Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

David Pugh (Conservative politician)

I read this link below and then checked the history of the article. It does seem like some important parts were erased over 11 edits to make the person seem more favourable. Not sure whats gone on here. Vctrbarbieri (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

http://onthewight.com/2013/12/06/who-has-been-sanitising-david-pughs-wikipedia-page/

Opinion needed: Is this a misuse of primary sources?

Ignazio Ciufolini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a BLP that seems to be the battleground for an off-Wiki dispute that played out on the Arxiv scientific publication archive. The subject contacted OTRS asking for help in removing a paragraph regarding the "controversy" he was involved in - the alleged submission of inappropriate papers using the "G. Forst" pseudonym. The claim for inclusion in Wikipedia is based on a single line included in an Arxiv submission here, which reads: This submission has been removed because 'G.Forst' is a pseudonym of Ignazio Ciufolini, who repeatedly submits inappropriate articles under pseudonyms, in violation of arXiv policies. So at first glance to me that was a clear and simple violation of WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:BLPPRIMARY, since the controversy at Arxiv is sourced to Arxiv itself, and there seems to be no other way to verify it through one or more independent reliable sources. User:Headbomb disagrees. Thoughts? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If The New York Times writes on the page of one of their articles "One of our journalists deliberately misrepresented his interviewer's opinion, and we therefore retract the original article. This journalist is now no longer affiliated to the NYT.", it is silly to contend that you cannot report this until you have confirmation from The Los Angeles Times that the NYT retracted the article and dismissed the journalist. Not only is the arXiv management an authoritative source on whether or not someone has violated the policy, it is the only authoritative source on that question. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not "silly". The policy for use on primary sources states explicitly that they cannot be used as a sole source, much less for negative information on biographies. The link you're using can be included to support the assertion made by a secondary, independent source about the issue. And I'm pretty sure that if the NYT published a retraction, the LA Times would be all over that, so it wouldn't be a problem to find a secondary source. So what we need here is that secondary source. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Whether someone violating its policies is noteworthy for Wikipedia, though, is another matter. I'm not saying it is or isn't, but the thing with primary sources is that its not easy to tell, which is why they should be used with caution.

On the other hand, the whole article seems to be based on primary sources, so it is not clear that the article subject passes GNG. I'd say the article should be deleted. If it is kept, it is hard to see why some information based on primary sources should be kept but not the bits the subject doesn't like. Formerip (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with an AFD, however I'm always tripped by the WP:PROF guidelines, so I'm not sure if the subject would merit inclusion based on these citation levels. Misuse of primary sources for everything else aside, my concern here is their use to support negative information. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I've submitted it to AFD and we can let them sort out the GNG issue. Update: according to initial commenters this is a clear keep. Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that the disputed text doesn't just say his article was removed and he was prevented from posting on arXiv. It specifically calls his actions misconduct in the section heading.

In any case, it's worth remembering one of the reasons we prefer not to use primary sources is not simply because they may be misintepreted or wrong, but also because if all we have is primary sources there's no real evidence of significance. If something relating to a living person is significant to warrant inclusion, we would normally expect other sources to pick them up. This is particularly true for stuff which may seem negative (or positive for that matter). Simple non self serving stuff like someone's religion, ethnicity, sexuality etc are exceptions, particularly considered that we generally require self identification. (Of course if there are no secondary sources in the first places, it's not surprising if they have not picked it up. That's an indication the article perhaps fails our notability guidelines, not that we should start putting up random stuff editors find from primary sources about suggested wrongdoing.)

Incidentally, in many cases it's not true that an organisation is an authoritative source on whether someone violated a policy. In many jurisdictions, such claims may be subject to court challenges, particularly in relation to libel etc. And even without that, if all reliable secondary sources say based on the presented facts a person did not violate some policy, it would be ludicrious for us to ignore them and claim that the person or company who's policy it is is definitely right. (Not to mention in plenty of cases, a company will say something violates policy and then change their minds without changing the policy, when it causes an outcry or someone else in the company reevaluates it.)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that this is an inappropriate use of primary sources. If this dispute is significant enough to include, a secondary source will examine it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Adam Lamberg

Adam Lamberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An IP has been adding dubious and unsourced information to this page, which I have removed twice at the time of writing. This information is almost certainly not true, as Google turns up virtually no results as would be expected if the information were correct. Jinkinson talk to me 03:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Watching. For what it's worth, it doesn't matter if it's "true" or not, it's unsourced. Any unsourced material can be removed from any BLP without even so much as a "whoa". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#Amigoe article

Someone in the talk page said that such information must be either reworded, additionally referenced, or deleted. I wonder if that's the case. --George Ho (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that you can't really have a whole section dedicated to an article from a source that introduces new/controversial information without some kind of supporting coverage by other sources. In other words, there is an assertion that the article is notable and merits inclusion, and so that notability should be proven by demonstrating the existence of secondary coverage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper articles can't be used as sources without showing that other newspaper articles reported on the newspaper article? That's a level of recursion that I haven't encountered before. The source in question is one of Curacao's major newspapers reporting the contents of interviews with people that are certainly notable with regard to the case: Julia Renfro, who assisted Natalee's mother during the early days of her search, and Gerald Dompig, who headed the investigation into Natalee's disappearance. The information itself isn't particularly new or controversial, and the documentary itself received widespread coverage. This was one of the tamer sources available, considering it was in competition with things like this. —Kww(talk) 01:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#Amigoe article is drawing on a single source to present a contentious view, and exhaustively detail accusations about living people. "According to interviews done in preparation for the film,". That is not proper attribution.

Re this, the source is about Sloot. it alleges he was in the business of recruiting prostitutes. Thanks for that, making very clear what the article is getting at in the lede: "he said that he sold Holloway into sexual slavery". So the article has contained an innuendo that she was the sort of girl who could be recruited to work as a prostitute. And this was while she fell under BLP guidelines. (Natalee Holloway was only legally declared dead in 2012). Overagainst (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly a way to twist things. Slavery has become a voluntary state that reflects on the moral character of the slave? The allegations were made multiple times by multiple parties during the course of the investigation, and JvdS even confessed to it and later recanted. BLP policies do not require that we present a Disneyfied version of events.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a helpful link in the lede to sexual slavery, so there is no doubt what was, and is, being insinuated about the victimised teenager's character was that she was the kind of girl who might be working as a prostitute. And she was officially a living person for the years that has been in the article. Highly inappropriate, and still is.Overagainst (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No such insinuation is being made, nor can it reasonably be read that anyone is stating that Natalee was "the kind of girl who might be working as a prostitute." That's the problem we keep having in these discussions: you are objecting to an article that doesn't exist and insisting on changes to the one that actually does exist as a result.—Kww(talk) 21:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my favorite discussion: identity vs. behavior (or activity). Prostitute vs. prostitution. Which is better? Fortunately, I care about speedily resolving this issue, and I sense that the whole debate is making the issue longer (and more difficult) to resolve. I guess I have no opinion on this, so it needs another opinion of someone besides yours. George Ho (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't the issue at all: the issue is that the source is stating that JvdS stands accused of doing bad things to Natalee, the article reflects that those accusations exist (and that he even confessed to it at one point), and the inclusion of that material is now being twisted into stating that Natalee is being accused of being a bad person. That's unreasonable. This discussion is also in reference to a source that the article doesn't use, but was one that I provided as an example of how we had used discretion in selecting sources to use less sensational ones.—Kww(talk) 21:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The article twice (one in the lede ) detailed the story about the victim being trafficked into prostitution as the lede's link made clear. I am scared to guess what motivated those edits, but there is no doubt it was a BLP violation for years while she was presumed alive (until 2012). It was a story told by Sloot (who the Aruban police chief publicly described as a "sociopath" in 2008) and should never have been in the article WP:AVOIDVICTIM._Overagainst (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that scary motivation was to neutrally describe the aftermath of the disappearance? There were three leading theories immediately after the disappearance: homicide, kidnapping, and runaway. Runaway stopped being seriously discussed very quickly, as no one could find a trace of any motivation to do so. Kidnapping remained a theory for years, but, when no ransom was ever demanded, people focused on this idea of her having been sold into slavery. That theory was publicized in both a documentary on Aruba and in the American press by Dr. Phil, and was the subject of a recanted confession. The topic of the investigation can't be completely discussed without mentioning it. Very few people would seriously consider discussing the theory that someone had been sold into slavery as a BLP violation against the person thought to have been forced into slavery. It's a theory that portrays Natalee as a potential victim, not in a negative light.—Kww(talk) 02:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Look what the featured article has front and centre (here). The Aruba police chief's favoured theory of an accidental alcohol and drug overdose is buried in a long section in the middle of the article, but the attribution of sexual promiscuity, drunkenness and drug use is front and centre. So the explication of the course of the investigation is not what's going on. Material on obscure and prurient prostitution 'theories' does no work to explain or neutrally describe, functioning rather as a hook to hang negative attributions about the victim and her (living) family. Whether the motivation is a conscious attempt to humiliate and degrade the Holloways is irrelevant. WP:AVOIDVICTIM "...when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."_Overagainst (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Álamos

I, and another editor, reverted to remove content being added without reliable sources. I have temporarily blocked User:Lynn Weidman after repeated requests to cease the addition. There are several other, non-3rr exempt issues with the posting (notability, unencyclopedic tone), but the lack of sourcing brings it here. The user did include OR sources to the yahoo groups posts, but those I did not deem reliable. Thoughts on further action? --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not only is that inappropriately worded at best, it's poorly sourced and irrelevant to the subject of the article. And since it has BLP connotations, the block is appropriate. Should be lifted only if they agree not to do it again in their request. And by the way, I'd be surprised an English-language Yahoo newsgroup is "popular" in what is essentially a tiny town in the middle of Sonora. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Eric Rudolph's gay brother

Can I add such information about the brother of Eric Rudolph and use Salon as the source? --George Ho (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the information? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Eric bombed a lesbian bar and has a gay brother. I just want to inform readers about this. --George Ho (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why we should stick his brother's name in the article and attach an unnecessary taint of criminality to someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the crimes committed by Eric Rudolph. If there is no compelling reason to include a non-public person in an article about a heinous criminal, why do it? If there is something useful from the interview that could be added to the article, it's a valid source, but adding a line just to say "he has a brother who is gay," I don't see the point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

According to the article, Eric was reported to have visited his gay brother in New York City on January 1998. The advocate also says so. Another book says so. Eric seemed calm about Jamie, according to Jamie. Yet he spewed negative remarks about homosexuality. George Ho (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you just made my point for me. Of what value is it for us to know that he visited his brother on a random date, and what relevance does it have to an encyclopedic account of Eric Rudolph's life? There doesn't seem to be any. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think what my compassly challenged friend NBSB is saying is that while the sources have commented upon the relationship, they have themselves failed to comment upon any relevance that reaches over bar of the BLP policy. Would it be permissible to mention that Rudolph has a brother? Sure. A brother that is gay? Not unless his brother's sexuality is relevant to the story. I see where George is going with this, and it very well may be the case that sources feel that cognitive dissonance might be in play. I would appreciate more sources, and possibly one with a more neutral view to supplement the advocate.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Not just The advocate and Salon, the print book would suffice, right? If not, another book, another article not mentioning his sexuality, USA Today, another book. But if I can't add it and edit statement alone, perhaps someone will without violating BLP policy (or illegally passing the limit)? George Ho (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

George Ho, this is a biography of Eric Rudolph, not of his brothers. Our BLP policy prevents us from making a big deal out of his non-notable gay brother, just as we don't make a big deal about his non-notable brother who protested by cutting off his own hand with circular saw. Focus on Eric, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That includes Eric's views on Jamie's sexuality, right? George Ho (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Only to the extent that you know them and can document them. Speculating about them, even based on the observations you have cited, is not appropriate for Wikipedia and would be synthesis. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the bio is about Eric, how can I add his brother Jamie and make him relevant to Eric's bio? I don't want to add written analysis about Eric's sexuality while he still lives. But I can't let Jamie be omitted in Wikipedia just because it's "irrelevant". George Ho (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You cannot possibly make something "relevant" on your own here on Wikipedia which has not been discussed in detail by reliable sources. Passing mentions amounting to "he had a gay brother" do not cut it. We summarize the important things that reliable sources say about a topic. We do not scour sources for trivial factoids such as the sexual orientation of a sibling to make a point. Certainly, one brother's spectacular self-abuse is far more unusual than another brother's sexual orientation. Why focus on the gay brother? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

So because you can't add speculation about the sexuality of the article subject, you want to add the sexuality of the article subject's brother? That is textbook WP:COATRACK. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

H.A. Hellyer

H. A. Hellyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This individual does not meet notoriety standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spism34 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Generally we go by notability, not notoriety.--Auric talk 01:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And note that the standards, and requirements for verifiability, are different for published academics. See WP:SCHOLAR. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No need at all to point out a common newbie error, Auric. Some great writers scramble words sometimes, and need the help of skilled editors. Let's be good editors here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Just trying to lend a helping hand.--Auric talk 04:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Lloyd Irvin (again)

I've previously raised at this noticeboard the controversy surrounding Lloyd Irvin and his Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu team. After a rather long discussion here: [1] there was some support for reporting the controversy, especially as it affects Irvin himself (e.g. he disbanded his affiliate program). However there was a problem with sources, as the main sources were MMA websites. Recently a long article has been published about Llord Irvin and the controversy on the Miami New Times website: [2]. I assume the article has only just been published because the relevant court case only finished last month. The article is long, and appears to me at least to be a good example of investigative reporting, including interviews with "over two dozen" associates and research into court records. I would therefore like to report the controversy in the article as follows:

Cult allegations controversy

Following an incident between three of his students on New Year's Eve 2012 Irvin received a lot of negative publicity in the mixed martial arts press. Several of his best students decided to leave, and Irvin disbanded his affiliate program, citing the "lynch mob" mentality of his attackers. A 5 Dec 2013 article on the controversy with accounts from former Irvin associates and students claimed Irvin's students were training in a cult like environment.

Could I get some feedback please? Thanks in advance. --Merlinme (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is at all proper to have a section titled "sexual allegations controversy" when there is no substantiated allegation, much less proof, that Irvin engaged in any sort of sexual misconduct. That title creates an entirely misleading implication. The focus of the text should be on the claim of a "cult-like" environment, not on the alleged actions of two people who are not Irvin. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the title. --Merlinme (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to de-emphasize the rape allegation element, given that they were found not guilty and the link was tenuous to begin with. Frankly, I would omit it entirely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, text changed. It's rather vague now but people do of course have the option of following the reference if they want more detail.--Merlinme (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I believe this is this article's fourth BLPN submission. During one of these lengthy discussions, I was convinced that WP:NPF was a relevant policy to this issue. If we could get even a weak consensus regarding that issue I'd be a lot more comfortable to support inclusion, now that WP:BLPCRIME, WP:TABLOID, WP:UNDUE and all the other policy considerations aren't probably as pressing as they once were when this was all very fresh info. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally think that the controversy is one of the main reasons Irvin is notable now. He was notable before as the head of a successful BJJ team, however I think he's a lot more notable now as a result of the controversy (and the relating discussion it generated in the MMA press). I simply can't imagine he would have received six pages in the Miami New Times without the controversy. It seems therefore reasonable to me to briefly report the controversy, provided it's done using a reliable source and with due consideration for the reputational issues (and frankly, my suggested edit is pretty mild compared to some of what is reported in the Miami New Times article, using interviews with people who trained with him and court records). Regarding weight (and what he's currently notable for), for comparison you could look at his profile at bjjheroes, where over a third of the text is devoted to the controversy. --Merlinme (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If it is a main source of his notability now, shouldn't we have far more valid sources to substantiate it? A free weekly newpaper, being the best source available, in itself says a lot. Still, it doesn't seem like anyone is going to comment on my concerns with WP:NPF, so can we at least have some comments for inclusion or exclusion one way or the other and try to establish some consensus here? Anyone? Please? Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, in the absence of any further feedback from the Noticeboard for a couple of days now, I'm going to assume there is at least tacit consent that people don't see any BLP issues with the proposed edit. I'm sure Buddy23Lee and myself can amicably resolve any other issues we have. I'm going to stop watching this page now, so if someone sees this late and wants to jump in, please send me a message directly (or put a message on the Lloyd Irvin Talk page). --Merlinme (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nino Firetto

An editor who claims to be the subject of this article has been removing content from the article. At first glance, some of the content being removed appears to be poorly sourced and may be in violation of WP:BLP. I don't have time to look closely now, so could someone else please have a look? Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The subject's financial woes are sourced to two blogs, both which claim to be written by the subject himself. This is why we don't accept blogs as reliable sources, as the identities and the information are not verifiable. Per this edit summary, the material added may have been done so due to a real-life beef. IMO there should be no mention of the financial stuff unless it it deemed relevant to the biography and is covered by a reliable source. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Google web and news searches turn up nothing other than the blog posts, which indicates that this is not encyclopedia-worthy content. JNW (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting eyes on Louis Joseph Posner

Louis Joseph Posner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So this article got stubbed and then quickly A7'ed back in 2011, then recreated earlier this year with all the content that had been removed prior to stubbing (a histmerge was later conducted). The recreated article dealt entirely with the subject's protest movement in response to the 2000 and 2004 US Presidential elections, whereas at least in 2011, virtually all reliable sources out there focused on his then-recent disbarment following a conviction for promoting prostitution. I think AfD is pretty clearly the next step, but given WP:GNG is pretty clearly met by the number of sources discussing his disbarment, it seems that WP:BLP1E would be the only grounds for deleting at this point (if indeed the conviction and disbarment is the only notable event for this subject). If not, it still seems likely that the main source of notability for this subject is his conviction and disbarment, and thus WP:UNDUE suggests the article should mainly focus on those aspects... but how does this mesh with WP:BLP? Anyway, I'm hoping for some more experienced eyes to at least give this one a look. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, how exactly does a lawyer getting disbarred meet our notability guidelines? Lawyers get disbarred all the time. If Posner is notable for anything, surely it is for his involvement with VoterMarch - and any significant coverage of his disbarment can only be a result of his earlier activities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The conviction that led to the disbarment was substantially covered by major news sources, including the New York Times and New York Post, and industry news such as the New York Law Journal, and others. And the conviction itself was only very tangentially related to his activity with VoterMarch (which I note should probably be moved to "Voter March") insofar as it was initially alleged (in the grand jury indictment, which allegation was covered in the Times article) that he'd used Voter March to launder money from a prostitution ring operated out of his lap dance club; the charges related to that appear to have been dropped, possibly as part of the plea deal. There was also a minor incident in the wake of the case having to do with how seized monies could be used (I admit I haven't really looked into it deeply yet, but there's a reported Appellate Division case raised by the NYPD dealing with it). Anyway, long story short, I think it's pretty likely the coverage of the conviction/disbarment meets WP:GNG, or at least could be reasonably argued as such... but if you combine it with Voter March does it pass WP:BLP1E? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Material got removed

See [3]: An IP has just removed all mention of the arrest, conviction and disbarment claiming it's "potentially libelous" given a pending appeal (probably not a meritorious one, but that's neither here nor there). Can I get a third party's input here? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Viorica Costiniu

This is translated in full from another WP, but I do not think it meets our standards. Certainly not the first part a, which seems to be guilt by association. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I stripped the unsourced BLP material. The other negative was sourced and seemed pertinent. JodyB _talk 03:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Jessica Chastain

Editors trying to modify the birth name using dubious sources. I'd like someone else to have a look here. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I left a message for the editor inserting the material. The site appears to be fan site for the family name of Chastain. I don't think it is reliable. JodyB _talk 03:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheetal Sheth

Sheetal Sheth's page is repeatedly being edited, replacing true facts with falsehoods. Examples:

• Twice now someone has changed the true statement that Ms. Sheth was the first Indian American woman to appear in Maxim magazine to the false statement that she appeared in Playboy magazine. Ms. Sheth has been repeatedly asked about her appearance in Playboy by members of the press, and it's awkward and embarrassing for all concerned.
• Once someone changed the name of the play she first appeared in from "Slight Indulgences" (correct) to "Sexual Indulgences" (wrong).
• Twice someone has changed her religious upbringing from Jain (correct) to Muslim (wrong).
• Three times someone has changed her father's country of origin from India (correct) to Malaysia (wrong).
• Three times someone has changed the languages she speaks to completely random wrong languages such as Swahili and Chinese.
• Three times someone has changed her birthplace from Phillipsburg, NJ (correct) to Camden, NJ (wrong).
• Three times someone has changed the statement that she's the second of three children (correct) to the claim that she's the second of nine children (wrong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBChristy (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Changing the languages she speaks and her father's country of origin to something wrong is annoying but relatively minor. But changing the name of the play to "Sexual Indulgences" and claiming that she appeared in Playboy could be considered malicious. It's certainly proved embarrassing to her. And, given that members of the press have asked her about it, there's a real risk that some less-than-fully-diligent reporter might publish that as fact without confirming with her first. Also, Google is now prominently displaying info from Wikipedia on search results pages for people. Wrong information about Ms. Sheth has been cached by Google and displayed, even after I've corrected Ms. Sheth's page. I can easily imagine that many people don't realize the info displayed on Google's search results page comes from Wikipedia and may be incorrect.

I have just gone through and corrected as many falsehoods as I could find. Would it be possible to protect Ms. Sheth's page to prevent whoever is repeatedly adding falsehoods to the page from doing it anymore? Thanks in advance for your consideration.

JBChristy (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Lauryn Hill's correct b-date is May 26, 1975

on the search page under Wikipedia it is correct but when you actually go in to the actual main page, it has her at 62 yrs of age. She's only 38.24.99.48.250 (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed - the page has been vandalised. GiantSnowman 12:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Meshulam Riklis

Some unsourced content, with possible BLP issues. If anyone's familiar with the bio of this billionaire, please have a look. JNW (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Telexfree - Experienced eyes please

This corporation appears to have been trading controversially. There are citations for that allegation. However, there are named parties in the article and that requires experienced eyes to check for uncited statements that may prove to be defamatory. This is not a call for a discussion here so much as a heads up that eyes are needed on the article. Fiddle Faddle 16:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is now revealing a great deal of information about the addresses of directors. I am starting to form a view that, despite being referenced and relatively neutrally written, this is a campaign article for those affected by the alleged controversial trading of the organisation. While the information may be in the public domain (Directors' home addresses are in the UK public domain for UK corporations, for example) I believe that experienced eyes are required on this article to ensure BLP compliance. Fiddle Faddle 09:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The director information has been removed, presumably as a result of this message. Please would editors keep a watchful eye on the article nonetheless. 09:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Kacey Musgraves

Kacey Musgraves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Her name and occupation is offensive and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.190.154 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The vandalism was already removed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Alan Gottlieb

Alan Gottlieb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Multiple problems with biography. No citations or links. Suggest removal of page because the person does not meet the standards of a notable living person. Or merge the biography with "Second Amendment Foundation" entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mairemasco (talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Kahlil Byrd

• Kahlil Byrd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems tending to whitewash (removal of cited statements about unsuccessful outcomes or commentary regarding lack of followthrough) and inclusion of of non-neutral language or overstating facts or impacts beyond what cites support. DMacks (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant

In the article on Kobe Bryant, the intro includes the following sentence: "In 2003, Bryant was accused of sexual assault after having sex with a hotel employee in Edwards, Colorado."

This is in violation of Wikipedia's policy of not including libelous information on living people: The hotel employee is a living person, and she has said that she was raped by Kobe Bryant that night. Therefore, this sentence presents as a fact that a consensual act occurred (sex) when the act is actually a claim that has not been proven. Instead, the article should read, "In 2003, Bryant was accused of sexual assault by a hotel employee in Edwards, Colorado." That is a factual statement that does not pass judgment either way on the accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.241.175 (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Stating the apparently-uncontroversial fact that sexual intercourse took place does not establish judgment on whether that intercourse was consensual or not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Katherine Hayhoe

Katharine Hayhoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi,

I noticed there is a Wikipedia page for me that contains a number of errors:

(1) My name is mis-spelled (the correct spelling is KathArine, two A's) (2) I've authored over 60 papers, not 50 (3) I am not American, I am Canadian (4) I am not a climatologist, I am an atmospheric scientist. Not the same thing!

Is there a way these errors could be fixed?

Vielen Dank!

Katharine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.38.24 (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Those changes have been made! Thanks for letting us know about the errors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Frankie Boots

Frankie Boots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person should not be on Wikipedia. Any reference to him should be removed, because he is just another small-time nobody who is trying to promote himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallow73 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

RY X

In the RY X article, the writer seems to merge the projects of Ry Cumings and RY X into a single entity. RY X was intended to be a completely separate project away from the connotations of Ry Cumings. Also, details regarding record label are incomplete - the Berlin EP's European release is on Infectious Music which is his current label.

References See this Guardian New Band of the Day article: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/dec/10/ry-x And this link to iTunes re: release info: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/berlin-ep/id767455884

In the current article, references 1 and 5 are dead links.

I would propose splitting Ry Cumings (and accomplishments) and RY X (and accomplishments) into separate articles with correct discographies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamueljamesHill (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This notice board is for issues specifically related to controversial content about a living person. The RY X matter appears to be solely content related and is more appropriately discussed on the article talk page, noting that the criteria for a stand alone article WP:GNG are that each subject has received significant coverage in its own right in reliable third party sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Rong Xiang Xu

Rong Xiang Xu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per a recent request to OTRS would someone please review this article for compliance with BLP? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Quite measured/restrained, really. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Dave Potter (politician)

Dave Potter (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Seems entirely negative,and, although a politician where almsot anything is pertinent, is a relatively minor official DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. The article is loaded with negative information including intricate details of settled and pending investigations into his finances. Can a completely disinterested editor give this article a severe pruning, please? I think I could do it fairly, but I do have a very remote COI, so would prefer if someone else did. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. All three investigations have now been closed without any criticism of Potter. Trimmed accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Robert Scarano, Jr. – Biography does not adhere to NPOV policy. Content out of date.

Biography does not adhere to NPOV policy. Content out of date. Initial bio paragraph contains no sources and is biased and out of date.

For example, here is the Professional Bio per the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce: What does your business do? When and Why did you join the Brooklyn Chamber? Founded in 1985 by Robert Scarano, Jr., AIA, FARA, ALA, award-winning Scarano Architects, PLLC is responsible for the design of over 400 multi-family and mixed-use properties designed and built in 2004, primarily in Brooklyn and Manhattan. Working with a wide range of developers in both profit and non-profit sectors, such as The NYC Housing Authority and Chamber Members Strategic Construction Corporation and The Kay Organization, Scarano designers achieve a new dimension for the architectural vocabulary that is respectful of the history of a given area, while providing gracious, livable space. In October 2004, the firm completed its unique office roof extension, which has become a visual signpost for travelers on the Manhattan Bridge, instantly identifying Vinegar Hill. - See more at: http://www.ibrooklyn.com/member_promotion/scarano.aspx#sthash.cDDl7IqI.dpuf

Here is an example of one editor removing large amounts of information (see Awards and Professional Honors that were all deleted below) and replacing with entirely different content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Scarano,_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=496283904

long list of awards

Awards and Professional Honors 2011 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Merit, Project: 99 Gold, DUMBO, Brooklyn 2011 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Honor, Project: 406 Lorimer, Williamsburg, Brooklyn 2009 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Merit, Project: Satori Condo 2009 Society of American Registered Architects, National Design Award of Honor, Project: Vere 2 2008 New York Enterprise Report Small Business Award, Construction Services Category, Scarano Architect PLLC 2008 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Merit, Project: Satori Condo 2008 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Excellence, Project: 52E4, NoHo, NYC 2008 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Excellence, Project: 364 Myrtle Avenue 2007 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Merit, Project: Manhattan Park Condominium 2007 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Honor, Project: Vere 26 2006 Society of American Registered Architects, National Design Award, Project: The Myrtle Affordable Housing Project 2006 Society of American Registered Architects, National Design Award, Project: Scarano Architect PLLC Offices, 110 York Street 2005 Brooklyn Icon Award Presented to Robert M. Scarano, Jr. by Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, April 11, 2005 2005 Metal Architecture Design Award, Project: Scarano Architect PLLC Offices, 110 York Street 2005 NYSAFAH Award for Excellence - Project of the Year - The Douglass, Harlem USA 2005 Society of American Registered Architects, California Council Design Award of Honor, Project: The Arches at Cobble Hill 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Design Award of Excellence, Project: SoHo Residence, New York City 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Design Award of Excellence, Project: 234 West 20th Street, Chelsea, NYC 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Design Award of Merit, Project: 171 North 7th Street, Williamsburg, Brooklyn 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Design Award of Merit, Project: 142 West 10th Street, West Village, NYC 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Design Award of Merit, Project: "Ella 82", Greenpoint, Brooklyn 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Certificate of Appreciation, Project: Toy Factory Lofts, Downtown Brooklyn, New York 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Certificate of Appreciation, Project: The Douglass, Harlem USA 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Certificate of Appreciation, Project: Silo House, 400 Carroll Street, Brooklyn 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Certificate of Appreciation, Project: The Arches at Cobble Hill, Brooklyn 2005 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Certificate of Appreciation, Project: Scarano Architect PLLC Offices, 110 York Street 2005 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Honor, Project: Clarkson Avenue Housing 2005 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Honor, Project: 354 Franklin Avenue, Brooklyn 2005 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Excellence, Project: Ella 82, Greenpoint, Brooklyn 2004 Society of American Registered Architects, National Design Award of Merit, Project: The Arches at Cobble Hill 2004 American Institute of Architects, Boston Society Housing Design Award, Project: 234 West 20th Street, Chelsea, NYC 2004 Association of Licensed Architects National Design Award of Merit, Project: Clarkson Avenue Housing 2004 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Merit, Project: 171 North 7th Street, Brooklyn 2004 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Merit, Project: The Arches at Cobble Hill 2004 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Honor, Project: Toy Factory Lofts 2004 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Special Recognition Award, Project: 2908 Emmons Avenue 2004 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Special Recognition Award, Project: Greenpoint Redevelopment Masterplan 2003 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Design Award of Excellence, Project: 10-09 49th Avenue, Queens 2003 American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Special Appreciation Award for Residential Projects 2003 Society of American Registered Architects, National Design Award of Excellence, Project: Medellin Convention Center, Colombia, SA 2003 International Competition for the International Convention Center in Medellin, Colombia, Third Place of 6,230 design entries 2003 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Firm of The Year Award 2003 Society of American Registered Architects, New York Council Design Award of Honor, project: 496 Court Street , Cobble Hill, Brooklyn

Here is one example of many biased statements made within the bio by anonymous IP addresses: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Scarano,_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=525200973

Real Deal is used often as a source for negative citations but not once from this article: http://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/with-100s-of-projects-scarano-remakes-b-klyn/ which is a positive example of coverage from the source.

These are just a few examples. I would like to update the article with current, accurate and unbiasedly sourced content, awards and current member standings.È

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikabogner (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

content requires reliable sources before being restored to an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Katia Elizarova

Lots of warring over content. Could be ripe for page protection, but given accusations of gossip, speculation, and general hostilities it makes some sense to shop this here first. JNW (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Protected. Looks like it was just unsourced rumors. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Randall Carver's official biography

There is a lot of information in his official biography. I am uncertain of which is necessary and safer to include. But I can't include his birthday, and I don't want to copy the whole biography. --George Ho (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Are there really any BLP violations going on here? I have to say I don't really understand what you're getting at. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I want to add detail that doesn't push boundaries, but I can't add incomplete birthdates. What about his family background? --George Ho (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

wellknown/blpcrime/charges dropped

For a WP:WELLKNOWN person charged with a crime, but later charges were dropped, where the charging and dropping of charges were well covered by newspapers etc, is there a policy about if content regarding the charges should remain in the BLP? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd encourage identifying the article in question. Why shouldn't the rest of us evaluate the issue in context? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Zimmerman again?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Check-over please

James Fadiman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks OK but I smell potential COI and the sources suck. Can someone have a look over it and see if it's legit and properly sourced form independent sources please. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Acharya S

I don't even know if this is an article worth having, for the trouble it causes. Please, good people, check Acharya S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and make it less a repository of original research fished from polemic opinionated websites. Guy (Help!)

Kien_Ling_Khoo

Kien_Ling_Khoo is a non-notable publicity-seeker. The article does not meet the notability guideline, as the subject of the article does not meet any of the criteria for a notable person. The article is substantially written by the subject herself, and she has added a photograph of herself to the article on David_Tutera. The article is written in resume format. I believe the article should be deleted. Glowsquid (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Buck Angel

There seems to be a couple of borderline issues here but only a few sources to check, anyone up for looking at this? Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

I have just removed some text from a BLP talk page. Was this the correct thing to do per policy? --Nigelj (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's fair comment. Sheldrake is well known for spouting nonsense dressed up as science. The sources in the article support this. Read it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC) + ask Jzg (talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Very poor behaviour from Nigelj such that had they been my comments, I'd be putting them straight back. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The concept of "fair comment" doesn't really govern article talkpages. The talkpage guidelines are relatively strict in stating that article talkpage discussions should avoid general commentary on the topic and instead focus on concrete improvements to the article. In that light, I think it was reasonable of Nigelj to remove the comments in question. I'd probably stop short of calling them BLP violations (after all, the idea that Sheldrake advocates nonsense is reasonably prominent in reliable sources), but the comments in question definitely didn't move the discussion or the article in a positive direction, so I don't see why anyone would fight to restore them. MastCell ^Talk 22:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

removal of comments that are not focusing on concrete improvements to the article would be removal of 90% of the items on the page. I wont object to mine being removed if its consistently applied. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Regretfully, in this case, I have to agree with TRPOD. While I liked seeing the comments removed, the fact is that doing so was something of a token in what has become a very contentious struggle to give a living person fair treatment.

Some of the admin interventions have seemed more like support for bashing the person under the cloak of admin authority. If an admin is really interested in helping the situation, perhaps it is time to resurrect the Wikipedia:Town sheriff idea. I think most of us would abide by a fair administrator who helps determine contentious points. For instance, the unending argument about whether or not he will be referred to as a biologist or a parapsychologist in the opening paragraphs.

Once what Wikipedia is going to say about Sheldrake is established, then I for one can go on and figure out if I like it--AKA, support it--or try to develop an article in a different venue that will balance the article. A town sheriff would go a long way toward settling that. Tom Butler (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

off topic

If, at the end of all this, Tom has to write an article elsewhere to balance our article, then I suggest that we will have done an excellent job. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC) I'm worried now Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) - if Tom Butler (talk · contribs), Director (no less) of the Association TransCommunication, expert on metaphysics, spiritualism and etheric studies, and with an hugely impressive BEng, writes something, doesn't he qualify as an expert source, and will outweigh all of our other sources? We could then rewrite the whole article to exclude the criticism, perhaps WP:POVFORKING it to criticism of Rupert Sheldrake per Barleybannocks (talk · contribs), and reflect Tom Butler (talk · contribs)'s engineered POV on this issue. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:FunkMonk (multiple pages)

User:FunkMonk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Repeatedly adding poorly sourced, libelous information about a living person on article and talk pages:

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

• Diff of warning on user's talk page: [7]

• And after the warning: [8]
• [9]

VQuakr (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, I'll wait before I add anything until more reliable sources have reported it. So this is moot as for now. As I also mentioned, Higgins confirmed the veracity of the leaks on Twitter by explaining his messages, therefore I did not see it as a violation, but whatever. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone else reinstated the section. Wasn't me. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Really? This and this weren't you? VQuakr (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Those edits obviously weren't the ones that revived the section, and do not involve the sources above. The offender would be this[10] one. Please stick to the issue. If you want to prevent me from commenting at all, you've come to the wrong place. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Heiko Julien

User repeatedly vandalizing Heiko Julien article suggesting the author is better known as a false name without citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trashcanjamz (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Edward Williams (composer)

IP are adding that this person has died but I cannot find any sources at all, can anybody verify? GiantSnowman 13:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Looked for death notices and obituaries in Bristol and couldn't find anything. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom Aikens

This article has effectively been sanitised over the past couple of years. References to the failure of one of Tom Aikens restaurants have been removed, along with information relating to this failure. In addition other biographical material has been deleted.

I have no connection with Tom Aikens and at the moment do not have the time to source the material - and what guarantee is there that it would not be removed again? I would like to see the original material reinstated, preferably by the editors who put it there in the first place.

I am sure that what has happened here is not what wikipedia is about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.73.128 (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Uncited personal attacks were added to the article on January 13, 2009 by an IP editor, and reverted shortly thereafter by an experienced editor. It is very common for restaurants to close for a variety of reasons, even those run by otherwise successful chefs But we only include that information if it has been discussed in reliable sources, and we certainly exclude personal insults. I see no evidence of improper "sanitising". Perhaps you can be more specific. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Frida (ABBA)

Frida Lyngstad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I doubt the reliability of the information that Frida has a passion for pigeon racing and a connection with Pigeon Fanciers' Club in north of England — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.213.121 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Material removed as unsourced. For future reference, you can do the same for any unsourced material in any article, especially in biographies. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Found a source (but not an RS) that says she is the president of the Hardwick Homing Society in Stockton (UK). No mention of her on its Web site,[11] though. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Roast Busters

Is perhaps the best place to pick this seamy tale up. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Keith B. Alexander

Keith B. Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User added (presumed authentic) SSN, addresses and other confidential info about subject with this edit.[12]. Changes have been reverted but request permanent deletion of this version of the page. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I've contacted someone from the RevDel team to revdel that out.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sam Hoyt

• Sam Hoyt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to request that this article on Sam Hoyt be placed under Wikipedia protections. I am an editor who has done considerable work on the article, recently, in order to improve it, clean it up, and remove the libelous and harmful information that is repeatedly placed on it that is unsourced. Most recently, I removed a libelous quote from the page that was falsely cited with a reference that states nothing about the specific quote that was included in it. I have taken the time to do much research on this issue and this subject, and have included and sourced only factual information that is correctly sourced. I have also placed my comments and requests for protection on the article's talk page. Therefore, I would like to request that the administrator of the article please place Level 1 or Level 2 protections or semi-oprotections on the article. The article has been repeatedly edited by others to include this libelous and harmful information for what appears to be the past 8 years! The article and subject must obviously be protected, please. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Daniellagreen: Can you point to a diff that shows the disruptive material? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your reply. I've gone back and tried to locate exactly who placed some of the harmful material in the article. I located 10:07, 12 June 2013 by CutThruTheNoise, who placed an inappropriate and unsourced subheader in the article, and which was toward the top (!) of the article. I removed that. I also tried to locate the editor who included the harmful information that I edited out - that you can see at my edit: 2:59, 14 December 2013. That specific information is harmful and unsourced. It was information that was going around on a Western New York political blog (WNYBuffalo), and whose editor also made comments on the article's talk page. That blog, by the way, no longer exists - I went to its website address, and it is no longer there. There was correct and correctly sourced information placed in the article by JMyrleFuller on 15:12, 29 November 2011, but somewhere along the lines, that was removed, and the harmful information replaced it, using the sources that were included by JMyrleFuller. I have since gone in and replaced the correct information, and sourced it correctly, as Fuller did. Thanks for your consideration. Daniellagreen (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a concern about the section titled "Scandal" which is referenced to primary sources. Who called this matter a "scandal" and is it worthy of mention if the only outcome was a restriction on participating in internship programs? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Dana Rohrabacher

There is a dispute about the reliability of a source used to quote Dana Rohrabacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesMoney (talk • contribs)

The video has Rohrabacher saying: "Today, radical Islam and China appear to be the main adversaries of people in the free world…." So, for the Wikipedia article to assert that Rohrabacher believes "Islam 'motivates people to murder children'" seems to be quite a distortion of what he said. He was obviously talking about "radical Islam" rather than "Islam" generally. Which is yet another indication that Think Progress is an advocacy site rather than a reliable source.[13]Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Speaking of Islam, "That's what we're up against, people who will murder children, intentionally murder children," said Rohrabacher in an interview with Newsmax.com.[14] QuackGuru (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

QuackGuru, if you would like to use that further source to support the notion that the subject says Islam consists of child murderers, please note that the NewsMax piece quotes Rohrabacher three times using the word "Islam" and all three times he was saying "radical Islam". Thus, he was not speaking of Islam generally, no matter how much one might wish it were true that he slimed the entire religion. He carefully avoided doing so three times in that NewsMax article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Speaking of radical Islam, "That's what we're up against, people who will murder children, intentionally murder children," said Rohrabacher in an interview with Newsmax.com.[15]

I added "radical Islam" to the same proposal. What do you think now? QuackGuru (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a lot better, but I'd like to also hear from the editor who was on the other side of the edit-war.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is only one sentence. It might be possible to expand it. I do not know where in the article it could be placed. QuackGuru (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a running issue in this of people on both sides looking at single statements and not looking for secondary sources which put it all together. Surely they must exist. Mangoe (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like ThinkProgress is the outlet that first noticed Dana's statement about murderers, because other sources cite it. I'm ok with the compromise version above. MilesMoney (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it a compromise version. Instead, it's a version that attempts to avoid a very clear BLP violation. I don't think anyone who's commented here about Rohrabacher believes it's okay to distort what he says. The best way to avoid this sort of thing is to avoid partisan or unreliable sources like Think Progress, Redstate, Daily Kos, Instapundit, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Add Newsmax to that list of hyper-partisan sites that should only be used with great caution, if at all.

I note with amusement that the editor who stepped in with a new source at the article Talk page, claiming that no BLP violation took place, now admits that the very same source he brought to the table demonstrates that the original BLP violation was quite real.

I support the inclusion of a direct, verbatim quote so long as the surrounding prose preserves Rohrabacher's delineation of "radical" Islam. Roccodrift (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Beware of any editor that argues in favor of adding minor but highly negative information to any BLP no matter how well sourced it is.--MONGO 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Jacque Fresco

• Jacque Fresco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Because there is a recurrent problem I decided to present the issue here. There is an editor that has expressed on numerous occasions his intent to include information about the subject of this article. This information does not appear in any reliable sources. I have only seen such information on blogs and forums. This information would qualify as rumor and gossip, and at best fringe theory and views of tiny minorities. The information pertains to casting the subject in a disparaging light. See here the diffs where the editor has disclosed his intentions (from most recent to oldest):

• more on fraud and mistaking my policy abidance for advocacy
• mistaking my policy abidance for advocacy
• about committing fraud
• about being a conman and liar
• about academic degree
• about being a failed inventor
• more on lying
• trying to advance a claim not advanced by the sources to suggest Fresco is lying
• unsubstantiated claims about KKK participation
• exaggerations
• about taking from investors and cult leader
• claims about KKK and white supremacist participation

At first the editor was making changes to the article with claims that neutrality was being addressed. However with time it became more clear that the editor was attempting to make progress toward the allegations above. The editor has not been successful in including this information, probably because I have been persistent in arguing against it. The problem is that this information underlies how the editor regards the subject. Because the editor has a negative regard for the subject, it has become evident that he has been pushing the information in the article in the direction of his views. This has consisted of deleting, reducing, or trivializing information in any way that can subtract significance from the subject. The editor appears to be trying to Right Great Wrongs and give the Truth according to his own preexisting beliefs. This is in defiance of what the reliable sources say about the subject and in disregard of how the sources consistently represent the subject. It goes without saying that it is also an approach that is discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines concerning neutrality and original research.

I have tried to explain to the editor that such allegations cannot be included because no reliable sources report on it and no sources represent the article's subject in the way that the editor seeks to represent him. And also that BLPs must be treated very carefully. The editor then mistakes this proper approach for some kind of advocacy on behalf of the subject. Controversies and criticism is welcome if it has reliable sources and due weight. However, none of those listed above satisfies criteria.

Fortunately the information has not entered the article. But plenty of libelous claims have been made on the talk page. Can I have outside judgment of whether the editor's approach is inappropriate or not? Sorry for the length. Had to give context and examples. Thanks to any and all.--Biophily (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cramer_(announcer)

Hi,

I have correct information for John's page on Wikipedia.

He was NOT born in Glendale as the Wikipedia page says, but lives in Glendale currently (and since 1965).

I am his sister. He has a brother Michael (b. 1956), sister Susan (b. 1957), and half-brother Bill Buchanan (b. 1964).

He has been married twice and is currently divorced with a girlfriend.

He has 2 children from his second wife, Eileen McNulty. She is the daughter of Dr. James McNulty and Ann Blythe. Ann Blyth is already on Wikipedia. Dr. James McNulty is the brother of actor/singer Dennis Day.

I have lots of information is you want any. Let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.217.177 (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)