Welcome to roadsat.com on July 4 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards
Shortcuts:
WP:BLP/N
WP:BLPN
WP:BOLPN

This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living people. These may include editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time. It is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.

For general content disputes regarding biographical articles consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies.

All Wikipedia editors are encouraged to assist fellow editors regarding the reports below. Administrators taking actions they consider to be "special enforcement" may wish to note this in the enforcement log.

See also:

When posting:


To report a possible policy violation:

  • Make sure that your report really belongs here. Common vandalism should not be reported here; instead, revert it yourself and warn the user; if it recurs, report it at the vandalism report page. If an article is being persistently vandalized, request page protection.
  • Create new incident with the article name linked in the title
    ==[[Article name]]==
  • Describe the dispute using {{La}} and {{Userlinks}} templates in the following format:
    * {{La|article name}} - brief explanation // ~~~~   and/or
    * {{Userlinks|username}} - brief explanation // ~~~~
  • Add new entries at the bottom of the page, and sign your post with "~~~~".
  • IMPORTANT - do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Please link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.

To mark an incident as resolved
Use {{Resolved}}, {{Resolved|~~~~}}, or {{Resolved|Error corrected in article. ~~~~}}.
To close an incident
Use {{subst:Blpt|[[article name]]|RESOLUTION|~~~~~}} and {{subst:Blpb}} to close an incident that has been completely resolved and no longer requires outside intervention.
Archives
To archive an incident
Routine archival is automated, but any issue that has not been edited for 15 days may be copied to the appropriate archive page. Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns are manually archived to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing BLP concerns (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

Contents



[edit] Diane Black racist Obama e-mail

Resolved. Section has been stable, with consensus for several days --Scribner (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I did some work on this subject's article about the racist Obama photo sent from her office. User:Scribner and I are edit-warring over a long, rambling paragraph of analysis that makes over half this article about this one event about one of her staffers sending it out. It's all cited to one source, a CNN transcript. I've removed it twice[1][2] citing the policies, but Scribner is intent on re-inserting it and templating me for edit-warring...sigh. Can somebody else weigh in? -->David Shankbone 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, looks like a classic case of WP:UNDUE (regular reader of your blog BTW). – ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ukexpat, I'm glad you like it! -->David Shankbone 19:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I just removed it too. I'm a flaming liberal, and I still think it's ridiculous to have that much text on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm same and feel the same. -->David Shankbone 20:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
*sigh* S/he WP:COATRACKed it into the TN Governor and TN Republican party articles, too. Removed from both.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
They are on a holy crusade with this. It's a total Joan of Arc thing ("If I shall be blocked, I shall block for doing the right thing for my country") -->David Shankbone 03:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
David, these events of racism in the Republican party are a systemic problem, not isolated events. Telling the truth is hardly a "holy crusade", me thinks you doth protest too much. Truman said it best, “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” The section's been restored to the edit we both agreed upon. Scribner (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Please write an article on Racism in the Republican Party. I am a Republican an I think that this is a major problem. However, don't bring up the issue where it would be a violation of WP:BLP policies. For instance implying that an individual is racist without strong sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a separate article may be needed - that's crossed my mind. The reason the story made national news (actually international) is because of Senator Black's limited response. That's why it's on her article. I didn't put the section on her article, but I agree with it's placement. Also, the section doesn't imply that she's a racist, but to be fair, I think it does imply she was tolerant of racist behavior. Scribner (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I think people come to WP to find the basic facts about someone, not what kind of things can be implied. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Her actions imply tolerance, Wiki doesn't dictate Senator Black's actions. I did just add this in her defence: "Senator Black did denounce the email, said the email did not reflect her views and stated her reprimand was in following with human resources policy for email guideline violations.[6]" Scribner (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia also does not draw conclusions from implications. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no WP:OR in the section, it's irresponsible to claim that there is and not be specific to your claim. I seriously doubt you even read the section, you just wanted to chime in with what you think is a witty comeback. Scribner (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dorothy King

Could someone help? An editor keeps adding a non-notable tag to her article. To me she looks perfectly notable (plus article is well-sourced) and I have removed the tag twice. Dr. King is somewhat controversial in the small world of European archaeology and some people don't like her. Could someone help with this dispute, or if she is really non-notable nominate the article for deletion? Borock (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Some people don't like her"? Are you suggesting I am tagging the article out of personal hatred for the individual? I just don't think that notability has been established, and certainly articles can be tagged as needed sources and arguments demonstrating notability without having to jump to an AFD. DreamGuy (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the article is in AfD and seems to be heading to a snowball keep, and the article itself has some pretty significant sources, so this matter is pretty much resolved. -- Atamachat 22:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Raphael Bender

Resolved. Article is sitting in AFD and I think this is resolved --Tom (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Kate Raphael Bender (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The subject of this article, who's notability is in question, but I guess that is different issue, recently, like a day or two ago, not sure tried to boycott trader joe or something. Material that is not even written in a NPOV keeps getting reinserted. Can some other eyes please chime in, since we are at inpass? TIA --Tom (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be getting closer to resolving our differences, but we still disagree on adding category anti-zionism. Thoughts? --Tom (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Category removed (re-add only if there is consensus - WP:BLP caution) and nominated for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Raphael Bender. Disembrangler (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Merged BLP concerns on Talk:Murder of Robert Eric Wone

[edit] More eyes on Murder of Robert Eric Wone

I'm probably a bit too close to this article and the disputes of six months ago to judge whether recently added information about the suspects in the murder case violates BLP or not. Another editor has added way more than I would have chosen to, but it all looks adequately sourced. Overall, I'm uncertain, hence asking for more eyes here. Jclemens (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there is far more information than necessary in the article about those three men. The information added is demographic (home town, education, history of residence, etc.) - while this isn't defamatory or otherwise controversial information, I think we should err in favor of privacy. This is particularly true when our article already names these men as, ultimately, murder suspects - even though they haven't been charged in that crime, nor convicted or subjected to continuing restrictions for any other charges filed. (Disclosure: I argued awhile back that we shouldn't even name these men in the article, let alone describe them in detail.) Last bit: Jclemens, I don't think this thread has been noted on the article talkpage yet? Nathan T 22:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The problems on the talk page have escalated a bit, with one editor accusing the three named living persons of direct involvement in killing Wone. I've blocked him for that, but would still prefer more eyes on this issue. Good point, Nathan, I'll note this thread on the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed the sections on the three roomates who have been suspects in the past. Until or unless they are charged and/tried with murder we need to err on the conservative. -- Banjeboi 01:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request to review possible violation of BLP policy on article talk page

Please check the current thread at Wikipedia:Ani#User:Joseph_A._Spadaro. There seems to be no consensus whether this constitutes a violation or not, an editor has been blocked, but the relevant comments haven't been removed. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Prima facie, if the BLP violation is sufficient to block and possibly topic ban the editor, the comments should be removed. BLP caution applies extremely strongly here - there is a possibility, however remote, that such unsourced speculations might influence the legal process. Disembrangler (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] John Lakian

Would anyone like to please watchlist and or monitor John Lakian for BLP violations and vandalism? Seems like there were some negative, hurtful comments added to the article which stayed in for quiet a while, and the possibility of future incidents seems likely. More eyes on the situation would help.-Andrew c [talk] 18:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. If this happens again semi protection may be called for. — Jake Wartenberg 04:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
A newbie with a redlinked name just removed much of the content and references. I don't know myself how accurate much of that material is, but thought it worth mentioning. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed the article for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Friedwardt Winterberg

Friedwardt Winterberg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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)
Sorry I didn't respond to this before - I only noticed it now in the archives. I ask again that the pages in question put up by Alvestrand be removed.
Alvestrand: If you have some sort of proof I am with UNR I suggest you provide it now. If you bothered to check my IP you would see I am more than 2500 miles from there and have nothing to do with that university. Not only have you libeled Winterberg, you have now libeled me which is a clear violation of the rules.
Will Beback: There is a lot more there than King's book. There are insinuations involving IDs and IP addresses that are based on Alvestrand's personal opinions and original research. Even if you accept King's work, the page is clearly not NPOV and should be taken down for that reason alone. But the book isn't NPOV either as anyone who has read it can see. Those Alvestrand notes/watch pages are nothing more than an attempt to embarrass Winterberg. Why else put them online for the whole world to see? Physiker121 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Repeating my friendly reminder to both of you: all pages on Wikipedia, including user pages, user talk pages and user subpages, are covered by WP:BLP and subject to deletion/severe pruning if in violation. I am not accusing either of you of anything, just a reminder. – ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what this is all about. Has an old discussion been copied out of the archive?   Will Beback  talk  20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is - from about 1 month ago - and from this noticeboard. I assumed somebody would take care of it because I thought it was such an obvious violation of WP:BLP. But instead of removing the offending material, he put me in the talk page too implying I was Winterberg which is also a violation of WP:BLP. Physiker121 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Following the posting here in May the user merged the two pages. Someone claiming to be Winterberg has edited Wikipedia and the Winterberg bio repeatedly, as documented on the page you're complaininng about. There's also a banned user who has repeatedly returned, so it's a complex situation that bears watching. I've asked the user to blank it as a courtesy to those mentioned, but I don't think there's anything there that violates BLP. Speculating on whether the subject of an article is editing it is not a BLP violation, to the best of my knowledge. However if thepage isn't actively being used to prepare a case against an active user then there's no need to leave it unblanked. I'm going to blank it on Alvestrand's behalf, which should reduce the appearance of a problem.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it - in particular, I don't see any violation of either WP:BLP or WP:ATTACK - the actions described mainly speak for themselves. I'm hoping that there will never be a need to prepare a case on the issue, but if that ever happens (or if someone tries to make a case against me), notes collected over a period of years is better than having to dig frantically around Wikipedia article histories. I think (and am willing to discuss this further) that the keeping of notes like this not only should be allowed, it should be encouraged.
That said, blanking is a reasonable way to make sure it doesn't show up in Google searches. I'll recover the text when I need it. --Alvestrand (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I noticed on Alvestrand's main page Winterberg's name still comes up in connection with an "unfortunate LaRouche connection" with a link to the blanked page which I think falls under WP:BLP. With regard to speculating on a person's identity and posting that on a page, I think that tends to create a paranoid atmosphere and opens the subject up to potential harassment. I think some of the problems from users like DS1000 were possibly caused by that page. I know speculating on an editor's true identity is most definitely against the rules as that falls under WP:OUTING. There are other cases in his other talk pages where this is certainly true like the one for the Einstein-Hilbert priority dispute. If WP:OUTING doesn't apply to Alvestrand implying I was Winterberg, it certainly does on the page where he gives out Licorn's true name and address, posting USSearch results and everything. I don't know much about that person but I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of opening people up to public ridicule and harassment.Physiker121 (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Chabasinski

I'm not sure whether anything needs to be done with this new article. The Activism section is well-sourced although perhaps not entirely NPOV, however the Early Life section is sourced only to Chabasinski's own words as found on the web site www.mindfreedom.org, which isn't obviously a reliable source. Looie496 (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I took the problem section off. It's possible that some information on his former doctor might also be a BLP problem. (Or not on second thought since that person is probably not still living based on the time the events took place.) I think I had better stay away since I am banned from Scientology-related articles and this looks like it's headed in that direction, although Scientology is not mentioned in this one. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] David Ferguson (impresario)

I would appreciate someone looking at a page I'm trying to clean up: David Ferguson (impresario). It's been tagged with many templates and I'm not sure if they're all appropriate. I think this article needs experienced Wikipedians to compare the templates to the contents of the biography. Thanks-- --deb (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is fine and the tags unjustified. It could hardly have more or better sources.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Snort... Steve, of the refs on there now, how many are self-published? How many only exist on the subject's own web server? How many are solely based on the subject's own claims without any fact-checking? How many statements are actually disputed by other sources, but any mentions of that were edited out? How many statements are about things that companies did, not Ferguson himself? How many of the refs, when checked, turn out not to back up what they're claiming?
If the article was edited to only contain facts based on verifiable, neutral, third-party reliable sources, all you'd have left is a stub. The refs as they are now are utter crap, and when the refs are crap, so is the article. That's why the tags are there—readers should be warned that much of what's there is dubious, at best. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Olbermann

Keith Olbermann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is being reverted after my corrections regarding the chracterization of the relationship between two peer talk-show hosts/commentators by Blaxthos (talk · contribs) (Ends up agreeing feud is the wrong term), Daeldus969 (talk · contribs), and Dayewalker (talk · contribs). The two parties are Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly. I have argued that it is unverifiable that the two parties are "feuding", and gives the an inaccurate impression as such.

On the talk page I cite the definition given by wikipedia for Feud: "A feud (referred to in more extreme cases as a blood feud or vendetta) is a long-running argument or fight between parties--often, through guilt by association, groups of people, especially families or clans"." In this situation only one party is criticizing the other. THus if one sided it is clearly not a feud.

I argued that since O'Reilly has never verifiably, see Verifiabily, criticized Olbermannl; much less verifiably been involved in a "long-running argument or fight" with Olbermann. Blaxthos states that: one time a caller called in and mentioned Olbermann and O'Reilly acknowledged Olbermann's existence. He says this alone is proof that O'Reilly is feuding with Olbermann. Clearly this would not be a feud by any definition if this is the only time he has said Olbermann's name, which as far as I have ever seen or been able to verify, it is. Another editor Badmintonhist (talk · contribs) and an anonymous poster, have also said that the characterization as the two being "rivals" is also inaccurate for the same reason.

I proposed that "criticism of O'Reilly" be used in place of "feud with O'Reilly". This is much more accurate a description and section header, as Olbermann, as is written, critcizes O'Reilly nearly every episode of his show. O'Reilly on the other hand has never Criticized Olbermann. The lack of feud and rivalry is supported by the complete lack Olbermann in O'Reilly's wiki page, see Bill O'Reilly. Describing O'Reilly as feuding with Olbermann is in contradiction for the Wikipedia requirement for "Biographies of living Persons": "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

Below is the my main posts in rationale for why feud is a completely unverifiable and a gross mischaracterization of the relationship between these two parties. Dayewalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log)provides the only defense is that O'Reilly once acknowledged Olbermann's existence when a caller on O'Reilly's show mentioned Olbermann.

  • (This is latest post. It has not been responded too yet, but is the most thorough explanation of the problem. The rest are in chronological order)
"Rival" and "Feud" are misleading and unfair characterizations of the Relationship between Olbermann and O'Reilly. To understand the inaccuracy of "rival" you must first understand the ongoing inaccuracy of "feud". For a feud to exist both parties must be criticizing each other, and this is not present. At the very least both sides should have something to say about each other. O'Reilly has never brought up Olbermann other than responding to a caller, as was mentioned. If this is a feud, then Olbermann is also Feuding with the Bush administration, not just criticisng them. Why is it a feud when Olbermann criticizes O'Reilly, but criticism when he is critical of Bush? Neither Bush nor O'Reilly criticize or mention Olbermann. I can see this intentional choice of words as having only one effect: mischaracterizing how O'Reilly has behaved towards Olbermann. To the same extent rivalry implies that there is a relationship, usually in competition, between the two parties. I could let this one go though, as they are both commentators on cable news channels. In this way even if O'Reilly does not acknowledge Olbermann, he is indirectly competing with him in regards to ratings. But a better word for the two would be "peers" not "rivals". Since they is no feud between them, peer is a far more appropriate word. It is unfair to readers to imply that O'Reilly is involved in criticisng or commenting on Olbermann. To say that a call in guest mentioning Olbermann's name on O'Reilly's show is proof of feuding is unfair. If I received a call and someone else mentioned a person I worked with in a critical way, and that person was critical of me that the caller was talking about; it would not be a feud until I started being critical of my fellow employee. And a feud is be definition on-going or continous, a caller mentioning his name one time, would not qualify. It is no different with O'Reilly. I am beginning to suspect your objectivity in your choice of words. Likewise with the person calling me about my fellow employee; I would not be that employees rival simply because he was critical of me. IF we were both aiming at singular goal say a promotion, that owuld make us a rival. SO if you wish to keep your wording "rival" in regards to ratings or awards that may be excusable. But again Feud is an unverifiable characterization of the nearly non-existent relationship between the two parties. Please if you will not allow the change of word from feud to criticism, please provide citation of O'Reilly involving himself in the feud. I see you have posted numerous citations after your choice of words, but non of which show any evidence that O'Reilly has feuded with Olbermann. Why in the the aim of truth, and verifiability, would you not select the appropriate descriptor of the relationship between the two? I would believe that you are trying to improve the image of OLbermann artificially by characterizing O'Reilly unfairly as having the same hyper-critical commentary or Olbermann.

02:59, 25 June 2009 (CST)

  • (Here I provide definition)—Preceding
The term feud is defined by Wikipedia as, "A feud (referred to in more extreme cases as a blood feud or vendetta) is a long-running argument or fight between parties--often, through guilt by association, groups of people, especially families or clans". The "feud" between O'Reilly and Olbermann does not fit this definition; as O'Reilly has never even acknowledged Olbermann, much less feuded with him. This is a gross mischaracterization of the constant criticism and character attacks that are put forth solely by Olbermann.

—Preceding (Anonymous) 21:11, 18 May 2009 (CST)


  • (Here is the only defense given to my argument and it is insufficient at best. A caller mentioning Olbermann one time doesn't meet the meaning of a feud at all. O'Reilly must be continually fighting or agruing with Olbermann, not a responding to a caller one time)
O'Reilly has acknowledged Olbermann before, as evidenced by the instance of threatening a caller who mentioned Olbermann's name. "Feud" is correct.

—Preceding Dayewalker


  • (Here Blaxthos agrees with me and thinks feud is wrong. But he also suggests I am a O'Reilly proponent; I am very much not. That is why I get frustrated in the next post. I am so frustrated by that that I didn't notice htat Blaxthos agreed with me. He says I try to, "portray O'Reilly as some sort of victim", which as you have read, I do not.)
Beat me to it. Beyond that, O'Reilly decries the evils of NBC, GE, and MSNBC nightly. While I don't necessarily thing feud is the right characterization, it's absurd for you to try and portray O'Reilly as some sort of victim.

—Preceding //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC

  • (here I explain how the one caller mentioning Olbermann isn't a feud. Also I mention the libelous effect this wording has in describing O'Reilly's behaviour towards Olbermann. I ask for proof that O'Reilly feuds with Olbermann; this is never provided because it doesn't exist.)
So one instance of mentioning the other person in response to unforeseeable call, and the other person attacking you nightly, means that both parties are feuding? This is untrue, both parties must be involved in an "argument" or "fight" by Wikipedia's own definition; the only fighting or argumenting comes from olbermann but never from O'Reilly. If you are suggesting that a audience caller mentioning Olbermann, and O'Reilly responding to that caller is an an example of him "feuding" with Olberman, then you are grasping at straws. Can you name one instance where O'Reilly has criticized Olbermann, other then his response to a caller? You cannot because he does not do this. And if you can, you will only be able to find one or two such scenarios, which cannot compare to the nightly criticism put forth on Countdown. Olbermann's criticism of O'Reilly borders on obsession, as he does it nearly every evening. So your rational is: O'Reilly mentioning Olbermann one time in response to a caller means he is feuding with Olbermann; when Olbermann attacks, insults, mocks, and makes caricatures of O'Reilly in more airings than in not. This in no way is a feud, it is a one sided assault. If you could actually cite a real examples of O'Reilly attacking or criticizing Olbermann, your term "feud" would be more conceivable. But to support this, you would need to some how put forth the false premise that O'Reilly attacks Olbermann consistently; because it is very easy to show that Olbermann does this to O'Reilly nearly every night. He consistently labels O'Reilly "today's worst person in the world". Perhaps you don't watch both shows as I do, but I have never seen O'Reilly EVER attack, nay mention Olbermann. And I watch both shows most days of the week, and always try to watch both, in order to understand both sides of the issue. I am not writing this to be difficult, I am writing this because I care about the TRUTH. And for you to grossly mischaracterize Olbermann's unrelenting criticism of O'Reilly as a feud when I know for certain that O'Reilly does nothing of the sort to Olbermann, It truly takes me aback when I see such apparent bias in an allegedly objective document. Please I beg of whoever has editing privileges for this document, please correct this inaccuracy that is intended not to purport fact, but to unfairly characterize Olberman's actions as mutual. I know if the truth were written Olbermann would seem less noble, but that should not be a problem if it is merely represenative of the truth. If you cannot do this, then please: Provide evidence that O'Reilly criticizes Olbermann on a regular basis. But you cannot do this since it is untrue. Do what is right please, try to look past your own biases and respect the tenant that Wikipedia holds most dear: Truth.

—Preceding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.210.4 (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

  • (Here Blaxthos, who already agrees with me, informs me that Wikipedia does not hold the truth most dear. I thought Wikipedia did hold the truth dear. He shows that verifiability is more important than the truth. I argue later that they truth is more important, but it mus the verifiable. Lies and falsities can be validated easier than the truth, just takes one bad source.)—Preceding
We do not hold truth dear here, what we hold dear is Verifiability.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Beat me to it. Beyond that, O'Reilly decries the evils of NBC, GE, and MSNBC nightly. While I don't necessarily thing feud is the right characterization, it's absurd for you to try and portray O'Reilly as some sort of victim.

—Preceding //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


  • (Here I get mad that I am accused of supporting O'Reilly and mention my "hate" for him. I didn't know that defending myself with the words lies and hate was bad, I'm sorry about that. I only used them because Blaxthos said I am portraying O'Reilly as a victim. later Blaxthos uses this against me and says that since I used an emotional word like hate my argument is inappropriate. Though this attack against my diction in no way validates the use of "feud". )
Are you so blinded by your bias that you somehow think I'm a fan of O'Reilly? He just as big a ****** as Olbermann. But this is beside the point. I just took issue with the misrepresentation of REALITY. O'Reilly is an arrogant man for sure, but he never talks about Olbermann (And yes, he probably does this to spite him since he has 3 times Olbermann's ratings). But lets not pretend that because I take issue with lies, that I am some how a proponent for the O'Reilly Factor. So if we could please correct the article to correctly characterize Olbermanns one-sided critcism as what it is, and not call it a "feud", I would be very satisfied. I hate O'Reilly for his stance on social freedoms, and I hate the the term "Culture Warior". But I equally hate Olbermann for blaming the wealthy successful members of society for all the plights of the irresponsible ones. You can probably tell wher e I'm coming from now. It is the nature of people who allign themselves with my beliefs too seek the truth when they see it, as we believe our beliefs to be the logical result of the constitution. But enough about me, can we please correctly describe Olbermann. I would focus on O'Reilly's page, but it seems that it is already very critical of him. So for the sake of accuracy, fairness, and objectivism, please make the changes I request. (Whoever has the power to do so). And by the way, Verifiability and Truth should go hand in hand. And the "feud" is unverifiable because it is false, and no one has ever documented it. [No time to roof read]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.210.4 (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

  • (Here Blaxthos decries my use of 'hate' and 'lies' in my defense of his unfair characterization of me)
Calling the article "lies" and coming to a talk page to profess your "hate" for the subject is inappropriate. I don't think you have a very clear grasp of Wikipedia rules and expectations of articles.

—Preceding //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhedonic (talk • contribs)

It appears there are verifiable references to such a feud which I've added. Not sure what else can be done. Soxwon (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As O'Reilly and Olbermann have shows that air across from each other in primetime, rival would be a fair term. However, if your point is that they are simple competitors and nothing more, I think that that would be denying reality. Just because O'reilly doesn't utter the name "Olbermann" doesn't mean that the feud is one way. He rarely ever calls Franken by name too, but is there any doubt there is an ongoing feud between the two men. Similarly, every expose O'reilly does about "elements at NBC", "NBC news", "MSNBC", "GE", "Immelt" etc., is nothing more than a thinly veiled response or salvo to something Olbermann said or did. Heck O'reilly tried to petition MSNBC to have Donahue replace Olbermann a few years ago. Also the existence of the feud is well documented in MSM, most notably TIME, Washington Post, etc., as well as Variety, Huffpo, Newsmax, and this very Wiki. Finally, if you have issues with Blaxthos, I suggest you file an RfC on user conduct. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Well allowing feud, even if concorrect, with so many sources I suppose follows the policy of verifiability over relaity that wikipedia favors. Working within these confines, using an article already cited in the "Feud" with O'Reilly section, I added on line of information from that article: The same article cited that claims a feud in the New York Times specifically mentions that O'Reilly has never mentioned Olbermann's name on the air. Yet this information keeps getting deleted. If I can't even work within the confines of already cited articles that are already accepted verfiable, then this is selective preference for a certain opinion. Why is one bit of information that reveals the actual nature of the feud not allowed, yet selectively choosings bits of information from the article that mislead people allowed?[1] (throw me a line) 01:55, 29 June 2009 (CST)
Given that multiple people have removed that bit, perhaps you should pay attention to the edit summaries, notably this one diff. If the article in question is two years old and qualifies its statement with "apparently" (I haven't checked, but that's what the edit summary says) then it's a bit problematic. Disembrangler (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Added 3 additional sources, as recent as 2008, that give the exact information. Many other articles cited in the the list of over 75, are far older than the one you mention. But now with 4 total cited articles, it is sufficiently cited. [1] [2] [3] [4] Anhedonic (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Horwood

Note: this is being relocated here from WP:EAR, as it's obviously a BLP issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin Horwood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My name is Martin Horwood and I'm contacting you (and please forgive the lack of Wikipedia jargon) because the page about me as a serving politician has a few problems. The text was originally lifted from my own website and (probably quite justifiably) attracted criticism for being too sympathetic. But subsequent edits were clearly hostile and included putting a negative spin on every election result and quite gratuitously inserting the name of my new Conservative opponent (but no-one else) into a section on local campaigns. These edits were removed and became the subject of a BBC article but this in turn attracted further editing and a discussion page article which accuses me of criticising Wikipedia (I never have), wanting to make the page a hagiography (I don't) and editing the page in my favour (I didn't). The main article still describes my 2005 majority as the lowest since 1992 (true but it was also bigger than my predecessor's initial majority. This is just the most negative spin on it). And all references to successful local campaigns on the NHS, police and local railway station have been removed.

Could somebody really impartial take a look at the discussion page in particular and see if anything should be done and perhaps use neutral sites like www.theyworkforyou.com or www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk to put back at least some minimal referenced content on the issues I've taken up as an MP. I don't want people to read hagiography at all but I think it's reasonable not to want people to read a whole string of unfounded accusations either.

Thanks and keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.10 (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fully on top of the issues here, but let me at least point out that the bottom section on the talk page, Criticisms of ..., if nothing else contains a quotation from the BBC that is so extensive as to constitute a copyvio. This in itself might be grounds for removing the section. Looie496 (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Possible vandalism or libelous edits detected by the abuse filter

For your information, the abuse filter can detect certain edits that may contain vandalism or libel, and then tag them in recent changes. You can check the tagged recent changes for "possible libel or vandalism" here. They are tagged by abuse filters 39 and 189, you can also check their logs directly. If you're interested, there are other tags at Special:Tags. Suggestions for improvement of filters can go here, for new filters here. Cenarium (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Krugman

Resolved. Section has been stable for a few days--Scribner (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul Krugman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Clear violation of BLP...POV smear by conservatives claiming Paul Krugman encouraged the housing boom as a matter of policy. The top quote in the second paragraph is the issue and should be removed. Krugman denied this claim being made on his BLP article here, but the edit is being defended on Wiki by -- Vision-- claiming it to be self-serving WP:SELFPUB because the Krugman's response was made on his NYT blog. Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist, doesn't reflect well on Wiki. I suggest removal of this paragraph.

"In August 2002, he wrote that, "To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."[3] Krugman also argued that, "If we do have a housing bubble, and it bursts, we'll be looking a lot too Japanese for comfort" (referring to the Japanese 'lost decade' of slow growth in the 1990s).[4]" Scribner (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I interpret that paragraph as him saying that Greenspan's policies are such that they will always require successive bubbles, until finally the whole thing collapses. DGG (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This quote is viral on the web right now on conservative financial sites attempting to smear Krugman (the top quote). Scribner (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears this has been resolved. Thanks. Scribner (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mamalujo and Catholic League (U.S.)#Activities

User:Mamalujo and Catholic League (U.S.)#Activities

Apparently, finally, deleted from Bill Donohue's BLP was a laundry list of things Donohue objects to. User:Mamalujo has now inserted it at Catholic League (U.S.)#Activities. This user often makes valid points but does seem to be on a bit of a pro-Catholicism, pro_Donohue WP:Soapbox through thins articles history. I've tagged the section as POV as each subsection besides the first, Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust - which they deleted at the same time, seems to tell us why each of these people is wrong in some way with little to nil balancing information. For example, the Bill Maher section. Yes, Maher certainly says things that could be seen as objectionable - likely by someone with impaired sense of humor. Maher is a political comedienne and as such always says provocative things about ... everything. In this case, IMHO, a NPOV way to sort out Maher is to state the League maintains a list of those they feel agrieved by with ___, ___ and ____ topping the list for the last three years. Or similar. This otherwise degrades the article and serves as a POV wp:Coatrack soapbox, which violates POV. I am one of the main contributors on this article so would appreciate other eyes and opinions on this. -- Banjeboi 01:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. User notified of thread.[3] -- Banjeboi 01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
those sections could be condensed to great advantage, and perhaps some attention to it by other editors will do the trick. DGG (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Contrary to Benjiboi's assertions, there is plenty of conterbalancing material in the article. For example,take a look at the following sections: Joan Osborne, Dogma, The Golden Compass, Passion of the Christ and John Edwards campaign staffers. There is much included in the way of statements of refutation by those singled out by the CL and, indeed, even much which could arguably be said to put CL and Donohue in bad light. It is simply not true that the info I included is only pro-CL or pro-Catholic. I am simply including some of the more notable activities of the organization. I'm a little confused as to why a link to my user page is necessary. It seems almost to be an appeal to an ad hominem argument. Mamalujo (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • When discussing a specific user on an admin board it is good form to ensure they know they are being discussed. I'll let others offer opinions on the rest. -- Banjeboi 01:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Guinta

I have a sinking suspicion that the article about this minor political figure is being edited by his campaign. Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I took off some of the more puffy stuff. I am a Republican BTW. Anyway, the mayor of a city and a candidate for Congress is not so minor. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
After taking part in the discussion I have more sympathy for Hipocrite's position. If that is his campaign staff editing the article they are really clueless about what makes for effective publicity. A neutral article would be much more effective in promoting Mr. Guinta's run for Congress than one that goes overboard to the point of silliness to say nothing bad about him and puff up everything good. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Now a lot of progress has been made towards making this a good and fair article. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Lancaster

Two new users (both accounts created today) have been edit warring on this article about a British politician; it looks like both have political motivations for editing the article. The article was biased with an excessive amount of negative statements, some of which violated BLP policy as there were insufficient sources, or the sources didn't mention the subject of the article. Fatzulu has been removing anything negative, even where it is properly sourced, and Roughjustice123 has been restoring it, including the BLP violations. I've made a few edits, to remove BLP violations and incorrect information, and suggested to use the talk page, but the edit war is continuing. Protection (or at least semi-protection) may be needed; I'm mentioning it here because if the article is protected, it needs to be a version that conforms to BLP policy. snigbrook (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Herman Li

Hi. Can I have a few sets of eyes on this article, please? A friend told me that the article gets vandalised a lot, so I told her that I'd put it on my watchlist, but this happened while I was AFK, so I would appreciate some extra eyes. Thanks :) Sceptre (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Goldblum Death Hoax

Need the opinion of outsiders about whether or not the news surrounding the false rumors of Jeff Goldblum's death should be mentioned. The argument on the discussion page is that "there is no need to give that much power to someone with a twisted ideology." It's also said that there aren't reliable sources, despite citations from 3 News in New Zealand (maybe not a source from the United States or Australia, but a source nonetheless) and the New York Daily News. As a former journalist myself, I see nothing wrong with the use of this material. If we didn't report things because we don't want "to give that much power to someone with a twisted ideology," then there would be almost nothing to cover on the news. Your thoughts? SigKauffman (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If we covered every rumor/story/hoax about every famous person that was said to have died, wikipedia would become a useless piece of trash. In 99% of the cases, coverage of such stories does not need to be mentioned. The only time that it would become meaningful is if after receiving widespread acceptance (ala Michael Jackson) that the rumor was proven false. But no, this does not deserve coverage. (Especially, when the latest news reports are on how this story is simply recurring with different actors names---Tom Hanks in 06, Tom Cruise in 08, and the same story for Jeff in 09.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess it depends. If "material/rumor/whatever" has recieved extensive coverage by the main stream media then maybe include it. Otherwise, no, leave coverage of gossip rumor to TMZ ect. --Tom (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Howard Kaloogian

This article contains claims that are sourced solely by anonymous blog posts from places such as DemocraticUnderground.com. Definetly not a reliable source. 209.105.130.50 (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Iain Hook - BLP for surviving members of the family

Hi - There's been a low-grade edit war at the article. User:Kasaalan insists on inserting the names of Mr. Hook's surviving family members. While the information is reliably sourced, I think surviving family members of the tragedy are essentially private persons and should not be mentioned under our policy. Kasaalan obviously disagrees. Third opinions are welcome. RayTalk 20:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2534225.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/4534620.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/07/israel.foreignpolicy1
Multiple reliable sources mentioned names, while they make public statements and memorials, so what kind of privacy issue may exist I can't tell. Kasaalan (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
As Kasaalan is undoubtedly aware, news media may have different standards regarding privacy of individuals than an encyclopedia. It may be common for reporters to intrude on the privacy of individuals in the hopes of getting a juicy quote from a distraught person. I like to think we're above this. RayTalk 19:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
News media has different standards, but The Guardian and BBC has different and higher standards than other media, you may also know. Also there is no intrusion exists since the family make public announcements to media themselves. Kasaalan (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think our BLP policy is pretty clear on this: See here. "Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger." No need for it, that I can see, and policy seems to demand removal. IronDuke 20:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The policies are too general. "living individuals who are not directly involved" Hook's family is directly involved to the case not "loosely".
We have a different case than just "personal privacy", usually I would skip his children names, and only may put her wife's name since she make the announcements generally. But after a deeper search the case is different, whether to include names or not.
Apparently the case is intertwined since Iain Hook's 2 children are military officers, that is why Britain made some interesting talk over "British security" or such.
Whether to include names or not, the children are related to the case. We should look for a better review on the case. Where can we ask for such a policy debate. Kasaalan (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess my attitude is that family members should not appear in the infobox unless they also appear in the article text. If his widow is quoted in the text, for example, then it would make sense for her to appear in the infobox. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Blair / war crimes.

Hi, There has been a debate at Talk:Tony_Blair#Regarding_the_war_crimes_accusation over the value of keeping the exact details of a speech in the article or to remove it as contentious and that the details of the speech add nothing of value to the article. Would an uninvolved admin evaluate the debate and make a decision on the result. Thank you.(Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

The above editor Off2riorob has again deleted the quote being discussed. This is the forth time. Three without any discussion. It took several attempts (on my talk page) to persuade him to take it to the subjects talk page in the first place. He has also arbitrarily removed, without discussion, a whole host of 'negative' yet fully cited info on the subject. I tried to revert two of them (there were several dozen at least) but he reverted my reverts. He then followed me to another article and did the same, arbitrary removal, trick. We were supposed to be waiting for an admin regarding this one, but he seems to just do what he likes. I'm sick of this edit bully. He can keep wiki, but I thought I’d make my complaint clear. Having never needed to complain about a fellow editor before I'm not sure if this is the right place but hope an admin can at least take a look. 2writer (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Not taking a position either way, but I see that the talk page section dealing with this "issue" was closed/collapsed/hatted/whateveryoucallit. Was that the right thing to do? I was going to give my 2 cents but couldn't? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It's absolutely not the proper thing to do, and neither was marking this thread Resolved - both done by the main antagonist of 2writer. I've left Off2riorob a message. Disembrangler (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
That was Off2riorob doing. The continual blanket edits by Off2riorob are disruptive in my view, not least because he steamrollers on regardless. Even trying to get the guy to the talk page in the first place is a huge battle. He's a disruptive bully. See WP:DIS. In any case, he can force his edits on others from now on, I'll find something else to do outside Wikipedia. I don't need the grief. And next time someone else in the pub mentions the nonsense of Wikipedia, I'll nod, along with everyone else. 2writer (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

END OF INFO TAKEN FROM BLP Noticeboard (just to avoid confusion).

Perhaps you shouldn't give up so easily. There are dispute resolution procedures, and there is no deadline - patience in these situations is often called for. On the substance. I can also see why you thought the quote was important - it's amazing to me how little mention of Iraq there is in Tony Blair. However, with better coverage, I don't think the quote would make the cut. (Also, the structure of Tony Blair is terrible! Please, somebody fix it.) Disembrangler (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe an admin would have decided it wasn't appropriate. I was the one who suggested arbitration of some kind and hoped the dispute could have been resolved that way, but this guy just steamrollers ahead regardless. He's made a complete mess of the article in my view. 2writer (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to an old version of the page that was substantially better? Disembrangler (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I have the technical know how to do that, sorry. The day before the specific editor stumbled in perhaps. Though another editor has recently done some detailed copy edit work on the article, which would have to be balanced agained the 'remove all neg info' and general butchering. I'm not in anyway suggesting the article was formally perfect but still. 2writer (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Click on the History button and find an old revision that has some content you think we should discuss putting back, and paste the link here. Disembrangler (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your help but I don't intend to get involved in editing again. Still I'll point out a few instances to give examples. If you look at the lead prior to Off2riorob involvement here you will see there is a reference to the Iraq war. Off2riorob actually questioned whether the Iraq war was a defining part of the subjects premiership and removed all references to the Iraq war / war on terror from the lead. Akin to removing any reference to Australia from the lead in Captain Cook's article.
There are also references in that version regarding a comparions to Thatcher: Blair himself has often expressed admiration for Thatcher.[5]
Approval ratings: In May 2006, The Daily Telegraph reported that Blair's personal approval rating had dipped to 26%, lower than Harold Wilson's rating after devaluation of the pound and James Callaghan's during the Winter of Discontent, meaning that Blair had become the most unpopular post-war Labour Prime Minister. Of all post-war British Prime Ministers of both parties, only Margaret Thatcher and John Major have recorded lower approval (the former in the aftermath of the Poll Tax Riots).[6] Previously Blair had achieved the highest approval ratings of any British Prime Minister or party leader of either party in the months following his election in 1997.[7] and so on.
Those are just a few examples, there are many. Incidently all such edits were done without any discussion. Any reverts were changed back by the editor in question. Indeed it may be reasonable that some cites are removed, but he doesn't seem to understand that his way isn't the only way and getting him to discuss just one of his edits was a monumental battle. I intend to post info on the Admin Board about the editors behaviour generally, beyond that I don't need the grief. Nevertheless, thank you for the help. 2writer (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
And in the spirit of there being no deadline, closing a content discussion on the page within ten hours of opening a thread here is ridiculous. I agree that the structure is terrible and have said so there in my comment on this matter. I wasn't expecting User:Off2riorob to close that off.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Erricos C. Pavlis

Erricos C. Pavlis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Hi all -- I have speedy-deleted this article once as an attack page, as did another admin, and the creator has brought it back from the dead twice. Could someone else please look at this? I left a welcome and what I think is a polite note on the creator's talk page. While the article has "sources" it appears that they are neither reliable nor do they support the claims in the article, which are original research and border on the libelous. However -- is this person notable enough to have a genuine stub? I'm going to speedy delete it again -- in my opinion, the content is unacceptable even to have in the history -- but please check should the link turn blue again. Just a hunch, but this one is persistent enough to return. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe request that the page name and variants be salted? – ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Darko Trifunović

Darko Trifunović (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), a BLP, is yet again being vandalised and disrupted by anonymous IPs who are almost certainly sockpuppets of the article's subject himself. I have raised the issue at WP:AN/I#Darko Trifunović - editors with an interest in managing contentious BLPs may have a view on how to deal with this ongoing problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Warsaw 1920

Witold J. Ławrynowicz June 26, 2009

To Whom It May Concern:

I recently found the following page on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920)

This page essentially accuses me of plagiarizing material from the Electronic Museum website for the “Battle of Warsaw (1920)” article I wrote for the Polish Militaria Collectors Association publication. Since I was not informed about these proceedings against my work, I was denied the possibility of addressing the charges. I will do so at this time.

[redacted for brevity - quotations from Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920)]

I fully expect Wikipedia to immediately withdraw its false and unfounded judgments and publish letter of apology to myself.

Sincerely,

Witold J. Ławrynowicz

(66.67.97.10 (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

I don't see that anyone accused you of plagiarism; the objections of Novickas and Yellow Monkey, it seems clear, were to our closely paraphrasing the content for which you are responsible (that is, to our nearly plagiarizing you). Unless I've missed something, no other reading is reasonable. With respect to our evaluating the source with which you are affiliated, there is no issue of defamation; as you surely know, a scholar can expect that his/her work will be discussed, with conclusions drawn about its quality, usefulness, and general acceptance (and here those conclusions were perfectly gentle, resting only on our idiosyncratic reliable source guidelines, to which we are entitled, and not making any averments about your work more generally). Although I do not imagine that there will be objection to our blanking the discussion in order that it should be hidden from view, I must say, with respect, that I do not think anyone will be inclined to go further. 68.76.156.73 (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Novickas has, it should be noted here, now replied to a message from Mr. Ławrynowicz, identical to that posted here; he confirms the above reading of the plagiarism discussion. Because your misunderstanding has caused you distress, though, I have blanked as a courtesy the discussion (see here). Are your concerns adequately addressed? 68.76.156.73 (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be a simple misunderstanding. The plagiarism discussed at the Featured Article Review was the (then) Wikipedia article's plagiarism of Lawrynowicz. The discussion of source quality (Lawrynowicz as a source) may be underinformed but is simply Fair Comment. Disembrangler (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if pages such as the one being discussed here should be courtesy blanked. I've added a {{NOINDEX}} to it which should prevent it appearing in search engines. snigbrook (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira

The user above has exceeded WP:3RR while inserting unsourced and poorly sourced (no WP:RS) contentious material to this BLP, specifically in the spirituality section. The user has also removed the BLP refimprove tag despite large sections of the article being unsourced. Their only response has been to editwar against the BLP removals and tagging, and to add some websites as sources for some of the claims (which still don't support the conclusions being drawn). Verbal chat 18:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Non-neutral article on Philippine activist Liza Maza

Liza Maza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The language in this article is non-neutral. It is clearly glorifying the person in subject. The main body of the article has no sources and uses non-neutral adjectives such as "endearing" and "best" that glorify the living person the article is based on.

Here is the second line of the article for introductory purposes:

"Hardworking, persistent, creative and principled best describe the woman activist, parliamentarian and internationalist that is Liza Largoza-Maza."

Can anyone with knowledge of this person write it in a non-neutral manner, or perhaps edit it? If not, warn the user who submitted said article area?

Xbangerangx (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Language like that is a red flag that it's copy-pasted from somewhere where such language would be appropriate. Yep: [4]. I've cut that out as a WP:COPYVIO. Disembrangler (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Farah Damji

Farah Damji is a nightmare of POV, non-neutrality, and undue weight. Any work on it would be nice. Keegan (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This veers very close to WP:BLP1E, I think, as she is not notable for anything other than her crime. Does anyone agree? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. – ukexpat (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggested the article be deleted on its talk page. I would expect the AfD discussion to be contentious. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ross McKitrick

I am regrettably blocked by an administrator who has stepped in to defend Kim Dabelstein Petersen in restoring embarrassing, potentially damaging, and irrelevant instance of a mistake in a McKitrick & Michaels paper. A number of issues have been raised, admin states that arguments demonstrating no WP:WEIGHT are insufficient grounds to remove the text. I say, of course they are... A second issue is that Petersen has included discussion of the "mistake" without any discussion of the paper in which the mistake was made... A third issue is that it is misleadingly placed & presented to make it appear related to the hockey stick controversy with Michael Mann, when in fact it is not. A fourth issue is a link to an external blog (titled "McKitrick screws up yet again") that presents a most distorted, negative characterisation of the issue and its significance and probably fails WP:RS. A fifth issue is that the mistake affected the overall result only marginally and has thus had little impact and has led to no controversy in the peer-reviewed literature. A fifth issue is, although I am not a solicitor, I believe McKitrick could sue WP for damages to reputation and career, given the unbalanced, heavily biased presentation of the story without his permission.

I have withdrawn from this discussion as I am now very angry. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You aren't blocked according to your block log. I think your basic point is correct but you're going about this all wrong -- I have commented on the article's talk page. Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] David Chalmers

Resolved. Article tagged as needing additional citations for verification. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

David Chalmers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article is very poorly sourced. There is only one footnote. According to the policy this article should be deleted.Dmjanssen (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What policy would that be? --Tom (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the article isn't going to be deleted, but it wouldn't do any harm for the biographical facts to be better sourced. (There are no BLP violations here as far as I can see.) Looie496 (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have tagged the article as needing additional citations for verification as the only citations are to a review of one of his books and a link to an article that he co-wrote. If the subject does not meet the primary notability crition, i.e. as having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", then anyone can nominate it for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Chalmers is extremely notable, I assure you. He is, if not the top living authority on the philosophy of consciousness, one of the top two or three. The tagging is appropriate, but an AfD would just be wasteful drama. Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Baruch Marzel

This is a minor issue. Is it acceptable to call this Israeli politician "far-right" like this, if there are several newspaper articles that call him that, or is it necessary to qualify the description like this?Prezbo (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to call him far-right. However that doesn't really give us all that much information. BTW Fidel Castro's article doesn't say that he is far-left. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Leventhal and Aamir Ali

In the process of tracking down sundry vandalism, I came across the article for Fox News reporter Rick Leventhal, which is reasonably detailed but lacks in-line cites. Among other things, this article includes the statement that "his maternal grandfather and his mother's all brothers were Muslims" and that he is the "cousin brother" of Indian film actor Aamir Ali. The article about Ali likewise contains statements that Ali was "raised in Silver Spring, Maryland in United States of America, Aamir's paternal grandfather is American Muslim and Aamir's paternal grandmother is American Jew, His father's all sisters were American Jews" and a couple of sentences about his "cousin brother" Leventhal. This would all be quite interesting, the only problem being that I haven't found any outside verification for any of it, and neither article is clearly sourced. (It does appear that both Leventhal and Ali may have attended American University.) This material seems to have passed scrutiny from multiple editors, and I am no expert about either Fox News or Indian film actors, so I am bringing it up here for someone who might be better able to access sources (if any) and take appropriate action.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to "clean up" both articles but mainly the Leventhal one. If material is unsourced, feel free to tag it with the {{fact}} tag. --Tom (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Content dispute at Mimi Macpherson

A single-purpose editor, Dvj2009 (talk · contribs), has persistently removed one sentence in the article on Mimi Macpherson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) which mentions her sex tape. This episode was part of the original article as created by 1dragon (talk · contribs) on 20 October 2005. The sentence is a) true, b) well referenced. I have discussed the matter with the editor on the article's talk page, and subsequently rephrased and shortened the episode as well as provided further references.

Dvj2009's main argument seems to be that mentioning the tape amounts to defamation. I maintain that mentioning it falls well within the guideline for biographies on living persons. Other editors who previously also restored this section include Longhair (talk · contribs) (here and here), Smashville (talk · contribs) (here), and most recently Eightofnine (talk · contribs) (here).

I seek input and advice from other editors to resolve this issue; in my opinion, the article should be restored to this version. I have notified Dvj2009 about this request on her/his talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The article as it stands is humiliating enough to its subject. Why go further, regardless of reliable sources? "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Only a very selective reading of the article could conclude that it is "humiliating"; I count five positive (not all sourced) and three negative items. As to "include only material relevant to their notability": indeed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I doubt her life is five parts "positive" events and three parts "negative" events. The fact that 10 years or so before the events that made her genuinely notable, her ex-boyfriend (or somebody) made an Internet splash by passing a sex tape around to capitalize on her sister's notability really isn't a significant event, and doesn't relate to her genuine notability, which isn't inherited. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
From memory, a large part of her notability back in the 90s was her sex tape (and being Elle's sister). WP:UNDUE weight applies. If major reliable sources report on this, it should be included. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Concur. Given the 4-5 cites, neither sourcing nor WP:DUE seems to be a problem. decltype (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Lazard

I've just stubbed this article, which has been a magnet for unremoved vandalism and BLP violations for months. I couldn't find a "clean version to restore; perhaps someone else can pick one out. Certainly some of the article can be rebuilt, and I may get to it, but given the level of recent vandalism extra sets of eyes would be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That was truly awful, good find. I have restored an acceptable version and watchlisted it. decltype (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Farah Damji (2)

Farah Damji (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

We've received a number of OTRS tickets from various individuals, all somehow related to the subject, about this article, all contesting different things. The ultimate factor is that this article could do with some more eyes to ensure that any material currently in the article is supported by consensus and complies with the biographies of living persons policy, and any future material added is of a similar validity.

If anyone could go through this article with a fine-tooth comb, and/or add it to their watchlist to provide future support for it, it'd be much appreciated. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Amber Frey

Amber Frey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — I'm concerned about the "Personal life" section at the bottom of this article. Some of it is unsourced or sourced to unreliable websites. None of it is really relevant to the article. At least the unsourced parts should be removed, but I'd urge you to consider removing the whole section. Thanks. 66.31.202.0 (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've trimmed some of that down. What's left seems sourced and/or uncontroversial, but I'd like an experienced set of eyes to take another look. Henrymrx (t·c) 02:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, the article is really sick. Just the kind of thing that makes WP look bad. A person incidentally involved in a crime probably doesn't need an article. I would vote to delete if it was nominated. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I've done a bit more. In general if trial transcripts are to be used, they should be in the criminal's article, not a witness's. The whole article is vulnerable to WP:BLP1E.Martinlc (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
After reading the article, duh that does sometimes help, I'd like to retract my comments. I see that she has written a book about her experiences and has been the subject of a couple of movies. She is important enough for an article and the article is not an attack or scandal page as was my first impression. I would vote keep. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pauley Perrette's wedding

User:Neutralhomer is repeatedly reverting edits to reinsert references to a self-published blog which contradict/describe as inadequate the coverage in sources that are generally considered reliable. The statements attributed to the article subject are controversial/contentious, and have no other apparent source. Under WP:BLP, these statements are to be removed, but User:Neutralhomer is edit warring to reinsert them. I cannot see any good faith issue here -- statements sourced from a blog report of the wedding, not found in any of the reliable-source coverage of the event, need to be removed from the article. (There is also a subordinate dispute as to whether uncorroborated claims Pauley made when shutting down her blog are to be repeated as factual or as statements she made.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is removing a reference from Entertainment Tonight, a show that has been around for 20+ years. That is not a self-published blog. He has made no efforts to rewrite the page and when I commented on his talk page, it was removed as a "personal attack", which is clearly wasn't. If he keeps it up, I will request the page, one he hasn't edited on ever be page protected to stop his "editing". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Read the article. The contentious text in question is cited to a buzznet blog -- http://www.clintcatalyst.com/blog/pauleyperrette . The quoted language from that blog, which makes claims about ETs coverage being inaccurate by omission, includes a link to the ET coverage, but the article itself does not otherwise refer to it. It is becoming very difficult, given your continued disputing this point, to continue to see your editing on this point as being erroneous but in good faith. And your comment on my talk page, alleging bad faith on my part, was certainly a groundless personasl attack. It seems to be a fashion here lately to accuse editors disputing buzznet nonsense of bad faith, but it's not appropriate behavior. And, not that it's relevant, a check of the article history would show I have edited this page before. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Do me a favor and let's keep this all on the Pauley Perrette talk page, shall we? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Why? This is mainly a WP:BLP issue, over inadequate sourcing for a controversial claim. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Because having essentially the same conversation in two different places is one annoying and two silly. Also, there is not "inadequate sourcing", there are sources, just not ones you like. You have not even looked for other sources, have you? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I have. There aren't any. And the burden of proof is explicitly placed by Wikipedia policy on the editor(s) wishing to retain contentious material like this -- which WP:BLP says should be removed "immediately" and "without discussion." And having BLP-related discussions on the BLP noticeboard is hardly silly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It is when we have an essentially exact conversation over on the Pauley Perrette talk page, some of your quotes being exact. It is easier to have all the comments in one set place so you don't have to go search around "Jake's barn" for a comment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Brenda Shaffer

Brenda Shaffer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Two recent edits seem to be a violation, both users banned:

Thanks. Brandt 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eric McDavid

On another board, Eric McDavid's defence attorney is posting about our coverage of him (here). Some more eyes on this might be worthwhile.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy

Actually more of a related discussion, at User_talk:Avathaar#Questions_about_sourcing. Bit of a train wreck there that should probably be on talk:Homeopathy, but it's tied up with a mentoring attempt and a user who's banning status isn't completely clear at the moment. Needs eyes, specifically about the BLP issues regarding a recent court case where the parents of a child were convicted a couple weeks ago. (Needs neutral eyes in general, actually: mine are starting to ache and I think a neutral admin should be monitoring). --SB_Johnny | talk 20:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree, if only there was a neutral admin mentoring Avathaar then this wouldn't have got so disruptive and could have been sorted out easily on the homeopathy talk page. The sources all meet WP:RS and support the statement in the text. The couple have been convicted and are awaiting sentencing. There are no WP:BLP issues with the sources or the text, so far as I can see. It's very late here, I'll contribute more tomorrow. Hopefully someone can give an overview of the problem with JWSchmidt's and sourcing. Verbal chat 22:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Not much to see here. It's a number of editors providing various reliable sources, with on each occasion a reflexive "that's not good enough" from the banned User:Avathaar (aka User:Dr.Jhingaadey) and his advocate. User:Avathaar is restricted to his own talk page anyway. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's see - at a glance, I see one serious BLP violation, in which an editor asserts (without sourcing) that Michael Jackson's doctor was responsible for his death. Beyond that, I see a high-profile court case, covered by multiple reliable sources, to which editors are referring without violations of BLP (though perhaps supplying a diff would be useful, if I'm missing something). As a meta-comment, discussion about improving homeopathy should take place on Talk:Homeopathy, not on user talk pages. MastCell Talk 23:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wendy Diamond

Could someone look at this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Diamond

Here's my comment from the talk page:

In my opinion, NEEDS MAJOR EDITS I have serious problems with this article. Many of the claims are not sourced. It honestly sounds like this article is written by Ms. Diamond herself. I am not a Wikipedia aficionado so I am not going to try to change much. I would like to see some evidence that her books are best sellers or that she raised as much money as she claimed. As a minor television personality and as an owner of what seems to be a financially unstable magazine (see Forbes magazine article), I question whether she deserves such an extensive entry. Furthermore I worry that Ms. Diamond has had an opportunity to inflate and exaggerate her accomplishments through two bios in which she seems to have exerted a major influence—maybe I am being paranoid. But my point is that if these claims are true, more sources are necessary to establish them. The two biography's I'm speaking of are this one and her Huffington Post biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.152.227 (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.152.227 (talk)

Agreed, I have indef blocked User:Animalfair as a spamusername. All of that users edits were to Wendy Diamond or adding links to the Animalfair website to dog related articles. That editor had removed maintenance tags from the article. I have retagged the article for its various areas that need work. It needs cleaning up and some of the claims rationalizing into what can be substantiated and what is puffery and not encyclopedic. Mfield (Oi!) 06:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jelena Đurović

  • Jelena Đurović (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - At first glance this looks OK, but on closer examination the article seems little more than a vanity piece for this person. Problem is though, most of the sources are in a foreign language (possibly Serbian?) so it makes verification somewhat difficult for me. It would be great if someone more familiar with the subject/language could take a look and help me decide if I should stub or AfD this article. // Astronaut (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs