly in any case share the responsibility.) I agree with NBS that this connection wasn't clear in the article. I'll leave it to Drmies to make it so, since I can only read the Dutch sources when I'm half-seas over. Bishonen | talk 12:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• "Half-seas over": you mean "drunk on the ferry playing the slot machines with a pram full of butter"? :) I'll have a look to see about a rewrite. It's the student's dissertation that got the ball rolling. Note I didn't use her name. As for Two kinds of pork's "remote possibility", I'd say not likely, since his employers are all Dutch and presumably read any of the major newspapers. It's the biggest Dutch academic story I've seen, and this little Wikipedia article pales in comparison. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All goodTwo kinds of pork (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, that's uncanny, my mother has the weirdest story about a pram full of butter. (It features girlscouts, hot weather and a collapsible pram, and telling it makes my mother laugh so hard she never gets as far as the punchline, if any.) Is it a, uh, Dutch saying? Note that I didn't use the student's name either, not actually being drunk or buttered today. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

"The I Inside" Film Writer Michael Cooney - Name and Bio Error: The current link from the Writer of "The I Inside" film's screenplay: Writer Michael Cooney, erroneously links to the folk singer-songwriter Michael Cooney and not to the Screenwriter Michael Cooney. The linked information about the songwriter Michael Cooney is correct about the songwriter, but the songwriter and the screenwriter Michael Cooney are two different people.

Correction Source: Page Title: "Ray Cooney Plays" [15] Even though it is titled "Ray Cooney Plays" it lists all of Michael Cooney's stage and screenplay titles with their synopses, including "The I Inside". Article:: <The I Inside is a 2003 psychological thriller directed by Roland Suso Richter. It was written by Michael Cooney based on his own play "Point of Death". This film has no connection with the science-fiction novel The I Inside, by Alan Dean Foster. > “The I Inside" link from Writer-Michael Cooney erroneously links to the wrong person, a folk singer- songwriter also named Michael Cooney. Content:The link labeled Writer-Michael Cooney links to correct information about the folk singer-songwriter Michael Cooney. <Michael Cooney (born 1943 in Carmel, California) is an American musician known for his performances in the 1960s folk revival. He is known for his blues performances as well as in performing at and organizing many folk festivals, notably the National Folk Festival in Washington, DC, for six years.> <However, "The I Inside" screenwriter Michael Cooney, born in England, is a different person than the American born folk singer (noted by both their different photographs and by their different bios.)Michael Cooney, the screenwriter's bio is at at:[16])> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabecio (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected The I Inside.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Waltz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This new article on a minor actress consisted almost entirely of negative material and gossip cited to sub-tabloid sources, and contains precisely zero evidence that she meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Indeed, the source cited for what little non-gossip/negativity the article included actually asserts in so many words that this person lacks notability: "When Jasmine Waltz strutted into the 'Celebrity Big Brother' house this year everyone (including us) asked, 'who she?'" [17] I shall of course be nominating the article for deletion (the creator having contested the prod - though without anything more than a statement to that effect in an edit summary [18]) but meanwhile, can I ask that experienced eyes are kept on the article.Though User:TheRedPenOfDoom has removed the worst of the offending material for now, it may well attract vandalism and/or more badly-sourced gossip. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid example of "not a real BLP" writing, alas. And the sourcing for claims is worse than marginal. Collect (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Spitzer (political scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a TON of unsourced material in this article, and I need some help to sort through it. The article is certainly salvageable, but it needs a lot of work, and I don't really want to just hack away at it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned about the direction this article suddenly took. I will comment in more detail there. Lightbreather (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can some uninvolved editors take a look at this article? A half-day's worth of work has been reverted. Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to keep an eye on this article. All editors should bear in mind, in addition to basic BLP policies, the need to avoid undue weight on any aspect of the subject's work and career. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to my Watchlist and I'll take a look for any sourcing issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever heard of this person before, but I don't see any obvious BLP issues with the article. There's an overreliance on primary sources and some unsourced content, but nothing major. On a side note, I don't think it's necessary list out 19 different TV shows/newspapers he's been on/in. Just pick 2 or 3 examples. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Newyorkbrad and A Quest For Knowledge. My main concern is not about the subject's editing, but that of one of our editor who insists that the subject - a living scholar/academic - is a gun control advocate or activist. Would you like me to give diffs for specific instances? Others have discussed this with her on the subject's talk page (most recently here) but she keeps putting this stuff back (most recently here and here). Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a POV effort to portray the subject of the article as neutral on Gun Control, when his own words show his political leaning. There are hundreds of examples. I do not understand this. There is also an effort to push the idea that being in favor of gun control is somehow a bad thing. This is something I do not appreciate. I am not trying to "pin a label" on anyone, particulary one of my favorite authors, but we need to be intellectually honest. It is easy enough to quote him as examples of his advocacy. As I said, I do not understand the resistance to this, especially when it should be a given. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is the only one of only two secondary sources that has been found so far, and it describes him as an advocate. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, there is a POV effort to prove that the subject, a political scientist, is a gun control advocate, and to categorize him as such. That could negatively effect his reputation. After five days searching, one source - a 14year-old book by a criminologist - calls the subject an advocate. No current high-quality, reliable, verifiable sources. Mainstream newspapers call him a political scientist. Lightbreather (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HERE is a second independent source which describes him as a "prominent gun control advocate". That makes a grand total of only two secondary sources, and both describe him the same way. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are now THREE independent third party sources. This one describes Mr. Spitzer as a "strong proponent of Gun Control" --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Spitzer is a political scientist. One of his fields of research is the politics of gun control in America. He is known for his balanced research and writing on gun control. See Sugarman, Josh (1997). "Book Review: The Politics of Gun Control". New England Journal of Medicine. 336 (1): 74. doi:10.1056/NEJM199701023360118.. He is not a gun control advocate. Sue, who admires him, does not understand the difference between political science research and advocacy.

Let me repeat what I said to Sue on the article talk page.

All three sources used for the lead are not reliable sources:

• The google books url leads to Shots in the Dark: The Policy, Politics, and Symbolism of Gun Control by William J. Vizzard. Vizzard is a supporter of Gary Kleck's research. Spitzer has harshly criticized Kleck's research methodology and Vizzard is a critic of Spitzer and not an unbiased writer in this case.

• https://sites.google.com/site/guncontrolpol101/weapons-in-general/to-control is a anti-gun control blog with no stated author and appears to be a self-published source.

• http://cornellsun.com/blog/2008/04/23/foreign-countries-divergent-in-strictness-of-gun-control/?ModPagespeed=noscript is a student newspaper.

Now she is proposing as a "reliable, verifiable" source one of the strangest self-published blogs I have seen, http://www.volokh.com/2003_05_04_volokh_archive.html.

In any case, they only describe Spitzer as a gun control advocate, they do not provide any actual evidence. To demonstrate that he is an advocate requires sources that analyze Spitzer's work and politics and come to the conclusion that he is an advocate. Sue is pushing her point of view here without adequate sources. She has demonstrated her inability to find real sources about academic people. She is has demonstrated on the talk page of the article her lack of understanding of academic research, biographies of living persons, and what constitutes reliable and verifiable sources. The material describing Spitzer as a gun control advocate needs to be removed. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vouching for the quality of these three sources. They are far from steel-clad. But they are the ONLY secondary sources available. The entirety of the remaining sources in the article are primary sources. We need sources that are untouched by the subject. Interviews, etc. will not do, as the hosts generally introduce guests by whatever title they want. There has been no biography. These few sources are the only independent ones that have been found to date. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 08:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article mention rumored allegations about him? --George Ho (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not assert that he is gay -- that is a matter of self-identification. To the extent that there are good sources for the assertion that he has had a sexual relationship with another man, then yes, that can stay in the article. (Has he denied it?) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing references to a Hustler article on Drier in late 2004/early 2005 -- but it doesn't look like this is on-line. Anyone have any leads on it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This is a splendid example of possibly harming a person by using Wikipedia to promote rumours about sexuality of a living person. Rumours are not biographical fact. "Hustler" and the like are not reliable sources for such rumours. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general, no article should mention "rumored allegations" about a living person. "Rumored allegations" by their very nature fail all three of the core content policies for BLP: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), and No original research (NOR). No matter how tempting it sometimes is to "expose" presumed double standards. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Adams, (head editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New article created, looks amateurish and unsourced. Needs eyes from those who are familiar with the process to see if this should be deleted. Yobol (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a clear A7 and someone tagged it as such already. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost exclusively unsourced BS and trivia. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done, deleted as per A7. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paweł Mąciwoda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pawel Maciwoda has a son. His name is Roman, he is 2 1/2 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonymous12 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for that? Otherwise we'd prefer not to include that type of personal information in articles. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if verified I don't care for such information. What's important to the subject is often not important to the reader. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Cartoon pornography an editor keeps reverting me restoring BLP material, ie the unsourced claim that various likely living people are involved as makers of cartoon pornography. I have tried my best to explain our BLP policies but the editor is getting more and more aggressive on the talk page and deliberately restores the BLP violating info, ie unsourced claims about living people. He has been directed to our policy page but seems to think "There is no need. (also: you know that you could find a reference within seconds, if you bothered to look for one" is an acceptable alternative to a ref♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is absolutely required is a secondary source that specifically mentions the person doing this type of work. Looking up an Amazon author credit is not enough, and in fact it's original research. WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:GRAPEVINE are perfectly clear on the sourcing required for this type of thing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for any source, unless the statement is challenged or likely to be challenged (according to what it written in WP:BLP). The one and only reason that it was challenged by SqueakBox, was due to a pedantic enforcement of BLP, so it doesn't really count. He/she didn't challenge the truth of the statement, but merely insisted that such statements be sourced. That's not the kind of "challenge", that is being referred to, in the statement "challenged or likely to be challenged".

You mention WP:BLPSOURCES... The first thing mentioned there, is "Challenged or likely to be challenged". Thank you for supporting my argument. There is no need to clutter up articles with needless citations.

Furthermore, Amazon is a perfectly reliable source, to verify the mere existence of a work of cartoon pornography, and of the author of the work. Amazon isn't, generally, a reliable source, but basic information like that, it's perfectly fine. At least if WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is to be believed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_104#iTunes_and_Amazon_for_television_series_verification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Amazon.com_as_a_RS_for_merchandise.3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Is_Amazon.com_a_reliable_source.3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_114#Amazon.com

Need I go on?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont dismiss my BLP challenge as not counting, or is there some policy which says MY challenges dont count? Or that "pedantic" challenges dont count? (with a clear idea of what pedantic means here). Challenging unsourced material is classic BLP enforcement, no? And where in BLP does it talk about needless citations for unsourced material about living people? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is being associated with cartoon porn contentious? I'd sure say so. But upon further review of Kevin J. Taylor (the P we are discussing) his own website seems to confirm his involvement with erotic art, so I don't think the subject would consider this contentious. There are also sites like comicvine which mention his erotic work, so no, this is not a contentious statement with respect to Mr. Taylor. Whether Mr. Taylor needs a mention in this article, I don't have an opinion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a dispute about Kevin J Taylor but that got resolved when Zarlan did finally source it after I pressured him or her to and I have accepted the inclusion of his name with the 2 current sources, I merely wasnt willing to here. This is the contentious edit, said Alazar is also likely a living person and the contention is that Zarlan cannot add info about Alazar or even their name without a reliable source. Zarlan clearly thinks a reliable source isnt necessary for Alazar and that my BLP challnege in favour of Alazar doesnt count but doesnt explain why except for using the word pedantic. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content is most definitely a "challenge" and counts as something that absolutely requires a reliable source inline citation before restoration, AND particularly so when BLP the basis! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for any source, unless the statement is challenged or likely to be challenged. This clearly refers to challenges to the truth of the statement. SqueakBox never challenged the truth of the statement that any of those people are creators of cartoon pornography, but purely challenged their adherence to Wikipedia policy.

That is not the same thing.

Hence it doesn't count. It may count, if you look at purely at the letter of the policy, but doing so goes against the rules and principles of Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:The rules are principles, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:Wikilawyering and WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have no grasp of our BLP policy, Zarlan,a nd that is worrying. Given I knew nothing about cartoon pornography your claim that I knew this to be true is not so but even if it were so that doesnt mean I cant challenge ANY unsourced material about living people, or is there some policy I havent seen that allows you to ignore BLP whenever you choose?♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"You appear to have no grasp of our BLP policy"

That statement is pointless and without meaning, unless you explain what aspect I am not grasping, and in what way. You're just claiming that I am ignorant of it. Anyone can do that. It doesn't prove anything. (note: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. You need to stay at the top three levels of it)

"Given I knew nothing about cartoon pornography your claim that I knew this to be true is not so"

What are you talking about? When/where have I ever made such a claim?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nino Firetto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following on from this discussion ^[1], I still haven't had an answer to the questions I posed regarding this subject. I am currently under a subject ban for stating factual, relevant information that was sourced correctly and that didn't break Wikipedia's BLP policy. The points I raised are as follows: 'I don't understand why the block was in place in the first place as I had sourced the information, which was in the public domain, and it is of public interest (as it was published in a newspaper, like all other bankruptcy notices). Other notable people have this included on their biographical pages on Wikipedia (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Katona and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Filan), why should the person mentioned above be an exception?' Could someone explain why this BLP is an exception to the rule? And to why I received a topic ban? Whoisthisalfonso (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the diffs but not being familiar with the dispute, I'd say you used two unreliable and one primary source. Sometimes an event in a subject's life is not notable enough to mention, perhaps evidenced by the fact that you probably can't find a lot of secondary sources about the bankruptcy. Including that material can be also considered undue weight. In any case, you are under a topic ban, so I'd refrain from pursuing this further. Wikipedia is not the best place to pursue the desire to document negative information about people. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The living person biography of Charles Denham has been involved in an edit war since 9 January 2014. This is apparently related to a U.S. Department of Justice press release about a $40.1 million payment by the medical products company CareFusion to the government to settle claims that the company violated the False Claims Act and stating that "CareFusion paid $11.6 million in kickbacks to Dr. Charles Denham while Denham served as the co-chair of the Safe Practices Committee at the National Quality Forum, a non-profit organization that reviews, endorses and recommends standardized health care performance measures and practices. The government contends that the purpose of those payments was to induce Denham to recommend, promote and arrange for the purchase of ChloraPrep by health care providers." ^[2]

Since 9 January there have been 5 edits inserting this statement or a reference to it. In each case the edits have been re-edited to remove these details. Two of the 5 insertions are from wikipedia named users. None of the removal edits are from named users. The IP addresses of the removing edits are uninformative.

Edit history for Charles Denham as of 23:15 UTC 15 Jan 2014:

14:13, 12 January 2014‎ 70.114.157.229‎ (10,615 bytes) (-157)‎(Undid revision 590353735 by 71.185.164.77

12:28, 12 January 2014‎ 71.185.164.77 (10,772 bytes) (+157)‎(CareFusion settlement with state of New York does mention Dr. Denham by name)

21:24, 10 January 2014‎ 24.55.33.122 (10,615 bytes) (-170)‎ (undo)

21:16, 10 January 2014‎ 64.58.148.154 (10,785 bytes) (-437)‎ (undo)

21:13, 10 January 2014‎ 24.55.33.122 (11,222 bytes) (-428)‎ (→‎Corruption Scandals) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)

21:12, 10 January 2014‎ 24.55.33.122 (11,650 bytes) (+994)‎ (Undid revision 590130052 by 64.58.148.154) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)

21:10, 10 January 2014‎ 64.58.148.154 (10,656 bytes) (-994)‎ (Tag: reference list removal)

19:16, 10 January 2014‎ Crimestopper100 (11,650 bytes) (+2)‎

19:15, 10 January 2014‎ Crimestopper100 (11,648 bytes) (+713)‎ (Adds news articles and press releases mentioning Dr. Denham)

18:33, 10 January 2014‎ 132.189.76.43 (10,935 bytes) (+428)‎ (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)

23:53, 9 January 2014‎ 64.58.148.154 (10,507 bytes) (-231)‎ (undo)

19:03, 9 January 2014‎ Mikeyoung1976 (10,738 bytes) (+523)‎ (Adds information about Denham that appears in a Department of Justice press release)

The edit war that is taking place exceeds 3RR although the reversions come from different IP addresses. The specific edits proposed are not defammatory or libelous and are based on primary sources with solid URL links.

How can this be resolved? There is no user to report to the Edit Wars page. Can the page be noticed as disputed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard I. Cook, MD (talk • contribs)

I took a quick look. The phrase is sourced to a government notice that does actually mention Dr. Denham by name and does state that he recieved a kickback. The government source is reliable, the sentance in question only says what the government document says, without synthesis or OR, so I'd say it should stay in.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]