Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive103

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

That article is absolute crap from one end to another. No sources, DOB, badly written and full (and I mean full!) of factual errors. Consider re-doing or removing it completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.224.79 (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Something's wrong here. A Google search shows a complete lack of reliable sources, just a documentary and some other blog-type stuff which are potentially self promoting. He seems to be more of a prankster than a "con artist" as described in the bio. The article as it stands potentially fails notability and definitely has problems with WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Should be deleted. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've put a speedy deletion template on the page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

As the sources name real people and accuse them of illegal activity, and the article itself talks about material being "obtained under false pretenses", I'd like some opinions as to whether this material, sourced from one organisation/person, should be in the article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No. The section is poorly written anyway. The page says there's no author, then the section discusses a copyright dispute. With no author? Throw in a potential for the problems described by Dougweller. I agree with Dougweller. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it remains if it can be cleaned up and appropriately sourced. There are no references to reliable sources. The sentence "It was found that the contents of the FIP first edition, published from 1976 through 1992, are in the public domain" suggests the litigation resulted in a judgment so stating, but is ambiguous and not sourced. I have some familiarity with copyright litigation and can put a little time into cleaning this up later today or tomorrow. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, the FIP copyrights weres on the later edition (not the Urtext or Criswell) - the original copyright did not disappear - it just did not apply to the later, substantially altered, editions (now copyright by FACIM). The lawsuit was settled in 2003 it seems. The defendants had asserted that the word of God can not be copyright in the US. [1] This claim was not upheld anywhere. Only the very first version ("Criswell") is now asserted to be "public domain" (and may not be public domain under international law in any case (the issue of whether just over a hundred copies, of which two were sent to the Copyright Office) qualifies as "public release" was never determined by a court). Way too much stuff to read to be cogent without gross oversimplification, to be sure! Interesting sidelight: Science and Health was granted perpetual copyright in the US, and the King James Bible has perpetual copyright in the UK. Collect (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I put about a half hour into this and ran out of time and interest trying to find an online copy of the second court opinion apparently holding that the copyright in the earlier work had been donated to the public domain. I could only confirm the highly interesting ruling in the first opinion that a claim of divine dictation does not void copyright, which is not germane to the paragraph we are looking at here. Since it is sourced only to the defendant's organization as far as I can tell, it very much has WEIGHT and NPOV problems. It can be saved by someone who can review or provide a copy of the court opinion, or an appropriate secondary source--and the paragraph needs to be revised to say only that the defendant won the case on public domain grounds. The rest of the paragraph, about whether or not someone stole the material from the copyright office, is unsourced and should come out. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The Avett Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article reads like a puff piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmansfieldiv (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

How? It doesn't have very many inline references, but the tone of the article isn't bad, a little casual at times, but it certainly doesn't read like an advertisement.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

More of a content issue than WP:BLP - the unsourced material is not negative or contentious. Trebor (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sourced at all.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Donaldson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Gris (talk • contribs) 02:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A couple of the External Links look like they are likely to meet WP:RS, they just need checking and turning into inline citations. The slight puffery in some of the article text could also be trimmed out. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the puffery. I'm not convinced the external links support all the assertions in the article. It also looks to me like on of the contributors to the article is Donaldson, but I can't be sure. Much of the puffery was added recently (in November) by that editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the overall choice of what material to cover, etc., on Seattle mayor Michael McGinn ghttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&action=edit&section=36ets into the range of possible BLP problems. Someone with more time on their hands than I might want to have a look. - Jmabel | Talk 07:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to point out the paragraphs which concern you. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

is that better ? Tim.thelion (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Not much.

1. Is it normal to have a "criticism" section in a biography, containing sentences like "Ron Judd, an aide to Washington Governor Chris Gregoire, sent emails to staff and DOT officials claiming McGinn's position was 'BS' and accused McGinn of stoking populist angers and relying on voter's ignorance about funding details to advance his anti-tunnel stance." Indeed, I could quote almost any sentence from the section as problematic. The tone quotes or closely paraphrases his political opponents at ever turn, and the section takes up nearly a third of the article.
2. Similarly, the transportation section begins, "Since taking office McGinn has been criticized for conducting a 'war on cars' and described as 'philosophically anti-car.'" I don't believe it is our normal policy to start a section with how someone's positions are characterized by their political opponents. Another sentence in that section begins "McGinn claims...", which I believe is language we usually avoid, because it tends to suggest that the statement being made is false.
3. Unsourced statement in lead that "He built his candidacy around his opposition to the proposed tunnel replacement to the Alaskan Way Viaduct."

I could go on, but, again, I think this is best worked on by someone who is neutral on the topic, not by someone (like me) who probably has an equal and opposite bias. - Jmabel | Talk 20:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about the (relative) flood of recent edits. I wrote the vast majority of the article so if you have any additional questions about why something is the way it is there is a good chance I can give some insight. To respond to the three specific issues raised here: there was a lot of talk of friction (even animosity) between state officials (the Governor) and the city (Mayor McGinn) so a local paper got a scoop on a story about state department of transportation officials talking openly via email. Those emails were then published by the paper. They are included in the article because they are about specific policies being weighed in on by the members of the state government who are responsible for their implementation and how that interfaces with McGinn's own stated policy positions. They're both relevant to the subject matter and vetted by an RS. Secondly, McGinn's transportation policy has been very overshadowed by controversy over both his campaign against car usage within the city and his opposition to the tunnel replacement for Seattle's viaduct. I placed his own rebuttal to accusations of a "war on cars" and his stated transportation priorities all backed by RS. It's ordered that way for flow and set up. Lastly the "built his candidacy" was in fact sourced, just not with an inline citation like most of the rest of the article. It's not a point of debate or some sort of accusation, it's a well known fact in Seattle and is echoed by many of the sources I've included, including McGinn at points. I'll comb through them and find a specific one with a reference and use an inline if that will make people feel better.

I'd recommend also moving any further discussion of specific portions of the article to the article's talk page. TomPointTwo (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Professional objector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• GatorFan15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article created by a SPA who probably has a COI would seem to qualify as a G10. I'd CSD nominate or try to get to NPOV status, but since I've spoken out on the issue, someone might suggest I have a COI. If you decide to rewrite the article from scratch instead of G10'ing it, here are some sources for balance: [2] [3] THF (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

G10 says: 'These "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced.' The statements in this article are all sourced to law review articles and court decisions. I haven't checked these, but unless there is a false- or misquotation of the sources, I don't see any G10 problem.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

G10 is "Pages that disparage... their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" and should be deleted when there is no non-neutral version to revert to. That G10 also includes things that this page doesn't fit under doesn't mean that the page doesn't meet G10. Right now we have a wildly negative BLP with no attempt at balance. I know there exist positive articles about Ed Siegel and Larry Schonbrun, for example. THF (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY claims about living people cannot be sourced directly to court documents, so I've removed the content on people who were named in the article as "professional objectors" based only on court cases. January ^(talk) 23:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The article seems to be mainly an essay, and relies extensively on OR and SYNTH to boot. The term is found not in the NYT archives at all, on Googlebooks in a handful after 1940 (clearly the older references are not to this article at all), and news archives result in such stuff as [4] which does not appear to show any relevance here at all. Googlenews archives found a total of one use in fifty-two years appearing to be on point - which scarcely makes it a common or notable term at all. Collect (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the WP:N case is better than that: I'm not sure what search term Collect used, but I cited four news sources above; even after BLP corrections, the article cites a few RS; and there are law-review articles as well.[5][6][7] My assessment is that the article needs to be rewritten from scratch, but I feel that way about a lot of law articles. It's definitely one-sided and violates NPOV, and mischaracterizes at least one of its sources. I wouldn't cry if it were deleted in the absence of someone trying to write a Wikipedia-compliant article. THF (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

To the unidentified user who cited WP:BLPPRIMARY: The statement you are citing is "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." This means transcripts of actual witness testimony and documents such as complaints, which of course contain unevaluated assertions made by lawyers or witnesses. The court's decision, which is what is being cited here, is the judge's definitive evaluation of the assertions before him, and is really more of a secondary than a primary source. I do not believe WP:BLPPRIMARY requires us to disregard a judge's own words in favor of a newspaper report on those words. By analogy, WP:Reliable_source_examples#Law says: "When discussing legal texts, it is more reliable to quote from the text, appropriately qualified jurists or textbooks than from newspaper reporting." Moreover, the judges' decisions are being cited here not for absolute objective truth but to indicate the opinion of certain judges before which these lawyers appear. From a WP:RS standpoint, I can't imagine a more reliable source for a judge's opinion than a volume in a recognized decision reporting series. I also vastly disagree with the speed with which you deleted this material. I think giving people a chance to source it better (if not doing it yourself) is a courtesy. On the whole, I think a gross NPOV violation may be taking place--we are protecting lawyers (I am one myself by the way) against public criticism of their very public actions. I agree the article needs some rewriting to satisfy NPOV (any of you is free of course to add some favorable material to the article to address any WEIGHT problems). Oh, and THF, it is obviously not an attack page that "serves no other purpose." Speaking as an attorney, I found it interesting and informative about an area of litigation with which I was not familiar. It definitely does not deserve deletion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A judge's decision is a primary source, it is part of the actual event being described, the court case. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY a primary source could possibly be used in very limited circumstances to augment a secondary source, but here it was not augmenting a secondary source. If BLP material is inappropriately sourced, it can be removed without discussion, and reinstated following discussion if deemed appropriate.

The crucial point about the presence of secondary sources is that it provides evidence that what we are publishing has already been published elsewhere, and is therefore significant enough to merit publication, and not original research/synthesis. (Unidentified user? I signed, if you're having trouble reading my sig let me know and I'll look at changing it). January ^(talk) 12:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

For other editors' opinions that WP:BLPPRIMARY may not support the deletion of the judge's opinions here, see the discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. I think you are on much stronger grounds under NPOV, WEIGHT etc as regards this article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've explained my point there that the primary source material was not augmenting any secondary sources. I agree that NPOV/WEIGHT, along with WP:NOR, are likely to be the significant policies in deciding ultimately what, if any, of this material may eventually be included in the article, or if this article survives; my removal yesterday focused on the most immediate problem. January ^(talk) 13:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I posted a query on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard asking for opinions on whether a judge's opinion meets WP:RS standards. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If you prefer, WP:COATRACK applies. The article was created for WP:BATTLE reasons, given that there wasn't the slightest attempt to cite to the numerous court opinions and law review articles praising the role of objectors. See, e.g., Synfuel Technologies v. DHL Express; True v. American Honda Motor Co.. The article doesn't distinguish between for-profit and non-profit "professional objectors."[8][9] The article makes it appear that Brunet is critical of objectors; he isn't. If you want to fix the article (or create a neutral Lawrence Schonbrun article), you're welcome to do so; I can't, because someone will whine COI at me. You and I agree that BLP is overused at the expense of NPOV, but I do agree with the policy that there is a problem when someone creates an unbalanced non-neutral article that does nothing but cherry-pick criticisms of living people. The reason I provisionally support deletion of the article is because I don't think anyone in Wikipedia is going to fix it, and deleting all the non-neutral content leaves us with nothing. Prove me wrong, and I'll change my opinion. THF (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A number of extravagant claims are made on Michel Fattouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), based on primary sources, that appear to be asserted primarily in support of legal action being pursued by the subject and an associate, Hatim Zaghloul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), aka Zhatim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is the author of both articles (so I have userfied the obvious autobiography). Fattouche probably is notable but this article requires careful monitoring as it was started in pursuit of an external agenda and it is very likely that the individual(s) concerned will continue to pursue this agenda. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Has achieved a huge increase in size courtesy of a SPA, it appears. I had once depuffed it, but it is likely that other eyes and delete buttons should be present there. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I hit mine. Actually, I hit "restore" for a much earlier version and am doing routine maintenance. It is possible that the intermediate editor, who left in a huff and a puff after fluffing up the article, inserted some good sources along the way; we can have a look in the history to see what is there. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Topher Grace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another editor removed various information from the article because it wasn't sourced (whether the editor should have put in citation needed tags instead is another matter). I focused on two of the removals, one that Grace won an award from the National Board of Review, and the other that he hosted SNL in 2005. I restored the material carefully linking (although not citing it as a source) to the Wikipedia articles that list the NBR awards and the SNL hosts. The editor reverted my change insisting that an outside source be cited.

Now, I'm well aware that Wikipedia articles are not citable as sources, but what I did was common practice in entertainmnent articles. I'm also aware that just because something is common practice doesn't necessarily make it right, but, in this instance, if you carry the other editor's position to its logical extreme, the amount of work and the number of sources required would skyrocket. For example, I couldn't say that Grace starred in That '70s Show and link to the article; instead, I'd have to find something on the web that supports it. Every role every actor has played would have to be sourced similarly.

The Grace issue has been resolved because rather than fight with the editor (and I'm not accusing him of being "wrong"), I found a source for both propositions and inserted it in the article, but the bigger issue remains. How should this sort of issue/dispute be handled? Wikipedians love to cite policy, but the truth of the matter is, except in egregious cases, policy is open to interpretation and, equally important, we are supposed to exercise some editorial judgment - we're not automatons.

Comments?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, and five years ago you'd clearly be in the right, but the Wikipedia trend is to be increasingly pedantic about these things. My thought is that sourcing is preferable, but only required for something controversial or questionable. Even for a BLP, something like "Grace hosted SNL" should have gotten a {{cn}} rather than being deleted. THF (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC) updated per Doniago 16:36 comment THF (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the two impacted sections had been tagged for having unsourced material since July of this year. Taking a conservative view that's still four months for somone to provide sourcing.

I don't really have much else to say on the situation until other editors have chimed in, beyond noting that in general I think the best approach is to either remove material you believe requires sourcing as soon as it's added and the editor who added it can be identified, or tag and then wait to see whether sources are provided within a reasonable timeframe. It is, of course, somewhat dependent on how controversial the information is as well. Doniago (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, there should be more urgency about removing unsourced negative material, as compared to neutral or positive material. In any event, an alternative to tagging and/or flushing down the drain is to remove the material to the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This article has been edited to remove the co-founder/ songwriter/ vocalist Anka Wolbert, the result being that Ronny Moorings now appears as the sole founder. Removing Anka's work over the period of something like 10 years certainly violates her biography, as her fan base will know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muso88 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the url for the diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clan_of_Xymox&diff=369171196&oldid=369029946

Muso88 (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, one of the problems is this. There is nothing in Google Books either. That's not to say her involvement was not important or whatever, just that an internet search gives little reason to support that in the article. Having said that, the article is atrocious (I've edited it before), and the long list of former members, for instance, is entirely unverified. It's an unreferenced mess, and until reliable sources are dropped into the article there is little hope for improvement. Maybe you can give it a try, with a close eye on WP:RS, of course. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Both the supports and opponents of the subject are violating wikipedia's policies. A visit to the Edit History page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atiku_Abubakar&action=history) will make this clear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.2.43 (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. Neptunekh2 (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No. See WP:RS. THF (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Per THF. This is precisely the kind of thing that will always be removed by editors who take the BLP issue seriously. Thanks for asking, rather than simply inserting it. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

He asked the same question on the Reliable Source noticeboard, got the same answer and inserted the reference anyway. I just deleted it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This article seems notable, but it really, really needs sourcing, because it's full of contentious unsourced statements. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell. Disgraceful unsourced negative BLP for FIVE years. Duly nuked.--Scott Mac 14:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

An edit war is about to start on Rebecca Wilson as a user is contesting my removal of inadaquately sourced information. The publisher might be reliable but the article itself is a blatant attack peice by the author. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

In which wikipedia policy does it say that a newspaper article has to be treat a subject nicely to be verifiable?JusticeSonic (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) So the source is the paragraph beginning "As part of the attack on the Roosters ..."? To my eye including this material in Wikipedia is a non-trivial BLP violation; it's a rather nasty personal editorial that happens to be published in a major newspaper. Unless the incident can be sourced to a neutral RS it shouldn't be in our article. Antandrus (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the article is a gossip columnist of a major Australian newspaper.JusticeSonic (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If this is true, find a proper source that specifies what Wilson did, and when. Then we can discuss whether it is notable enough to include in the bio - I'd say that unless it attracted significant attention at the time, or is still an issue, it probably doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have concerns about the inclusion in this article of MSNBC's typographical error in which Niger Innis was captioned ""Nigger Innis". It has nothing to do with the subject of this BLP; it seems to be that to include it is giving undue weight to a trivial incident (for which the subject of the article is not responsible), and that the effect of its inclusion is to denigrate the subject of the article. It's puerile/childish/laddish/sniggering/immature/immaterial etc. none of which should be what Wikipedia aspires to. I'd be glad for additional input on the talk page. - Nunh-huh 17:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Don Piper is the author of the book, 90 Minutes in Heaven (Revell 2004). His book details his collision with an 18-wheeler, his experience in Heaven, and his recovery. The story is told against the backdrop of his Christian faith.Several revisions were made to correct material based of faith rather than fact. I take no issue with this. Recently, another author (Rene Jorgensen) published a book refuting the validity of Don's experience. The book is titled Behind 90 Minutes in Heaven. It appears someone associated with his book has posted revisions to the article to promote Behind 90 Minutes in Heaven. In addition, rather than an objective article about Don Piper, the article now appears as pitting Mr. Jorgensen's opinion against Don's interpretation of his own experience. I have no desire to create a contentious situation, but would it not be better to relocate information about Mr. Jorgensen to a separate article? I would ask you to look at the article and make changes as you deem necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariverrunsthroughit81 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need Don Piper and 90 Minutes in Heaven for a start. We already have an article Behind 90 Minutes in Heaven but as a general comment any critique of the book does belong in the Piper/book article. --Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The talk page for this article is being used as an attack page, with defamatory and needlessly offensive remarks about the subject. Grubstreet (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Stuff like that is simply trolling. If posts to a talk page cannot in any way, even by the most tolerant interpretation, be interpreted as a legitimate discussion of article content they can be aggressively removed. I have done so.--Scott Mac 00:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Article contains very few sources and many subjective views. I am going to clean it up. This biography should be closely watched for vandalism or repeated subjectivism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philharefan (talk • contribs) 03:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Abdallah_Saleh_Ali_Al_Ajmi

Abdel Ghalib Ahmad Hakim

Abdelaziz Kareem Salim al-Noofayee

and dozens more......

A question at RSN[11] led to to this AFD discussion [12] and ultimately the article itself.[13]. A large portion of the article consisted of a table of various Guantanamo detainees, with text sourced to transcripts, court documents and similar documents. This clearly violates WP:BLPPRIMARY, and hence I removed it. diff The problem is that there are apparantly dozens of BLP's similarly sourced to such documents, in some cases exclusively sourced to such documents. The three-dozen persons named in the table that I deleted prior version would appear to be the tip of the iceberg. I have neither the time nor energy to track all these instances down and correct them to conform to WP:BLPPRIMARY, but I suspect that some of the folks who frequent this page just might have the time and inclination to do so. Fladrif (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Dozens" should be a couple hundred. Pretty much every one of the roughly 200 BLPs referenced at List of Guantanamo Bay detainees has this precise same problem, as does the list itself. And, it would appear that there are a number of sublist articles organized by nationality, etc...each of which should be corrected for this BLP problem. Fladrif (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of edit warring going on at the Marcus Lamb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. I have no idea who is or is not correct, or if any of the sources is or is not correct, and in fact I know nothing about the guy, but the edit warring seems to be rather BLP-violating. Corvus cornix_talk 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed -- a rather nasty anon there. I just rejected this change with its lovely legal threat. Seems the additional clause is a needless BLP violation. Antandrus (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no oppinion on this man. I never heard of him before today. But I just read the source, and there's something fishy going on. Apparently he was blackmailed in regard to the affair(just added that bit to the article...) Also, on the talk pages, there are accusations of him teaching the "prosperity gosphel" which means he's a likely target for attack by people who dissagree with prosperity teachings... Tim.thelion (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added a proper (newspaper) source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Adrian Lamo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jse11 (talk · contribs)

Would an admin please delete File:Adrian Lameo.png (modified by above user to vandalize above article). Article may need a couple of watchers. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the article contains information that is unverified and libellious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.21.101 (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. I was unable to find anything via Google search which supported the assertions. If I had found a reliable source, I would have added it and kept the information, consistent with other positions I have taken on this board. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Now oversighted and the IP who added it has been blocked. January ^(talk) 21:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone has vandalised this page on the paragraph regarding his appearance on Celebrity Mastermind. The comments are bitchy and untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.157.99 (talk)

Thanks for the heads up. The vandalism has been reverted. (It had actually been done shortly before you finished posting here.) --Onorem♠Dil 20:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Non famous person, vanity article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.239.5 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Dick Clark was not born in 1889. He maybe getting old but not that old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.35.148 (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

ClueBot seems to have spotted that one, but I suspect that New Years revellers are at work. I'll check it again tomorrow, while they are sleeping it off. If anyone is inclined, keep a watch on this, but it doesn't look too malicious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I would fix this myself but a telephone the size of a slightly ambitious matchbox has its limitations. To summarize, this article contains rather more personal detail than it should. David Linder has launched an unsuccessful legal complaint about it, but that shouldn't prevent us from fixing the article so it doesn't unnecessarily dispense gossip about his role in the affair.

To cut a long story short, we shouldn't be turning a section on clinical side-effects of a drug into a lubricious bit of gossip. Tasty monster (=TS ) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted as unsourced and actually irrelevant, since the incident, even if true, has to do with a different death and possibly a different chemical. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Some help here, pleae. User:KoshVorlon reverted my edit and re-added the unsourced, irrelevant material about David Linder. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In the ===Personal Life=== of lieutenant Governor of Guam Ray Tenorio, there is a biased point of view on his childhood, his last name controversy, and children. Under ===Lt. Governor of Guam=== there seems to be a partisan bias. I believe the entire article to be a defamation of Ray Tenorio. I am new to Wikipedia, but I am not new to Encyclopedias. The article is filled with heavily researched political and domestic mistakes that everyone goes through. It has been an edit war with USER: Scanlan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgates (talk • contribs) 05:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You are going to have to be more specific about your concerns. I can see no way in which the 'entire article' can be a defamation, and I'm not sure what the problem is. The name change issue and lawsuit seem significant enough to be included, are you suggesting there should be nothing that could be considered as negative in the article? I'm not sure everyone does go through these sorts of events. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Just found this deletion by the OP, that's probably part of the dispute here. Do others think this should have been deleted? Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. I deleted that particular portion to keep neutrality between controversy and verifiable fact based information. I believe it to be neutral and balanced now. I hope you all agree.Mrgates 06:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I restored the deleted text and citations. They seemed to be arbitrarily changed several times from third-party sources, such as newspapers and television news, to sources that solely cited the web sites of the political campaign and political transition team. Entire biographic sections (including third party sources) were removed. I kept some of Mrgates' good faith addititions, such as the inclusion of Tenorio's legistaltive accomplishments, which is a great addition to the article. I would support the removal of the custody material as a compromise (which, however, was an issue in the election campaign), but other career and biographical information should remain, so long as its cited with third-party sources. Have a good day! Scanlan (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Scanlan, I am glad we have come to a consensus. Happy new year. Mrgates 05:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgates (talk • contribs)

The Glenn Beck article is highly problematic. I added a section under notable controversies regarding Beck's statement that he believes the number of muslims who are terrorists is closer to 10% than 1%. While other editors objects, most of these objections came from people who also said racist things about muslims in their objection or expressed support for Glenn Beck. In my estimation no valid objection was raised, though valid support was. I therefore included the entry in the article and have since been involved in an Edit conflict with one of the editors. My impression is the page is being protected by an over vigilant user who is missapplying guidelines like consensus. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is forum shopping.Cptnono (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what forum shopping is. But I am not well acquainted with Wikipedia and trying to find the proper channel for my complaints. Please stop hounding me thank you. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained it to you once just like I have already explained NPA to you. It also is not hounding if you are going to multiple noticeboards about a conflict we are involved in. So a quick breakdown for those not familiar:

• Editors disagree on if this is a "notable dispute".
• RECENTISM and NOTNEWS are also of concern.
• Editors have not come to consensus on how to word such a section (is a whole subsection really needed?) and how much should go in. Again, RECENTISM is a concern. NPOV is of course paramount.
• An alternative suggested was not focusing on this one incident but instead adding a paragraph into the "Views" section discussing his overall view on Muslims. I assume it is not favorable and it is fine with me if that is the case. However, this single incident may not deserve such prominence. The incident could of course be mentioned in the paragraph.
• Multiple editors disagree with DG. Their arguments are valid. He made the edit without consensus and it needs to be removed until something with a little more acceptance is done.
• On a more important note: Anyone wanting to check the article for neutrality would be awesome. This was done before and little was changed but if someone wants to list some Pproblems on the talk page (as asked multiple times) then great. Cptnono (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably not the ideal person to check an article on Glenn Beck for neutrality (I'm not exactly an enthusiast for his politics, amongst other factors), but having had a quick look I think it doesn't in general suffer from a particularly obvious POV problem in terms of content. It does however seem far too long, which in its way is a POV issue - it makes him out to be more significant to US politics than he is likely to be long term - this is 'recentism' too, of a sort, not to mention another example of the US-centric bias (unintended, largely) that the English-language Wikipedia suffers from. I think what the article needs most is a good pruning by someone uninvolved. If this is done, then maybe Beck's views on Moslems and terrorism might be seen in a more realistic light - as reflecting a view of a notable portion of US opinion, perhaps, but not that significant in the grand scheme of things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

RECENTISM probably applies to sections throughout. If you see anything in particular feel free to point it out. Pruning from someone completely uninvolved (maybe even from outside of the US) would be interesting.Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever Cptnoono. Thanks for reporting me for something I didn't do. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

While I do think the article suffers from POV and consensus blocking (from people who either support or hate him), I would say that in the US, Beck is a major pundit. He is up there with a handful of people that deeply impact the political discourse. His program is highly rated, as is his radio show, and he has legions of fans who hang on what he says. The significance of the 10% statement, is that to this point, no prominent pundit or personality has said the number might be that high. Until recently there was a line in the US people didn't cross when it came to muslims, and he appears to be one of a handful leading the charge to question assumptions about the number of terrorists out there (in the past everyone used the caveat that the terrorists in the Muslim community are a small minority below 1%, even if they were being critical). I study terrorism for a living. I assure you, this is a big deal what he said. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review a situation on the "Mel Odom (artist)" page and advise.

A user, Muotinukke, is insistent that a reference that is in my opinion poorly sourced and unverifiable, contradicts a reference from The New York Times. Muotinukke not only continually reverts my edits regarding this, but has begun what I feel is harrassment on my User Talk page by issuing warning citations against me, when all I'm doing is reverting my edits to reflect The New York Times citation.

Please help.Mary Cross (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"His band Vrijeme i Zemlja was formed while he was in college and had two Number 1 albums in Europe ("Vrijeme i Zemlja I" in 1980 and "Takvu te neću" in 1983)."

Does anybody ever heard about "European top chart"?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.131.199 (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism 1: You can see his posts, calling O'Neall "fat" (among other things, the others of which have been deleted) on the discussion page (under the post "The Caption for the Free Throw Pic".) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shaquille_O%27Neal

Vandalism 2 (changing other peoples discussion-page posts): He also changed one of my (discussion-page) posts (in the "Military Brat" post on the same page, (See revisions to see where he changes what I wrote in my own discussion-post). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shaquille_O%27Neal

(I don't know if he also vandalized the main page).

Here is his IP address (Wiki-auto-signed with this): 68.222.172.18

Telemachus.forward (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No, this user did not vandalize the main page itself. The IP has only made two edits on December 16, so it is safe to assume that the user has not been editing since then. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – reflists added and some WP:RS and all other uncited moved to talkpages Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I recently proposed the following articles for deletion because they are completely unsourced lists of British people by ethnicity/national origin. My rationale was that "This unsourced list is in violation of WP:BLP. I would remove all unsourced entries, but that would simply leave an empty list. I think that deletion is the best option until someone has the time to rewrite a properly sourced list".

• List of Trinidadian Britons
• List of Spaniards in the United Kingdom
• List of British Nigerians
• List of Mexican British people
• List of British people with Greek ancestry
• List of British people of Cypriot descent
• List of Jamaican British people
• List of British Indians
• List of Guyanese Britons
• List of Filipino British people
• List of Dutch Britons
• List of Brazilian British people

-  Done Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The proposals were declined on the basis that many of the subjects in the lists have sources for their ethnicity in their individual articles (see comments here). I just wanted to get a BLP perspective on this. I'm not convinced that every item on each of the lists is sourced (it would take a long time to check), but to me there should be sources for the list articles even if they already exist in the individual articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's an absolute joke that DGG and others should flout WP:V and especially WP:BLP in such a way. All lists are required to have citations, not sourced by "check the linked articles". Thus they fail WP:V and WP:BLP, and I would recommend redirecting them all to the parent articles (I assume they exist?) which would place the burden of evidence on anyone wishing to restore them as articles. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Start off a [List of British Mongrels] for all those whose ancestry can't be sourced or who had parents from different countries start it of with Winston Churchill, Prince Charles, and Sebastian Coe. John lilburne (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is basic Wikipedia policy. You can't use a Wikipedia article as a source, full stop. Unsourced lists of anything are contrary to required standards, and when applied to ethnicity in regard to living people contravene so many different aspects of policy that entries should probably be deleted on sight. If that leaves an empty list, so be it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

we are not using a Wikipedia article as a source. We are using a source that appears in a Wikipedia article by citing the article that contain it.. Using a Wikipedia article means relying on the assertions there, and we are not doing so. We could, for example, list all our sources for everything on separate pages or even a separate namespace from the article, and it would still meet WP:V--and there have been such proposals, to have a centralized source database across all the projects. (I think it is even possible that one of the chapters is working on it.) it's just a matter of arrangement. These lists are just navigational devices. They are no different from categories, just prepared and organized in a different mode of expression--we don't list the sources on the category pages either--they are on the linked articles. It's like requiring us to source an index. We source the content, not the index. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lists are not "just navigational devices". They are explicitly covered under WP:BLP policy, which requires sourcing. You cannot rely on a source (supposedly) in another Wikipedia article, as there is no guarantee it won't be edit out at a future time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And here's the flipside of the same tired arguement (both sides are tired, I'm not picking on you specifically), that unsourced does not mean unsourceable, and if it is as simple as copying the reference from the main articles to the list article, then there is no compelling reason to delete. --Jayron32 16:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source that shows self-assertion of ethnicity by the person listed, and there are grounds to suggest that their ethnicity is relevant to their notability, then yes, the source can be used, under existing policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's OK to say that the sources should simply be copied over, but that would be pretty time consuming given the size of the lists. Also, contrary to some claims, a quick browse of the individual articles suggests that many are not sourced. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If the sources exist and can be copied over, then they are sourceable and should not be deleted. There are only a few thousands, and that is well within our capabilities. I urge whoever thinks they need to be sourced on that particular article rather than indirectly to start working on them. Even those who think them unnecessary probably won't object to them. If ten people cared, and did as few as 10 a day each, one month would = 30,000 a month, which should solve the problem quickly at least for the british, and we could go on from there. ( I doubt it could be done by bot, because it would be necessary to pick the best reference, as we do generally. We should be able to do a bot that would at least pick out certain references and transfer them, e.g. DNB. The relevant rule is SOFIXIT. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the issue, we should never have allowed these uncited additions to be made, not sofixit at all. All users are in there rights to delete all personal uncited claims about living people on sight. Some users support all the rubbish uncited crap and thing it is valuable when it degrades the wikipedia completely. Feel free to delete such uncited genetic and racial claims on sight. Just because some passer by has created such rubbish doesn't assert that we should fix it, delete it and let users that think it is valuable content recreate it correctly. Move it to the talkpage and people that think such a list has value can cite it and replace it. I have dealt with this one List of Trinidadian Britons and this one List of Spaniards in the United Kingdom - Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

These lists are a fundamentally flawed concept from the outset, and remind me of this by Randy Newman

Momma used to wheel me past an ice cream wagon

One side for white and one side for colored

I remember trash cans floatin' down canal street

It rained every day one summer

Momma used to take me to audubon park

Show me the ways of the world

She said "here comes a white boy there goes a black one, that one's an octoroon

This little cookie here's a macaroon, that big round thing's a red balloon

And the paper down here's called the picayune

And here's a new orleans tune"

Unless there is some part of the persons notability that is reflected in their ethnicity, what is the point of them being on the list. I can't be bothered to wade through all the nonsense but List of Spaniards in the United Kingdom seriously what are we to make of Edward II in the list? What relevance is it to his life that his mother was from Castile. He was 6 when she died, so I'm having great difficulty attributing the homosexuality, or anything else to him having a Spanish mother. Its like kids sorting M&Ms into little piles. John lilburne (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask it what sense this poem is provided as logical argumentation? DGG ( talk ) 16

13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure you can. It goes to the heart of the issue which is the segregating of people into little boxes without rhyme nor reason. Such lists are rubbish as they lump together notable people (which in itself is a vague term) based on one variant: ethnicity. If the poem didn't make the point clear enough then try this lunacy by J Holt Schooling (fellow of the Royal Statistic Society) published by Pearson Magazine in 1897. It is a little graph where he's lumped together lunatics based on ethnicity to conclude that the Irish are mad and the English are sane. John lilburne (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree, these lists are valueless non encyclopedic rubbish and the assertion that experienced contributors should waste hours cleaning them up is wrong and , well , misguided belief that all uncited content is fantastic is nonsense, perhaps years ago all content was great in the great expansion but those days are over. Jimmy himself said , it its not the number of articles but the quality of them. After cleansing articles should be watched for replacement of uncited claims and reverted on sight, if repeated replacements of uncited genetic and racial claims occur, ask for semi protection at the first available opportunity. Don't allow any user to tell you that it is cited somewhere else, neither do users have any responsibility to fix content, actually users have a responsibility to living people that are the subjects of our articles and a responsibility to remove such uncited racial or genetic claims. Move it to the talkpage and let anyone interested in the topic replace the content cited to a reliable location Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Brandi Hawbaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article about a deceased poker player has had some additions and deletions recently from two accounts, BrandiRose's Mom (talk · contribs) and Brandon gerson (talk · contribs), who claim to be the subject's mom and boyfriend, respectively. Although there's an obvious [[WP:COI|conflict of interest}} here, I'm just bringing it to this board for more attention because some of the edits deal with still-living people. More eyes would be welcomed there, as there's currently a dispute as to whether to include a quote from the boyfriend about the subject's mental state. [14] Dayewalker (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence including the quote appears to have been cut-and-pasted directly from the source, here: [15]. This isn't necessarily evidence that 'Brandon gerson' isn't who he thinks he is, but it looks like a possible case of plagiarism - I think the edit history might tell us more. It may be that the person who inserted this didn't understand the rules. Any comments?AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just checked, and this cut-and-paste seems to have been done when the article was first created, so 'Brandon gerson' isn't responsible for adding it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The article could probably be AfD'd. She seems to only be notable for having committed suicide, sad as that is. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Jefferies has been arrested for the Murder of Joanna Yeates but not charged with any crime. Should Christopher Jefferies redirect to the murder article or to Chris Jefferies (an unrelated basketball player). Should there be a hatnote on Chris Jefferies linking to the Murder of Joanna Yeates article? This has been discussed briefly at Talk:Chris Jefferies and Talk:Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates#Chris Jefferies but I'd like further input. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think his name should be used at all; the link should go to Chris Jefferies if it is retained at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My proposal is for Christopher Jefferies to be changed to a dab page between Chris Jefferies and Murder of Joanna Yeates. I agree that an article on the ex-teacher would fail WP:PERP, and I'm not proposing that one be created - my concern is for people who will be looking for the "Christopher Jefferies" who is currently in the news and not being able to find the right article. I also note there's been some low-level vandalism on the basketball player's article, so that _is_ where people are ending up. Tevildo (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should elevate his connection to the murder case to such a status. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Nomos that it should redirect to the basketballer, without a hatnote. Shouldn't be associated with the murder if he wasn't even charged.--Misarxist 11:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear -- I think it's inappropriate even to name him in the article on the murder. He hasn't even been charged. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Support that sentiment, but he has been the subject of too much media coverage now for the genie to go back into the bottle. For now, the redirect should go to the basketball player, but that should be kept under review so that a decision here is not for keeps. It is probably already the case that the retired teacher Christopher Jeffries is more notable, regardless of what may or may not emerge as events unfold. --FormerIP (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Article: Sheila Voser Von Engelberg. Person is in reality a teacher. Article has no true information whatsoever. It's only bullying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.52.24 (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

For anyone speaking German it it obvious that this is a hoax/attack BLP, I don't know why a request for speedy deletion was undone, but I'll add one again. --Six words (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, and I've asked for the image to also be deleted on Commons. Shame that the info in the article has spread elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Six words (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Has Sue Monroe been imprisoned for murder? I can find no evidence online to support this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.115.169 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Obvious vandalism, already fixed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Material rev deleted as seriously libellous - and article semi-protected.--Scott Mac 00:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What is regarded as best practice when a contentious BLP has no English-language sources? The above is sourced entirely to Portuguese-language newspapers and websites. I can't tell how notable they are. Some of the claims seem to be correct (the man was charged with some form of organized crime), but others are convoluted and involve other members of his family, some of whom have complained, including during an AfD last year—these posts, for example, are from someone who says he's the subject's grandson.

My preference would be to stub it down and request English sources, but having looked on Google there don't appear to be any, so it would probably remain a stub. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you posted it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English ? This is a good place to find foreign language-fluent editors for clean up, even when the article is already in English. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a perennial problem. Foreign language sources are (all other things being equal) no less reliable than English language sources. However, the only quality control wikipedia has (and thus the only protection as subject has from libels) is the ability of one editor to check the accuracy of what another has submitted. That doesn't always happen anyway, but where the source is less-accessible either because it is foreign language or offline or hard to get, the chances of anyone being able and willing to do that are significantly reduced. It can be done, but mostly it won't. Personally, I think we should insist on reliable english on-line sources for all negative BLP material, but that's going to be a hard fight to win.--Scott Mac 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. A family member has now turned up on the talk page objecting to various points. I think we should try to change the BLP policy on this, because it's not only a question of checking that the source says what we claim it says (which can be checked, sort of, using Google Translate). It's also checking that the source is a high quality one, and that the story is carefully written, and these are nuances we can't be expected to recognize for non-English sources. Having to arrange for a knowledgeable translator who's familiar with these issues is very time-consuming, so most editors understandably won't want to do it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

100% agree. If you need any support in trying to change things, let me know.--Scott Mac 22:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll try to put something brief together and give you a shout. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic with the potential problems and issues, but I don't think the answer is to insist on online English-language material for all negative material. I am, for example, fluent in French, and well able judge newspaper quality issues in that language. Sometimes the best sources are in a foreign language, one that many editors know well. Unsurprisingly perhaps, the best sources about Klaas Carel Faber, convicted Dutch war criminal, are in Dutch and German. I agree that that the article listed above is problematic, with absolutely no English sources available or provided. But I think tightening of policy needs to be carefully directed to the core problem here, rather than to hamstring bilingual editors writing about notable subjects, where the detail and perhaps the best sources are mainly available in another language. --Slp1 (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A more flexible approach that still addresses the problem might be to insist that if negative BLP material is cited to non-English or offline sources, it must first be verified by someone other than the contributor of the material before it is allowed to remain. For non-English sources, the person verifying it should be fluent enough in the language to speak confidently about the quality of the source and the accuracy of its use in the article. Material based on sources not yet verified should be moved to the talk page, and maybe a notification template and/or noticeboard can be crafted to alert interested editors that their language skills or access to offline sources are needed. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's worth considering, Alan, though it wouldn't necessarily help in a situation where we have partisan editing going on, and where other accounts could arrive to confirm the contents. Slp, what would you suggest? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it could be gamed with false verifications by partisan editors. But, so long as the rule is framed as a necessary but not sufficient condition for use of the source, that might not be a fatal flaw. Concerned editors could seek additional verification from non-partisans, or challenge the source on other grounds as appropriate. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It raises the questions: "best sources" for what purpose? I agree that the best sources for writing articles are not necessarily English language, and not necessarily easily accessible to the reader. I'd agree that the best sources for pointing the reader to may well be specialist, particularly if the article implies a specialist knowledge. However, there is also the question of Quality Control. In a print encyclopedia this is given by the author who is named and responsible. The reader is invited to trust the author - who has put his professional reputation behind all facts asserted. Wikipedia has anonymous and (largely) unaccountable authors, so the only Quality control we have is "crowd sourced fact-checking". That's hit and miss as it is. But if the source can only be checked by the small minority of Wikipedians fluent that language, knowledgeable in the reliability of sources in that language, and having access to those sources, then our Quality control is almost non-existent. I don't think anyone wishes to disallow foreign language sources, however is isn't unreasonable to say that if we are making negative claims about a living person, we need to have sources that can reasonably be checked by the limited quality control we have. I doubt that an application of this would exclude much that's not of marginal notability anyway.--Scott Mac 23:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't agree with that last comment, which, you'll forgive me for saying so, seems to imply a rather anglo-centric view for a global encyclopedia. I have been sourcing unreferenced Canadian BLPs, and unsurprisingly as a bilingual country, have found articles about notable subjects which it would be impossible to source without using French sources. Here's one from today, François Labbé. Luckily to date most (all?) has been uncontroversial biographical stuff, but what if a negative thing or two had emerged? It doesn't seem right to institutionalize "positive" material only such situations. As mentioned above, the English language sources for Klaas Carel Faber's life are very limited, and even contradictory, as compared to sources in Dutch/German. English media very often does not cover non-English, or especially non-Western subjects well at all. As a project aiming to provide encyclopedic coverage of notable subjects in all countries and cultures, I couldn't support a policy that would forbid the inclusion of well-sourced information from non-English sources, nor, incidentally from offline ones, since these may be the most accurate and even least "biased" sources available.

Having said that I totally agree with the necessity of verifiability and quality control, and clearly see the problems that foreign language/offline sources create most particularly in BLPs. Some possible solutions to ease the fact-checking and prevent damage: require the foreign language/offline source for negative material to be quoted as part of the citation in its original language (just like translated quotes are required to be); per Analyst, permit any editor to remove negative BLP material cited to foreign language/offline, with the requirement that it can only be replaced if it has been verified by an independent editor contacted via Wikipedia:Translators available or babel boxes (for languages- not sure exactly how to manage this for offline sources). --Slp1 (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should stand on principle when it comes to BLPs, Slp. We have to be practical. Yes, we want to be a global encyclopedia using the best sources. But we can't judge whether they're the best sources if they're all written in Icelandic. Finding editors who can, or trying to muddle along ourselves, is incredibly time-consuming, so it doesn't get done. And it's not as if we don't have a multitude of other-language WPs where editors are in a position to check. It's arguably anglo-centric to assume that everything in the world must be on this Wikipedia, even if almost no one can make head or tail of the sources, but where we're nevertheless accusing living persons of serious crimes.

Having said that I do think your suggestions have merit, though remember that it's not only about getting a translation, but also being in a position to judge how good the source is. Someone who's learned Spanish in school may not be able to tell us which are the best Spanish-language newsapers. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the list at Wikipedia:Translators available, many volunteers (including the Icelandic ones!!) are native speakers who likely would be able to offer insight into multiple aspects of a foreign language source. (BTW, I wonder if User:Husond would be able to help you with verifying the Portuguese verification, since he is a native speaker- and there are others if needed). And I would certainly agree that unless and until it is possible to engage an independent fluent speaker to verify material, most especially if it is about serious crimes etc, then out it should go. Perhaps it is because I live in Montreal and know so many people who are fluently bilingual-bicultural that I think finding people for most language verification wouldn't be so very arduous.

I would argue that I am being practical: the article that has sparked this discussion makes very serious allegations, is very long, and contains many sources in a language that relatively few WP editors speak as a first or second language. As such, it seems something of an extreme case, and hard cases make bad law. I would be loath to see major policy changes, such as forbidding the use of such non-English sources, springing from it. Lesser changes such as those suggested above, would, I believe, also have the desired effect. Slp1 (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I will try to come up with wording for a proposed change to BLP that takes into account what you say, and which perhaps only strongly encourages English sources. I'll ping you when I've written something, because I want to have a think about it first. Thanks for letting me know about Husond. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Slp1 here; hard cases make bad law. BLP concerns are paramount, but it is also very important that we do not discriminate against foreign language sources. Portuguese-speaking editors are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:User_pt -- I am sure there will be some admins and familiar names among those listed there. Perhaps it would make sense to form a WikiProject for checking contentious BLPs where editors with language skills make themselves available for verifying BLPs with foreign-language sources. --JN466 13:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am Brazilian and I am fluent in Portuguese and English. I have been working with Don on the article Castor de Andrade. I can verify and translate sources, if needed. Best regards, Idontknow610^TM 21:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I object to the unilateral decision by SlimVirgen to stubbify the article about Antonio Petrus Kalil. The deletion of most of the article is made by someone who, by her own admission, does not even speak Portuguese. As such she is not qualified to judge the article. I think the decision should not have been taken before a Portuguese speaking editor could have had a look at it and assess if the article reflect the sources. I fail to understand the sudden rush. I request a re-assessment of the decision by neutral admins. - DonCalo (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If material is questioned, we remove it until we can be sure it is safe. Here, the right thing to do is to remove it until we've had a Portuguese speaker verify it - not to leave it in place until one turns up. The principle is sound. If questioned, remove until there is certainty.--Scott Mac 19:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The BLP policy requires us to err on the side of caution. It would be more harmful in real-world terms if the material in the article violated BLP and it were left in, than if it did not violate BLP and were removed. Material cited to foreign language sources that have not been independently verified by a proficient speaker should, in my opinion, be omitted from the article until such verification occurs. I'm sure if a Portuguese speaker with a good understanding of BLP can verify the material against the sources, there should be no problem with re-adding it. I support SlimVirgin's actions given the circumstances, and would equally support restoring the material once it's been verified. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone who does not belong to the inner circle of SlimVirgin would look at the case with a neutral point of view. - DonCalo (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I fit that qualification, actually. We've had very little direct interaction. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agree with the action of SlimVirgin, once the material is verified it will be very easy to return it to the article, on the other hand if it is not ok there could be serious damage done to the subject by leaving it in the article. J04n(talk page) 20:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That's not what's happening here, Don. The people who respond to this board are editors with a particular interest in BLPs. Your version of the article is only 800 words long, so that won't take long to rebuild. The point of asking you to do that is to emphasize that each sentence has to be well-sourced and must not deviate from the source. It's easier to rebuild from that perspective, than for other editors to try to search for problematic sentences where the sourcing is so unclear. Also, you've had a lot of time to do this—at least since the AfD in September 2009, where the same concerns were raised—but you've taken a passive approach to it, not changing things until multiple editors have pointed them out.

What would be helpful is a pro-active anticipation of the points other editors might find contentious, and a willingness to source and write those points very clearly so they can withstand scrutiny. The burden of evidence always lies with the editor who wants to add or restore material, particularly with BLPs. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I now commit to the growing consensus that the article has to be rebuild, I start rebuilding – adding as much English language sources as possible and adding Portuguese quotes and translations of those quotes, as well as summaries of articles by another editor (see this edit) – and SlimVirgin protects the page from editing, arguing that it first needs be done in a draft version hidden from the general audience. I completely disagree. The rebuilding is better done in the open than in some backward page nobody can find. I request unprotection of the article. - DonCalo (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked you to start rebuilding it at Talk:Antonio Petrus Kalil/draft, making sure everything is sourced very clearly, with no ambiguities. I did that precisely so that it's not on public view immediately. Instead, you started rebuilding on the main page, again with reference to murders, where at least one of the sources doesn't say exactly what you said (see the talk page). At this point, Don, you're creating a lot of work for several people, when the onus is 100 percent on you to produce a BLP that's crystal clear in its sourcing and writing, and where you err on the side of caution when it comes to the very serious allegations.

Please rebuild the article on the draft page, and get consensus from the editor who has been complaining. If there are issues that the two of you can't agree on, then other editors can be asked to comment. Once that's done, the consensus material can be moved back into article space. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Rebuilding the article in the draft would make it very difficult for other editors to be engaged. It is impossible to reach consensus with somebody who wants me blocked editing this page, who thinks that a judge is an unreliable source and thinks academic studies are biased and should be removed. In the new version everything is even more referenced than in the old one. You don't understand the subject, you cannot read Portuguese and you make it impossible to edit this article. You seem to have quite a reputation to uphold in harrassing editors you don't like. I am wasting my time here. - DonCalo (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed

Many of the facts on her info box are unsourced, such as weight and measurements.

• Avoid victimization
• Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.

Considering she was underage when these films were made and considers herself a victim of child sexual exploitation, it would seem that the use of the 'adult film star' biographical template violates this 'conservative' principle. It also violates the 'POV' and 'no original research', since claiming that she is an 'adult film star' is a bit of a stretch.

Decora (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the first part of this, but Lords did make an adult movie as an adult. Dayewalker (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Measurments are sourced here http://www.adultfilmdatabase.com/actor.cfm?actorid=19201 . But I agree that the template is wrong. Especially, as the template uses the words "No. of adult films", which really ought to be "No. of pornographic films" in this case so as to not be misleading... Furthermore, this is a case of childhood sexual abuse and exploitation. There are thousands of Adult film stars. She is not notable for her single film as an 18 year old. She is notable for the exploitation case, and maybe for her B movie acting career... Tim.thelion (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the subject matter, I think this article needs to be much better sourced all round and some care to be taken over what is included. For example, it includes the unsourced information that Lords' underage movies are available on the internet, which might be taken as an advert for illegal porn. --FormerIP (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to take this straight to AFD, but thought some discussion here first might be helpful. The article seems to me just an excuse to record tabloid tittle-tattle and a, whole lot of "it has been reported" stuff. Read through it. Should this exist?

"Reporters from Holmes's hometown have wished that they would "just go away", but also stress that they know it will not happen" WTF?

"It was reported" and variants seem to breach WP:WEASEL

Thoughts. --Scott Mac 22:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's current form should be redirected to WP:WEASEL/Worst Example and any actual information should be copied into a stub titled Operah Winfrey Tom Cruise Couch Jump Excuse the humor... Tim.thelion (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the larger issue, the sentence you (Scott) quoted does not even conform to the (lousy) source. First, it's not reporterS plural, it's just one reporter. Second, it's not clear that the reporter is referring to Tom and Katie "going away" - it's such drivel it's not clear what she's saying at all, but my interpretation of it is that she's saying that she wishes the news about Tom and Katie would go away. Anyway, for those reasons - and for so many others - I'd remove the sentence and the (lousy) source.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Some day — after we've managed to destroy all life on Earth — some intelligent beings will happen upon this rock and discover a single Wikimedia server hard drive. It's troubling to ponder that this article may occupy the only sectors recoverable. Not that it would matter much to us at that point. But, perhaps it will be a warning to other galactic creatures that wish to avoid the fate that became us. jæs (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the first sentence you quoted as it wasn't what the source said. In terms of the article: there is a lot of verifiable information available, probably enough to write an article (rather than just a section in their respective articles). But a lot of this information has little notability, and comes from sources of dubious quality. You could try AfD (again) but I wouldn't be surprised if it survived. Trebor (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like that earlier deletion debate was significantly disrupted by canvassing, which may or may not have ultimately impacted the outcome. (The closing administrator counted all of the delete !votes as one, since all were strategically "invited" to the discussion by the nominator. The closing administrator also indicated the content of the keep arguments was more persuasive. I can't say I agree, but I digress.) Perhaps another debate would be appropriate, although it would be difficult to predict what consensus would be at this point.

I generally think the "forking" of articles, especially biographies of living persons, in this way is potentially harmful. The more clicks you get away from the main article, the fewer eyes you generally have analyzing changes for wp:blp trouble. The reliably sourced content could easily — and more appropriately — be accommodated within the respective biographies. Just my 2^¢. jæs (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the article is a complete loss: it reminded me to look up portmanteau (IRL, I recently heard that it was Lewis Carroll who created that term, and wanted to read more). I am now watching the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Add that a good portion of the links don't work, which is a good sign as to how much import the reliable source put on the article. What's the section on the kid doing in there, what value does that have? John lilburne (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we have an article on the Relationship of George Washington and Martha Washington? :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD2 is the place for this. The previous one was in 2008, and I think our standards for material such as this have become more properly discriminating. It's useless to speculate whether thiswould be kept, when we can find out directly. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that this is problematic, and I've almost redirected it in the past to Tom Cruise. It's particularly unfortunate that the baby's birth certificate is discussed and linked to, in violation of BLP. There's a secondary source, but it's not clear what it's saying. In fact, I think I'll remove that section now if it's still there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the paragraphs with weasel words. They all reffed to this article [16] which is from a fairly small paper anyway, and they often generalised one example from said article into the collective group ("the media...", "gossip magazine editors..."). Trebor (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and redirected the page to the personal life section of Tom Cruise. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for dealing with this. Any thoughts on Brangelina? It looks like Bennifer has already been redirected, though. jæs (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not one I've looked at before, but I think I'd say of all of them that they should be merged and redirected. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been a dozen attempts so far today to edit and re-edit this article, especially the "Controversies" section in what seems to be a clear case of POV pushing. It seems like there is a concerted attempt today to put across a certain POV showing the individual in a favorable light. This goes against the grain of neutrality of POV.

The controversies section is supposed to highlight the controversies surrounding the individual without trying to apportion credit or excuses for them.

The ENTIRE introduction has been rewritten by User:Amitchandra123 which now provides a justification for EVERY allegation made against Pradip Baijal. Repeatedly going in and editing the article by removing the negative references (including links to media articles) and replacing them with flowery phrases justifying the controversy is clear POV pushing and vandalism.

The original line read: """His tenure as TRAI chairman coincided with multiple policy changes that are alleged to have directly benefited telecom companies like Reliance Telecom and Tata Teleservices."""

it was changed to: """His tenure as TRAI chairman coincided with multiple policy changes (people call them flip-flops, but were normal and expected for any emerging sector) that are alleged to have directly benefited telecom companies like Reliance Telecom and Tata Teleservices."""

the original line: "sold to Tata Teleservices" was changed to "sold by a transparent auction process to Tata Teleservices". Transparent according to whom?

One of the lines used was "Guess many of the controversies listed below are part of the stick which is seen in other geographies as well. " - I really dont know what to say after that! it is clear that the user(s) in question have some kind of agenda with the individual Pradip Baijal and interested in keeping the news of controversies out of wiki records.

Recommend immediate blocking of his account to put an end to this nonsense.

What is surprising is that at first the user called ArjunNagra was making repeated edits on a similar line to this article. And now it is Amitchandra. Are they the same individual? --Ashlonerider (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the article in its original state is with phrases like "that are alleged to have" the main source for all this is peppered with phrases like "You could argue, be that as it may ... " and "You could further argue why .." IOW the source used is an opinion piece. John lilburne (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – vague uncited DOB removed

Mark Clemmit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Date of birth was definitely 1962/1963- school records "Stokesley Comprehensive School". This has been repeatedly changed to 1966 or 1967 without justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.119.3 (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Pradip Baijal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Ashlonerider is on a witch hunt and charater assasination of one of the most respected officers in the Indian Administrative Service. He has repeatedly added opinion pieces and non-factual inferences to push his agenda. He has made over 100 changes on Pradip Baijal's page, with only one agenda - to link him to the scam, and not give any benefit of doubt. All individuals who have worked with the officer talk about his impeccable integrity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitchandra123 (talk • contribs) 13:08, January 3, 2011

First, don't call other editors "a paid hack" in your edit summaries. Second, I'm going to clean a ton of WP:WEASEL wording out of the article, before I make any other edits. The entire article reads like a high school essay, praising the subject's work. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Walter Nowick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The statements in the seventh paragraph of the article, with the exception of the last sentence, are all hotly contested by all persons who were in the community, and are all unproven. There were absolutely contradictory opinions held by members of the community, and none of the statements made are provable, or uncontested by the people involved. This paragraph should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaccerus (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be correct. This is unsourced, and I will delete it. Unfortunately, the remainder of the article is likewise lacking in reliable external sources, and frankly does little to establish that Walter Nowick is sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia article at all. Perhaps others might take a look, and decide how best to proceed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable - I found an NYT article which covers much of the material in the article. (I only added one - there are several which would be useful, but this is well enough for notability concerns) Collect (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've mentioned the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism in case anyone from there can help in improving it. Scaccerus, you may also be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism if that's where your interests lie. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

G'day all, I haven't been participating in the wikileaks debate here, but I've come across one quite perjorative statement sourced indirectly to a wikileaks cable: [17] It appears problematic to me that we would report such serious allegations made in wikileaks cables. The allegation is of course reported in a reliable source but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be more discerning. I thought I'd bring this here for views before reverting on BLP grounds. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted this as according to the source the cable "alleges that a 'VVIP' later identified as Rais Yatim, raped his...maid". It's not clear who "later identified" the VVIP as Yatim. His name is apparently not in any cable, and I can find no other sources except this one article. With more robust sourcing I feel we can mention allegations that are widely reported, but I'm not seeing that here right now. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Think this should be included - it is very clearly noteworthy. It would be good to have other sources but it should be kept in mind that Malaysia doesn't have the world's most open media. --FormerIP (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty with Malaysia is that news sources like the Asia Sentinel tend to try to "balance out" the pro-government media. That's quite evident in this news article, which is quite a hit job (see in particular the paragraph about Shahidan Kassim which is gratuitous rumour). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion on whether Wikileaks cables – or in general any primary sources – should be used as references. I believe when primary sources are available, they should be referenced in conjunction with the secondary sources (and secondary sources that do not confirm with primary sources should be handled with care.) One problem with this hit job is that the claimed original cable does not seem to exist, or no one has been able to link to it. When you find the original cable it will most likely not confirm what is stated in the Asia Sentinel. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The part about Ms.Bertin mother sound libelous and do not offer any source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slilith (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I blanked the controversy section at Sarodj Bertin as it was highly OR and POV. There's a huge issue of undue weight since the controversy section is longer than everything else in the article combined and much of the material is unrelated to the subject of the article. The text does cite sources, but it does it in a way that cherrypicks bits and pieces to use against the Bertin, rather than in a way that actually reflects what the source is saying. GabrielF (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The page has a lot of wrong information about Mohamed Salim AL Awa, Al Awa spend his life fighting for the minority rights, Christians, Baha'is,.... the post cut some of his speech from the middle and miss you use, plus Al Awa was always against terrorist activities all his books, speech , interviews shows that. http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF_%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%A7 http://www.el-awa.com/new/PlayVideo.php?VideoID=142 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mglil7 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue. I have removed a variety of poorly sourced and unsourced negative statements about Mohammed Salim Al-Awa from the article. (Coincidentally, this has turned the article back into a very short stub.) I think allegations of this nature need, at the very least, a single source in English to support them. The one source in English that was cited as supposedly backing up the allegations, didn't even mention the guy's name.

Perhaps you could add some additional biographical information to the article, if you have reliable sources available (especially in English)?

It would also be good for the article to be consistent as to whether he is called Mohammed Salim Al-Awa or Mohammad Selim El-Awa. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed some OR bullshit about link to a recent bombing. But could someone check the arabic sources being used, according to google translate they vaguely check out, but needs someone who can actually read them.--Misarxist 13:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

To Arabic speakers: In this case, DO NOT be afraid to edit the article! Even if you do not speak English well. We are VERY HAPPY to correct your English for you/help you improve. Tim.thelion (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope that means you'll be doing this, Tim. Meanwhile, I see the edit Misarxist has been replaced. I've removed it again to be on the safe said, and if it keeps being added I'll protect the page until it's sorted - contact me on my talk page if I miss something. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had to revert the material again, I've given the editor a 3RR warning (they are at 4RR now IIRC. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I just added the article to my watchlist :D Tim.thelion (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to read them now, but there are is no lack of English sourcing on this subject: http://www.google.cz/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Copts+Awa Tim.thelion (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I just sugested this page be merged with the subjects that he is famous for commenting on. What do you guys think ? Tim.thelion (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a dispute at the Freeman article again. The dispute arrises about whether he actually tested positive for seroid use or merely allegedly did. I cannot really say. He posted a document on the matter, and did not explicitly deny the allegations. This, to me at least, is rather strong evidence that the allegations are true. But of course I cannot use my own reasoning to argue for well, my own reasoning.

However, unless there is some source where the allegations are challenged, I don't see the reason we should call them allegations. If everything written in a newspaper is mere allegation, then the article should be re-written "Toney Freeman was allegedly arrested, while allegedly being in Sweeden, and allegedly he was released without charges, and allegedly he tested positve...." Which, well, you get my point...

And if you still don't see where I'm going with this, look at the log of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AresXV with whom I'm disputing this. Tim.thelion (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

In law – Nordic law at least – being arrested has a very precise meaning. It is different from being taken in for questioning. Do you have a reliable source for the "arrested" allegation? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about nordic law, and I don't see a problem with changing the words to "he was taken in for questioning." I think it is fairly well sourced that he did test positive. The argument is whether he actually tested positive or not... Tim.thelion (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Allegations" is the appropriate term for what is under discussion here. When police arrest/take someone in for questioning, criminal and civil law state that they have to declare a charge within 6-12 hours. ^[1] In Freeman's case, this did not occur. The Swedish police did not have a prima facie case against Freeman, who had arrived in Sweden a few hours before. This is to say, there was no objective evidence on hand with which the local police could candidly charge Freeman for abusing drugs within their jurisdiction. Here is a paper written on the Swedish government's treatment of the war of drugs ^[2]

They took him in because he was a bodybuilder and hoped to build a case against him either under questioning or via testing. Such practise is "profiling" and has been proven to achieve very little in law enforcement terms as "driving while black" and abuse of stop and search practises show. It is also prejudicial and therefore an infringement of civil rights. Added to this, the police did not permit him to have an attorney, a US representative, or make contact with his family. They also forced a urine sample without justifiable cause. All of these are human rights infringements (Violations of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 Article 7, Article 9 parts 1-5, Article 14, 19, 20- this list need not be exhaustive) ).^[3] All of this made fellow competitor Jay Cutler cancel his visit to Sweden ^[4]

Back to the allegations. Freeman was not charged and was released the same day. He committed no offences under Swedish law. Had he been (a) in possession of illegal drugs (b) tested positive for consumption of illegal (c) been therefore found guilty of the charges raised- suspicion of drug abuse, he would have been detained, brought before the courts and sentenced. The sentence would be determined by the seriousness of the drug abuse. If the police had confidence in their case, they would have detained Freeman under a charge and remanded him. This never happened.

Freeman is reported to have cooperated. He answered all questions and actually gave a urine sample to assist with enquiries. He also offered to have his physician consult with the police if they wished. They did not. Seeing that they had no case, the Sundsvall police turned to character assassination. They ran pictures on the news, biased reports and an aggressive statement effectively saying "BODYBUILDERS STAY AWAY FROM SWEDEN" ^[5]

Finally, there is the "reasonable man's test". What has this matter got to do with the price of fish? How does violating the human rights of a US professional bodybuilder aid the Swedish government in their fight against steroids and drug abuse? Freeman, was not required to answer anything other than the charge put to him, so Tim.thelion's dalliance with academic notions of denial and admission being the same thing are out of the scope of this forum, and further evidence that the focus is more personal than on objective fact. Again, Tim, your notions are in clear violation of Article 14, part 2 and 3g.

God forbid the day when we are justifying actions like this against a group of people we don't identify with. AresXV (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC) AresXV

Resolved

 – SevaSevaSeva blocked as a sock puppet. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Information with no source keep getting added back. Article also claims he is a Rabbi with no reliable 3rd party sources; did not graduate from seminary; the 3 people with supposedly gave him ordination, no one knows who there are or if they exist. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Only two comments at the moment. That's quite an edit war there, so I hope others get involved. And I see no source besides the subject for his ordination as a Rabbi, so I'm not sure how we deal with that. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Too much of the removed material is insufficiently contentious for removal, such as the "professorship and research" section. Also SevaSevaSeva in his earlier edits removed the assertion that Tikkun is Jewish from "is Jewish and interfaith" on the grounds that Tikkun has not labeled itself as Jewish for some time. Actually it still does on its website. It is true that Michael Lerner's ordination is controversial, and no one has disclosed publicly the identity of the 3 rabbis who ordained him- however, the WP "who?" template is specifically meant to be used to challenge violations of the policy WP:WEASEL which uses vague terms like "some critics". Most of the published challenges to his ordination come from sources like FrontPage which Wikipedia considers an unreliable source. Furthermore, district Jewish organizations have affirmed his ordination, which was sourced in the article last I checked. Methinks this is a bit like the Barack Obama birth certificate issue. And SevaSevaSeva has also removed material about his UC Berkeley PhD!!! Really, now!!

Disclosure. I am moderately acquainted with Rabbi Lerner, though really only distantly.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

1) I put back Jewish from "is Jewish and interfaith" 2) The burden of proof that he is a Rabbi is not on all the doubters, it is on whomever posts it on Wikipedia. You can't just say "I am a Rabbi, I did not go to rabbinical school, I have mystery people who told me so", "my numerous doubters are not neutral, please believe me." --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing for the claim that this person is a rabbi seems absolutely sound to me. There is no reason that we need independent sourcing for this, since it is a straightforward statement and Tikkun appears to be a reliable source for statements about its editor.

The article contains information about the attitudes of some Jews to Lerner's style of ordination, which should be removed because it goes against WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK. If we have reliable sources for noteworthy criticism of Lerner's ordination in particular then that would be okay. But we cannot have information not directly related to the subject and intended to lead us to a critical conclusion in a BLP.

Lastly, Lerner appears to be more notable as a literary figure than as a rabbi, so perhaps the title of the article could be improved. --FormerIP (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "style of ordination". Someone is ordained, or they just call themselves "Rabbi" He publishes a magazine that he claims he was ordained. There is ZERO evidence of this outside him publishing it in his own magazine. No rabbinic certificate, no news ANYWHERE of a well established person about who was on the the 3 person beth din. It not like he claims the persons were A, B, and C, and we can't verify. There is no claims of anyone. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's all slightly interesting, but there don't appear to be any sources for any of it. All we have is a source that says he's a rabbi, so that's all that we need to include. If a source can be found that questions this, then that might change things. It goes quite squarely against policy to make insinuations in the absence of reliable sources to back it up, particularly where we are dealing with BLP. --FormerIP (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There are many sources that doubt and dispute that he is a Rabbi. "WickerGuy" says they are not reliable. Why is Frontpage and all the others not reliable, but a subjects own bio is? If some one doubts and disputes he is a Rabbi, it that biased? --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

He is the rabbi of a Jewish Renewal congregation in Berkeley. Certainly, other Jewish sects can and do disagree with his status as "rabbi", just as some can and do disagree with anyone outside of their own sect identifying themselves as Jews, but they have no authority over his congregation, his ordination, or his choice of nomenclature; there is no Jewish Central Authority. By the way, SevaSevaSeva, please fix your signature so it doesn't mess up the formatting. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

NYT [18] [19] [20] inter alia (many) identifies him as "Rabbi" and that should be sufficient. The "issue" about the title is referred to in a television review [21] states "Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun magazine, is not a rabbi." but without any supplemental information. WP, last I checked, is not in a position to define who is, or is not, entitled to be called "Rabbi" or "Reverend" etc. at all, all we do is use what reliable sources call the person. Collect (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That is my point. Anyone can describe themselves as a Rabbi, whether you tell the NY Times, or anyone else. Call yourself a Rabbi, people repeat it, have ZERO evidence, no problem, lots of doubts, no problem.

Also, there was lots of non-sourced (not disputed sources, just no sources at all) information in there that I took out, that was the main point of listing here, the "rabbi" issue was secondary. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Insert

If the rabbi issue was secondary, why was it what you started this discussion with? 3rd evidence these are not WP:good faith edits.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm fine with calling him Rabbi, since it can't be defined here. Let's put in a section on "Rabbinical Ordination" that lists all points of view. We can put in sources on both. Just don't say the ones who call him Rabbi are good references and the ones who dispute are all "biased" or "not reliable", as Tikkun magazine, the primary source could also be called the sames things. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The entire section of Positive Judaism was quite adequately sourced(!!!) and removed in its entirety. It's removal is a sign that SevaSevaSeva's edits are not either entirely in good faith or are at least rather careless. I have just restored it.

The New York Times is generally regarded as a reliable source- FrontPage is not for obvious reasons.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be contrary, Seva, but the ones who call him rabbi are good references and the ones who dispute are all biased or not reliable. Frontpage magazine is not a reliable source, particularly not for sourcing material which concerns the personal integrity of a left-of-centre intellectual. --FormerIP (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So, the Left Wing publication Tikkun is good for sourcing material which concerns the personal integrity of a left-of-centre intellectual but a right wing publication is not?

--SevaSevaSeva (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

SevaSevaSeva also gave no adequate reason whatsover for his/her drastic reduction of the External Links section!!! This too is being restored. I am working on sourcing some of the other deleted material. Self-published stuff should be adequate for the academic career if it is not "unduly self-serving".--WickerGuy (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

From a non-conservative local SF paper: Some local rabbis disagree with his credentials. The president of the Northern California Board of Rabbis and JTS graduate Rabbi Alan Lew states "That is arrogant nonsense" "I spent six years in extremely rigorous, round-the-clock study in the classic texts of our tradition. Authentic Jewish spirituality is in the texts, not in some fancy New Age ideas or watered-down kabbalah [Jewish mysticism]" ^[6]

--SevaSevaSeva (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Seva, if you're going to start doctoring sources now, I think it's time to close this discussion. The source does not say "Some local rabbis disagree with his credentials". It says "Some local rabbis would surely disagree", which is in reference to Lerener's opinion of traditional rabbinical schools, quoted in the paragraph immediately prior. --FormerIP (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Seva, you have a POV problem -- the sources don't say what you want them to say. Are you prepared to accept at this point that as far as Wikipedia is concerned Lerner is a rabbi insofar as there are reliable sources such as the New York Times that identify him as a rabbi? If not, you need to step back. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I already said so. There is no way anywhere to define Rabbi so I am fine with calling him Rabbi. I just feel that the people who disagree should also be in the article. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

But what are the sources that indicate disagreement? FormerIP is correct in saying you are misreading the one you have provided. "That is arrogant nonsense" appears to refer to Lerner's comments about seminary programs (in the previous paragraph), not to Lerner's ordination or status. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If the Rabbi in article is referring to "the nonseminary track", and that's where Lerner went, then that goes to his credibility.

There are right wing sources as well, I feel that they should be included with the left wing sources.

"He calls himself “Rabbi,” although he never graduated from any rabbinic seminary and has no rabbinic ordination recognized by any branch of Judiasm. " http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/07/poor-michael-lerner%E2%80%99s-petunias/

--SevaSevaSeva (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

See here for an RSN discussion of Frontpage. Also note that this is a "post" by Steven Plaut. I seriously doubt you will make headway in arguing that this ought to be used in a BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So left wing sources like Tikkun are acceptable, but not right wing. So Lerner is acceptable, but not Plaut. They are equally politically, one pretty left and the other pretty right. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about Tikkun? In this context it might be considered WP:SELFPUB. But it doesn't matter -- we can use the New York Times. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Up until today, the primary source for him being a Rabbi is Tikkun, a magazine he publishes. It is still used as a reference. It is self-published, it is also considered left wing; "the liberal and progressives alternative to the voices of Jewish conservatism and the neo-cons" .

So this is a good source, but a conservative one is unacceptable here. So the rule on sources is: liberal is good, conservative is bad. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If you like. Seva, I think you should just drop the issue now. You're obviously on to a loser here and it's looking more and more to me like you have been disruptively editing the article as well as showing appalling bad faith in this discussion. Cut your losses. --FormerIP (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/, SevaSevaSeva blocked as a sock puppet. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Victoria Silvstedt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor using two different ips is challenging a specific assertion that this Playboy Playmate was a competitive skiier that had placed fourth at a youth championship in the giant slalom in Sweden in 1989. The winner of that event was future Olympic skiier, Pernilla Wiberg. This assertion was reported by the two largest newspapers in Sweden as part of Silvestedt's history. He wishes to remove the mention of this race because he could not find it any skiing records and conjectures that this repeated story is a self-fabricated lie that originated in some interview that was not fact-checked by the newspapers. This discussion is happening in the talk page of the article.

My question is what evidence does the editor have to provide to remove the assertion? I would also like third parties to participate in this discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If the information is verifiable (as it seems to be) and comes from a source meeting WP:RS standards, it would not be appropriate to delete it. The user in question seems to be performing original research (contacting people in Sweden, etc) which is not permitted for an encyclopedia. If the user can also find a reliable source, such as another Swedish newspaper, reporting that Silvestedt never skied competitively, it would make sense to insert another sentence after the contested one: "However, a report by ____ asserts etc." Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

see the army carrier section

Please identify the language which concerns you. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Rjanag has closed this thread on the premise that "the accusations being made aren't in article space". I do not think this is a relevant argument. WP:BLP is increasingly being used to "censor" talk page discussions. Besides, Rjanag should not be closing anything here, he seems to be heavily involved. I will be removing the crap from the talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This article about the Scottish footballer mentions a mysterious dance off at the end of the biography without citing any sources. I suggest that video evidence is submitted, or that the information is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.176.86.84 (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This was vandalism and I have reverted it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

How much weight should be given to the Wikileaks leaks on the articles of Chinese politicians? Zhou Yongkang and Li Changchun both have a dedicated paragraph respectively on comments from the cable leaks connecting them to cyber attacks on Google, yet the sources themselves has been disputed, noting that "Even author of the State Department cable is careful to say that the U.S. government cannot confirm the report".--PCPP (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

somebody is messing about with this record suggesting arca now plays for man city — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterb200 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted back to December version which has club as Middlesborough. Seem to have been various changes to the club in the last couple of days, some based on rumours of a move to Wolves and others that were just vandalism. January ^(talk) 16:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard Adeney died on 16th December 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.151.38 (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has now been updated. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Antonio Damasio's name should not have any accent marks. Adding accent marks denotes improper pronunciation. The accents in the title of the article need to be removed, as to references to the name throughout. Dr. Damasio has never used accents on his name, as evidenced by all of his published works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damasiowiki (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be correct - there are no accents used in his faculty page bio nor in his name as author on the books he has published. I have made a formal request on the article talk page since the target page already exists as a redirect and the move requires an aministrators tools. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is this article not referred to in the wikileaks page on Boris de Rachewiltz?

Is it incorrect?

Check: http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/thread.aspx?mv=flat&m=46&p=topics.royalty.russiann — Preceding unsigned comment added by PyramidCat (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a thread on a message board, and as such is unlikely to be seen as a reliable source, I'm afraid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've refactored [29] some of the comments by 96.231.142.178 (talk · contribs) at Talk:Quackwatch per WP:BLP. Attacks against Barrett rarely occur in isolation, so I thought it best to bring to the attention of others right away. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

His wikipedia page is libel, referring to him as a traitor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.10.145 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, I see nothing like that at the Daniel Herron page, could you be more precise? --Cyclopia^talk 02:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism, since removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There used to be a page for the American (direct to video) actress and model, but that got deleted. She's confused often enough with the British actress so may I recreate the page?

I kid you not on the Juggy Dancer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0640871/ Hcobb (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The article text of List of Hispanic and Latino Americans includes the slightly strange paragraph:

Note: Only people who have biographies at Wikipedia should be included on this list. Reliable sources are optional (for now) when including people belonging to any of the above-listed groups, but are required for others. Thus, for an American who has Spanish ancestry, but was born (for example) in Germany or the Philippines, it should be shown that he or she self-identifies as a Hispanic or Latino American. No flags should accompany the names—the flags currently in the article are in process of removal. This list may be incomplete.

Presumably this note should be hidden from view so that it's only visible when editing the list, but it seems to be openly encouraging the flouting of BLP policy. Unsurprisingly, the list itself is pretty much unsourced. Any views on what should be done here? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks pretty much like the earlier lists. Probably the same thing should happen. John lilburne (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole list is kind of silly since Hispanic people make up such a large part of the US population. What's next a list of "German Germans"? Steve Dufour (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It is crap, and a direct violation of BLP policy which explicitly states that such lists require sourcing (actually, I think that all lists require sourcing anyway). In principle, it would be perfectly correct to simply delete any unsourced inclusion of a living person, but a better procedure might be to move them to the talk page, as was recently done here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#British_ethnicity_lists. Frankly, the list is so long that it is worthless anyway, to anyone but the ethnoboosters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved as was done here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#British_ethnicity_lists. John lilburne (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with it. If anyone has time to fix some more, plenty of the lists in Category:Lists of American people by ethnic or national origin suffer from the same problem. I'll try to get around to removing unsourced entries from them, but I'm being kept busy by the British ethnicity lists and articles right now. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, an editor has chosen to repeatedly revert this list to it's unsourced state, without giving an adequate reason to do so, even while apparently accepting that is in breach of policy (see the talk page). At this point I think it may be as well to ask for further input. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now raised this issue at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_dispute_at_List_of_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda328 has been adding some troublesome material in the Tony Frangieh article, that I view as a violation of WP:BLP (Samir Geagea is a living person). I've had problems with this editor before, who has a clear bias against certain political and religious groups in Lebanon (in a previous AN/I brought case against them, Propaganda328 described Lebanon's assassinated former Prime Minister as "an executed criminal, a criminal who robbed a country dry, out of every last 2irish, to make his tens or hundreds of billions, and is the very definition of corruption and immorality," which pretty much reflected the POV they were attempting to push in that article). In this case though, the target of their edits is a living person, which is why I'm here. The edit in question is this one, which I reverted as a BLP violation. The editor then re-added it, this time citing a YouTube video and some non-English web forum as sources. I've reverted the addition again, but given the past actions of this editor, I suspect they will keep pushing the point while failing to provide reliable sources. Would appreciate some intervention. ← George ^talk 01:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with George. Propaganda328 has some serious BLP issues. Should we block this user? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I take it that by 'troublesome' you mean adding one of the only sourced comments in the articles, and removing only some of the many unsourced claims that happen to satisfy your personal views. For someone accusing others of having bias, you seem to be extremely biased towards a particular side, whichever article it is, about the Lebanese civil war or about present Lebanese politics, describing the "dangerous Iranian Hezbollah" in the very same article which you took my quote from. In the Tony Frangieh article, you failed to mention in your complaint that you purposely removed the source that backed up the comment, calling it 'nonsense', and replacing it with a completely unsourced claim. You also conviniently kept all the recent unsourced edits to the article which clearly where in favor of your POV. Such as the other unsourced accusation against Elie Hobeika. The fact that you don't understand the arabic language, which sources about Lebanon-related articles could be in, even though you are so passionate about all Lebanon-related articles, comes as no surprise to me, since you have no knowledge of even the most basics Lebanese politics, such as the fact that you have no clue that Sleiman Frangieh, the present leader of the Marada party, and son of the killed Tony Frangieh, is the one who accuses Samir Geagea of killing his family [30] and said and I quote "Geagea is the devil himself", well that's his point of view, but you get the picture.

I take it the admins can see that if any edits this user makes are sourced, it would be merely a coincidence.

And thank you so very much for not informing me at my Talk Page that your were trying to get me blocked, so I couldn't defend myself.

I beg admins not be one-sided on this. You can clearly see what this user does, he replaces sourced material(sourced in the arabic Lebanese language, but still sourced), and replaces them with completely unsourced material simply because it satisfies his biased views, then attempts to get the other editor blocked without his knowledge.--Propaganda328 (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• By "troublesome material" I mean content that violates WP:BLP.
• I've never written "dangerous Iranian Hezbollah", so whether it's intentional or not, you are misquoting me. You also have no idea of my personal or political views, so kindly comment on content and not contributors.
• This isn't the Arabic Wikipedia, and there is no requirement that I understand Arabic to contribute to articles about Lebanon. If you want to edit the Arabic Wikipedia, that is located here. On the English Wikipedia, you should use English sources, or be able to provide translations of non-English sources when requested.
• You've repeatedly failed to cite reliable sources (as you've been told before, the sources you have cited are not reliable enough for what you're citing them for), and you've violated Wikipedia's BLP policies by slandering a living person. Nothing that you've written or done has changed that, and you seem to ignore the issue completely.
• Did I request that you get blocked? No, I asked an uninvolved administrator to intervene. The last time that was necessary, an uninvolved administrator sent you a message, which you promptly ignored, and you were eventually blocked. While I suspect you're going to get blocked, repeatedly, based on your past behavior, maybe you'll eventually learn to follow Wikipedia's policies instead of trying to inject your person viewpoints. That's up to you. ← George ^talk 22:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Content does not violate WP:BLP if it is sourced, and written NOT as a definitive fact, which is how it was written.
• [[31]], you say you find it 'troublesome' that an Iranian based IP address inserts any material into wikipedia when the iranian hezbollah is implicated in the killing of Hariri. Your edits in Lebanon related articles show you have "a clear bias against certain political and religious groups in Lebanon", mainly against Hezbollah. And I have no bias against any religious groups in Lebanon. Not to mention your own user page speaks for itself[[32]].
• I know this isn't the Arabic wikipedia, and you are welcome to edit Lebanon-related articles whether or not you understand arabic. However, if you personally can't understand the language in an important source, it doesn't mean that source should be removed. It just so happens that all Lebanese politicians speak in non-other than their own arabic language, and thus all primary sources for their opinions are in arabic, which is very seldom translated. And there is hardly a Lebanon-related article without arabic sources if you'd notice.
• There you lie again. You repeatedly failed to cite ANY sources at all for the material you revert, and dismiss any sources already existing as "not" reliable and as "random forums" and youtube videos unrelated to the article, even though you said yourself you haven't a clue what they're about and haven't viewed them.
• I suspect perhaps someone will realize that you are a constant POV-pusher who hypocritically accuses others of POV pushing. And bringing up false information that I was blocked previously because of "POV-pushing" in the Hariri article, when I was really blocked for another reason unrelated to the article, so you would encourage other admins to block me (or intervene as you nicely put it). Please stop injecting your own personal views.--Propaganda328 (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Content that is sourced and not stated as fact may still violate WP:BLP, please don't assume that it can't. We virtually never use forums as sources and YouTube only rarely (when an official site perhaps). Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If in this video [33], Sleiman Frangieh, the son of Tony Frangieh, and present leader of the Marada party, says that Geagea killed his father, is it inadequate to say in the article that Frangieh accuses Geagea, or that "there is another theory that Geagea killed Tony Frangieh". And the "forum source" as he mentioned is not a forum at all, but a link to a primary source video, a little fact he didn't mention(as I said he didn't really view the sources before removing them).--Propaganda328 (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You're either missing the point, or intentionally trying to deflect administrator attention. Citing unreliable, user-uploaded content as evidence that a Lebanese politician "brutally killed [another politician's daughter]... in a bathroom sink" is not okay. The source is in Arabic, and you've failed to provide an English translation of it. You've never passed the source—or any of your sources, despite my repeated requests—by the reliable sources noticeboard to verify that it is reliable for what you're citing it for. Your source is hosted on a website associated with a political enemy of the person whom you're attributing "brutal killing" to, and you have a history of adding defamatory content about such people. I think your clear personal biases against these politicians presents a conflict of interest in this topic area, and given your comments and editing history, I would suggest a topic ban from editing articles about Lebanese politicians. ← George ^talk 02:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

RFC now raised. January ^(talk) 21:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter Munk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've reverted content copied from the blog of a campaign group, Peter Munk OUT of UofT, and attempts to add the blog as an external link several times over the past few days. The user making these additions has just identified herself on talk page as the co-founder of http://protestbarrick.net (Munk is chairman of Barrick Gold) and one of the organisers of Peter Munk OUT of UofT. January ^(talk) 19:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this is Sakura Saunders, the person who added the factual additions to Peter Munk's wikipedia page. I don't understand why my association with protestbarrick.net and Munk OUT of UofT would bar me from adding factual additions about Peter Munk. I source the Toronto Star and Embassy Mag, both major news sources in Canada and a pdf of the actual contract between Munk's foundation and the University. The only time I reference my websites is to reference that organizations do exist that are critical of Mr. Munk and his company Barrick Gold. ProtestBarrick contains over 670 articles, the majority of which are from mainstream news sources, about Munk's company.

As a past financial contributor to wikipedia, I am very upset and disappointed that this space where the corporations are supposed to have an equal say as citizen activists is shutting out the voices of those activists (like you, I am a volunteer). I am primarily a media activist and have been involved with Indymedia and other indy outlets throughout the year. If I continue to be censored by Wikipedia, believe me that there will be an article about it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryblossom1979 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You aren't being censored. You are merely being asked to provide sources which reach the Standards Wikipedia requires: see WP:RS. I'd have thought that as 'a past financial contributor to wikipedia' you wouldn't like to see us being influenced by threats of 'articles' - that would be a breach of our integrity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

More eyes would be appreciated, the user is continuing to add the information which is a copyvio and contains BLP issues which I have explained on the talk page. January ^(talk) 06:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User has come up with some better sources and I think has stopped adding the WP:COATRACK content. Closing for now to avoid this being open in two venues as I've raised an RFC on the weight and use of a primary source. January ^(talk) 21:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Laura Prepon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The biographical section of this article needs to be gone over by someone with a better grasp of the line between fandom and fact for actresses. The majority of sources for her bio seem to me to fail RS, and some material is likely unsourced. As an example, she was listed as being married to someone else other than who the article claimed she was living with, but most of her personal info is sourced to Yahoo and fansites. MSJapan (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed some poorly sourced statements, although the article still needs some work. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The possible deletion of List of HIV-positive people, a featured list, is being discussed at AfD. Much of the discussion is about BLP-related aspects.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The biography is NOT from a Neutral Point Of View but looks more like something his publicist has written. Also Scientology is spread throughout the whole article and is not limited to the category about his religion. The page even has a link to the general scientology portal. This violates the policy on biographies of living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rportti (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you looking at the current article? I'd agree that there may be a POV problem, but I don't see 'Scientology' as being overly prominent. In fact it doesn't seem to be mentioned at all, which makes the Scientology category and portal link seem somewhat unjustified. Perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge of the subject could take a look. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The use of the Scientologist category is clearly insufficiently supported - and removed. Collect (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

He makes no secret of being a Scientologist. See the talk page for sources verifying his membership of that religion (and showing inclusion is correct per due weight) and also sources for his relationship with Bijou Phillips, mention of which was also removed. Fences&Windows 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)