Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.
Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Crying Wind

Crying Wind (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Based on your statement below please remove the entire posting on Crying Wind, this "Orange Mike" Person doesn't know her, I do. Many of the accusations made in the article are false and when Different members of the family have tried to take them down or correct them we have been blocked. Many of the cited people profited a great deal from Trashing Crying Wind who DID live on the reservation (we can prove this) and WAS very poor and her mother had an affair which was covered up (We can now also prove this). Neighborhood bullies who were always jealous of her tried to find ways to sabotage this woman who merely wanted to earn a living for her children through her creativity, by the way the story is simply about depression and raising kids- it is not a political academic work. She is not a legal expert and did not know Moody publishers was going to put out her book as an auto-bio rather than a novelized auto-bio, and she would not have known the difference anyway, but the matter has been settled in court nearly 35 years ago. Can we all stop trashing her now? In the theme of if you can't say something nice (or true) don't say anything at all, Please take it down- I put the initial posting up no knowing it would harm her so severely as others went on to edit it with their usual false claims. If you need proof of my statements please tell me where to send it. We did a DNA test via and I have census data and pay stubs from the reservation.

Thank you for your time-

"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I left a pointer to this discussion, at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I am re-adding this item to BLPN, because I don't think it's yet been adequately addressed. I started a discussion at article talk, but it doesn't seem to be making much progress.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I think it's up to snuff now. We'll see if anyone objects. It was difficult getting hold of one of the refs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Jens Stoltenberg

Norway's former prime minister. There is a discussion on the talk page what to include about his policies and the cabinets policies towards Israel. A criticism paragraph - in various forms - has been edited in and out. The last to be reinserted looks like this (full section). The discussion mainly involves me, Huldra, Mishae and Yambaram. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: As of now the article disputed section look like this. I added two missing references and this article might get GA nomination as soon as the dispute will be solved.
I also need to point out that I am a completely neutral person on this topic since my task is archiving refs. I did however took a note that user @Bjerrebæk: removed a 2K worth of content from that section, so I intervened. As a side note I didn't knew the user, but by reading his talkpage I came to my senses that this is not the first time he removed content by claiming it a POV even though its not. I left him a message to which he never replied. Assuming right away that there will no reply from him (it was proven as of today), I asked @Deadbeef: and Randykitty for clarification of the matter and got directed to the article talkpage. Other stuff you can read from Jens Stoltenberg's talk.--Mishae (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
If you will read the talkpage, you will see that I have proposed an idea there to create criticism section. That way, any reader who would want to read his anti-Israel remarks, can read it there, while if a reader wants to read clean Jens Stoltenberg will probably skip it. According to NPOV we must provide a neutral point of view on all subjects, that's the reason why we have criticism sections on various leaders such as Vladimir Putin for example.--Mishae (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Iselilja for bringing this up here, though I believe we could resolve everything on the article's talk page. I fully agree with the Mishae's points, and appreciate the way he handles the issue. This article was featured on Wikipedia's main page last week, and I also think it should get a GA nomination after a few balancing edits.
Stoltenberg served as Norway's PM for many years and has been holding some of the highest positions out there giving him a lot of influence, therefore attracting notable different perceptions of him - critical, supportive, and neutral. His views on Israel are of due weight, as do the way these views are perceived in the media. As Mishae suggested, the alternative option would be creating a new perception/criticism section in order to address all similar issues (and apparently there are many more) in one place. Other than slightly shortening the section being discussed now, I see absolutely no reason to delete the information/sources that are presently there, and doing so would be a clear unbalanced POV edit. Yambaram (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Yambaram: I think we wouldn't be able to solve it on the article talkpage since it will lead to edit wars which are not allowed on Wikipedia. I would like to thank Iselilja for bringing it up here, but I also should mention that user Bjerrebæk also took part and became the main reason why I joined the discussion on the above mentioned article's talkpage. It would be a good reason to discuss both editor here, since there is more then Huldra who removes a due weight content (the reason why it was undue, was because there was only a couple of refs). Now, since Yambaram added 3 more (which I archived), I should agree on it being due weight.--Mishae (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, this ongoing discussion has been moved to this board, and is also discussed at the article's talk page here. Please do not use this thread to make new comments, thanks. Yambaram (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, a quick admin's opinion on the subject would be appreciated, as it's much needed. Yambaram (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Song Zuying

Editor Songfans (talk · contribs) is intent on removing any references to Song Zuying's alleged affair with Jiang Zemin from her article, and has deleted these references three times. I admit I know nothing about this particular subject, but the fact of the allegation is sourced. Should sourced information about allegations about a person be included in a BLP or not? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems quite poorly sourced at the moment. We say "it has long been rumoured in China that Song was romantically involved with former president Jiang Zemin and owed much of her career to support from him". The Asia Sentinel source cited says "Song Zuying, one of China’s most famous singers and a close friend – perhaps even the mistress – of Jiang". And I'm not sure who the Association for Asian Research are either. They seem to be an NGO that "promotes understanding through truth"...which sounds a bit suspect to my admittedly cynical ears. There's this New Yorker blog, but I guess any decent source will just present it as rumor. Seems like a tricky one, an "enduring rumor" about a living person... Sean.hoyland - talk 17:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
It's borderline. I'd shy away from it. Generally, we want to be pretty conservative on the personal lives on living folks. We usually don't go into much detail on personal stuff unless it's part of their notability. Even more so for contentious personal stuff. When we do, I think we'd want to mostly stick to stuff we know is true. If she's married to someone who advanced her career, that's reasonable to include. If she's having an affair with someone who advanced her career, and we know it -- she said so, or she's seen in public canoodling with the guy, or like that -- that's reasonable to include. But a rumor? Not so much.
And, you know, rumors and allegations. People will start these things.
On the other hand, the New Yorker is the gold standard for fact-checking in the English-speaking popular press IMO. They employ many fact-checkers and take it very seriously, and if a falsehood gets into a New Yorker article it's a crisis for them. And fact-checker at the New Yorker, unlike most publications, is a plum job which people with expectations of a serious journalistic career compete to get. If it was a story in the main magazine, we could be pretty confident that every assertion of fact in it has been carefully vetted for veracity. But times change --my info on the New Yorker is few years old at least -- and also it's just a blog. I'd be shocked if they were lax enough to not vet their blogs, but I don't know that they do, and if they do probably not as rigorously as the print articles. That throws us back on the writer to a fair degree.
Jiayang Fan is a serious writer; she's also had bylines in the Atlantic and the New York Times and Paris Review. It says here she's a New Yorker staffer and here that she does or did "story research" which makes her a fact-checker herself. I'd be gobsmacked if she was willing to throw all that away by making a general habit of reporting stuff she's not sure is true, although anything's possible I guess.
OK, so a pretty good source. (The Asia Sentinel and so forth I've ignored; unless we are confident that these are AAA-level sources with excellent reps for fact-checking and general veracity we shouldn't use them for contentious material in a BLP.)
Moving on to the material in question. A relationship with Jiang Zemin would, since it's a reasonable explanation (in part) for her career trajectory, would be worth describing if it's true. The existence of the rumor doesn't tell us anything about her career unless it can be shown that the rumor has materially affected her career. And in fact Jiayang Fan writes "...the enduring rumor that Song owes much of her career to Jiang Zemin...". So it does. It's not just idle gossip. Even if it's not true but impresarios are of the mind "Jeez, I heard she's Jiang Zemin's girl, I'd better book her and give her top billing" it'd be worth including. Even if we could demonstrate that it's not true it'd be worth including ("For many years, people believed -- falsely -- that she was favored by Jiang Zemin, and this led to such-and-such opportunities...")
So it's a pretty good source, and it's something worthwhile for the reader and researcher to know in trying to get a handle on her career.
I still wouldn't use it. BLP, contentious and potentially defamatory material, "pretty good" doesn't cut it for me. It is a blog. It's not unreasonable to hold a different view. It's borderline. If we do use it, stick to what's written: "rumor that Song owes much of her career to Jiang Zemin" implies nothing beyond that people believe that Jiang Zemin is her friend and has spoken well of her talents, although Jiayang Fan elsewhere says she's "nicknamed... First Mistress". Herostratus (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added further references for this to the article on top of the other sources - the Daily Mail had a piece on this, as did the China Times. These are both fact-checked publications, the Daily Mail obviously more so than the (Taiwan-based) China Times, but still, they aren't blogs/NGO publications or that kind of thing. The existence of the rumour is certainly relevant to her career for the reasons discussed above, in fact it explains her continuing prominence (i.e., the Daily Mail likely wouldn't have even published the story had there not been the Jiang Zemin angle which Chinese Netizens picked up on). FOARP (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
As sources go, the Daily Mail definitely comes into the "use with caution" category. It's a rather creepy tabloid. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It's the UK's number-one selling newspaper and currently used as a reliable source in countless articles, including BLP articles. Some people may not like it's political slant, but this is hardly relevant. The LA Times also referenced the affair here. FOARP (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Nothing to do with it's politics. It's trash. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Mail and many other discussions. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I see a long discussion chain with various people arguing various angles - nothing conclusive against treating the Daily Mail as a reliable, fact-checked source. Meanwhile here's an article in the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong's premier English-language newspaper - often accused of slanting pro-Beijing) which also references the affair. Even if you don't like the Daily Mail, aren't LA Times and SCMP acceptable on this? FOARP (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Editors on the CN wiki also found this source for the existence of the alleged affair in the academic literature. I get the hesistancy about including this, but the allegations around the affair really are relevant for understanding her entire career (i.e., as a singer in the Chinese military, and as a political figure in the Chinese Communist Party) as well as understanding why, for example, her name is/has been a blocked term on the Chinese internet. I think with the additional sources (Daily Mail, LA Times, New Yorker, South China Morning Post, China Times and the academic press) any concerns about these allegations should have been put to rest.
On another note, I think it might be a good idea to do an IP check on User:Songfans, since both on CN wiki and on EN wiki their (or should I say her?) edits have only been directed to the topic of Song's alleged affair with Jiang Zemin. FOARP (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a rumor. All the reliable sources say it's unconfirmed gossip. It can't be treated as anything but a rumor. It can't be treated as a story we think is probably true and then write about it as it "probably could have" happened. The gossip itself has had an outside effect, and we might have an argument to write about that, in the same way we would write about the effect of a health scare that had nothing behind it. But we can't repeat admitted speculation in any way that makes it seem like we think it is more than speculation. Putting an occasional "allegedly", while proceeding to add salacious detail and unknowable narrative, is still not BLP compliant. We can't have material like "Allegedly this person slept with a thousand people and allegedly liked it and allegedly is looking to steal lunch money." just because it includes the word "Allegedly". We could arguably have material like "Rumors of an alleged affair affected this person's career during this year, and the government censored material in this way." as long as it's supported by better sources. We can describe what (verifiably-from-sources) resulted from a rumor, but we shouldn't repeat made-up details of the gossip itself.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Shorter: There's a huge difference in BLP-compatibility between A rumor of an affair forced her to reschedule this concert. and Here's the exact wording of what we think they might have written in their love letters. She was divorced and it allegedly could have been because of...__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra)

53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Diff: [1]

Same Edit Reverted by Admin Diff: [2]

Attemp to solve on talk pages and User:Summichum Habitual consistency in negating any discussion and reverts without discussion:

Quote from pritish Nandi[edit source]

I've removed the sentence, as to me it seemed to be violating WP:BLPGOSSIP. On reading the article, the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect. This is not immediately obvious when quoted out of context in Wikipedia, and could make readers think that the claims were meant to be taken literally.

Similar edit was done by admin user:Mr. Stradivarius in article Mufaddal Saifuddin.Rukn950 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No Rukn950 you changed before discussing here and above, anyways WP:BLPGOSSIP applies to BLP articles and this is not a BLP article , this article's main topic itself is succession controversy which requires that the views of third parties whether pro or against should be quoted if avaialible in reputed media outlets, remember we are not stating it as fact but as quote.Summichum (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

whether the article is about living person or not but the quote is, hence it is violation. you reverted my edit without discussion. that has become your habitual consistency. I would request user:Qwertyus and user:Anupmehra to look into this matter and also about Azad suplimentary.Rukn950 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Rukn950 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User summichum again reverted the tag regarding violation: Diff: [3] This has been going on for articles dawoodi bohra and mufaddal saifuddin since 2 months at a stretch.User:Summichum is consistent in his POV edits and reverts. even after he was blocked twice.Rukn950 (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

    • this is a false allegation firstly , I invited him to talk page for discussion regarding this issue and I explained the reasons that this 53rd succession controversy article is not a BLP article , and he has in bad faith reported diffs of two different articles. I only quoted the statement of an influential person in India , Pristish Nandy who has recieved the highest civilian award of integrity in India :padma shri by govt of India and was a leading editor of famous news papers, and he is completely non aligned third party who presented his view as a result of well thought research on the subject of succession controversy. These users are having conflict of interest as reported on COI noticeboard. they also reported me by copy pasting comments of a third party user User:Anupmehra and he also agreed partially that rukn and md_iet are involved in conflict of interest.Summichum (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Mr summichum has never invited me but on the contrary he reported me to editwar notice board, but failed twice to block me as his POV was clear. user ‎Md iet and myself have been trying to reason with him but he is adamant. He claims that he is not familiar with dawoodi bohra yet his POV is clear from his edits.This is his sole purpose in joining the Wikipedia.Rukn950 (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC) let difference and his history speak for itself.Rukn950 (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC) The Audacity of this user summichum is such that he flooded my talkpages with notices:

(cur | prev) 09:21, 2 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,280 bytes) (+2,760)‎ . . (Notice: Conflict of Interest on Dawoodi Bohra. (TW)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 09:20, 2 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,520 bytes) (+332)‎ . . (Caution: Not assuming good faith onMufaddal Saifuddin. (TW)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 09:18, 2 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,184 bytes) (+833)‎ . . (General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Dawoodi Bohra. (TW)) (undo | thank)

and recently he harassed an editor:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

13 User:Md iet reported by User:Summichum (Result: No violation)

This user summichum is consitent in his reverts yet again there is no way he can be reasoned:

14:33, 15 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,266 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Court Case against Mufaddal Saifuddin)(undo | thank)(cur | prev)

14:32, 15 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,266 bytes) (+503)‎ . . (added new source HT on the court battle and azad magazine is a verifiable primary source which was used as quote) (undo | thank)(cur | prev)

14:12, 15 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (19,763 bytes) (+3,139)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Md iet (talk) to last revision by Rukn950. (TW)) (undo | thank)(cur | prev)

10:00, 15 April 2014‎ Md iet (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,624 bytes) (-3,139)‎ . . (→‎Demands of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohras in wake of succession controversy: Proper citation required, however demands of independent group do not carry any weightage here in this article, the group has its own article.)

Rukn950 (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC) User summichum reverted my tag I had given on this page:

(cur | prev) 19:00, 15 April 2014‎ Lowercase sigmabot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (20,148 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (Removing protection templates) (bot) (undo) (cur | prev) 18:40, 15 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,175 bytes) (+28)‎ . . (Adding (TW)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 18:39, 15 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,147 bytes) (-183)‎ . . (Please dont overtag. All of the references are authoritative and the only azad mag source was used to quote the opinion of progressive stakeholders on the controversy) (undo |thank) (cur | prev) 15:50, 15 April 2014‎ Rukn950 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,330 bytes) (+64)‎

Ken Ham

This BLP is turning into a biased attack piece, spearheaded by an editor who insists that when editing a biography of a deeply religious person, it's okay to take the position that "Scientists do have facts, what religious people have is faith" and describe the subject's beliefs as "this particular religious nonsense" [4] Assistance is requested. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This same editor also asserts that the article subject "believes his fiction is reality" [5]. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
So I'm "spearheading" a coordinated attack on Ken Ham? I feel so important now :P
I welcome any editor to stop by the talk page and revise the article, I'm not the only editor making edits and discussing them in the TP by a long shot. And I stand by my comments: scientists have facts, religious people have faith and claiming the Earth is 6000 years old is nonsense to the full extent of the word. That's pretty much common sense I'd say. Regards. Gaba (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Editors who are absolutely sure the person is a "loon" should step back for a minute or two and recognize that we can only use the opinions directly expressed in reliable sources, and cited as opinions. The problem is that some editors are absolutely sure that Ham has a hole in his head and therefore Wikipedia must state he has a hole in his head. The real issue is that Ham believes in the "literal inerrancy of the Bible" and we are seeing the classic intersection of science and religion once again on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
"we can only use the opinions directly expressed in reliable sources", agree 100% "and cited as opinions" disagree to some extent. WP:ASSERT is clear on stating undisputed facts as such and WP:UNDUE prevents us from putting WP:FRINGE nonsense on the same level as hard facts as if they were two sides of the same coin. Whether an editor believes Ham is a loon or not is immaterial if said editor does not let it affect its editing. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
But that's exactly the problem, isn't it? The belief that science is fact and religion is fiction is a POV, not The Truth. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Moreover, only as science are Ham's beliefs fringe. As religion, they're shared by rather large number of Christians. WP:SPOV was rejected for a reason. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
And this an encyclopedia, not a religious pamphlet so science facts are facts and religious claims are, at best, unprovable & unfalsifiable claims. In this particular case Ham's religious claims are also WP:FRINGE utter nonsense. I'm sorry but this isn't Conservapedia and we do not give equal weight to what religion might say about scientific facts about the real world we live in. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ASSERT is not a policy, folks. And it clearly states that opinions must be stated as opinions. When people say they wish to state something as a fact because of WP:ASSERT it means they did not read it much at all. (when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution. ) Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It also clearly states that "When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ..." which this case fits precisely. There is absolutely no serious dispute (keyword: serious) about the age of the Earth.
The status of WP:ASSERT might not be a policy but it is directly related to a very important one: WP:NPOV. We could discuss its importance as a stand-alone section, but that's a whole different issue. If you think we should go around WP attributing all known and undisputed facts to the "scientific community" then this would look like a terribly different encyclopedia. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Such attribution would be superfluous in a purely scientific context, where only the scientific POV is relevant. When we're dealing with the nexus of science and religion, as in this article, attribution becomes necessary to avoid taking sides by implying that science = truth and religion = fantasy, as indeed you are claiming. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This page is to discuss BLP problems, not claims about other editors. Please provide a brief outline of what text in the article is a BLP problem, or what text should be added to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    The lead gives undue weight to Bill Nye's comments and does not attribute the mainstream scientific view of Ham's beliefs as the mainstream scientific view, but simply asserts that they are unqualifiedly inconsistent with the available evidence. The lead also uses "former high school science teacher" as a derogatory epithet. The reception section is comprised entirely of negative material. And that's just for starters. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    Re "attribute the mainstream scientific view": what edit is proposed? Surely you do not think an article needs to say "according to X the universe is older than 6000 years"? It would be silly to require attribution for such the sky is blue statements. Science makes planes fly and provides the infrastructure used by Wikipedia—it's a different kind of "belief" than when someone declares the world is 6000 years old. Problems on articles like this often come from each side trying to push the article too far. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    The proposed attribution is [6], for reasons explained above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    Of course, if you take only the most positive aspects of science and the most negative aspects of religion into account, something along the lines of "science makes planes fly and religion makes planes fly into buildings", the result will be very skewed. Is that in fact Wikipedia's house POV? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    That diff shows the insertion of "The mainstream scientific view of" which carries the suggestion that there is some doubt concerning whether there is any physical evidence to support biblical literalism, presumably on the basis that one person's opinion is as good as another's. There is no BLP problem shown in that diff, and there is no need to suggest that there is something called a "mainstream scientific view". Sometimes there is scientific disagreement about details, and it may occasionally be appropriate to refer to a mainstream view, but there is absolutely no difference of opinion regarding the text shown in that diff—it's just FRINGE vs. reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    I agree. DavidLeighEllis claims are just bizarre (being called a "former high school science teacher" is derogatory...since when? Should I be ashamed of having taught science in my life now?). I would understand moving Bill Nye quote from the lead to somewhere else in the article, but apart from that, facts are facts, and any dilution of the utter clash between Ham's views and reality would be pushing pro-creationist fringe POV. --cyclopiaspeak! 11:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. We don't need to "attribute" that fact to the "scientific community". It would sound ridiculous to say that the Earth is round, or that it revolves around the sun, "according to the scientific community". It sounds just as ridiculous here. These are widely accepted objective realities, and as a reality-based encyclopedia we convey them as such. Where a specific individual (for instance, Ham) holds beliefs which conflict with objective reality, then we can respectfully describe those beliefs without calling him names. But we cannot pretend or imply that there is any serious dispute about the objective reality of the Earth's age. MastCell Talk 16:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV we acknowledge any prominent controversies in the lead. Ham's notability lies entirely in his controversial advocacy of pushing utter fringe non-science into the classrooms, and particularly science classrooms, on an equivalent basis as science. Nye's comments are fully representative of the mainstream academic views of the controversies surrounding Ham and Ham's advocacy of promoting non-science nonsense as science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Having just skimmed the BLP policy, I don't really see a violation of that policy here. Describing him a former high-school science teacher doesn't seem derogatory at all, and is relevent. If I understand the BLP policy correctly, the main thrust to eliminate risk of defamation. What is potentially defamatory in the article? Howunusual (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

note: as of this point, the following is in the lead of the BLP:

His claim that the universe is 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is contradicted by evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records.[3][4][n 2] According to an article in the Courier-Journal, Ham's rejection of established science during the debate with Bill Nye was a "harm [to] the education of children and hamper[ing] the nation's ability to innovate."[6]

so the issues are: Is this a fair summary of the article? and Is this material neutrally worded per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

One earlier version read as:

His claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is considered incorrect by the scientific community as it is contradicted by all physical evidence found in the Earth's fossil, biological and geological records

And earlier yet was:

His claims about the young age of the earth have been condemned by virtually all members of the scientific community.[4][5][6][7]

So one may note the evolution of the last part of the lead. Collect (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer something simple and factual, like: "Ham argues, based on his belief in the literal truth of the Bible, that the Earth is 6,000 years old rather than its actual age of approximately 4.5 billion years." Is that a problem? MastCell Talk 21:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
If that is all that is in the lead, then yes it is problematical in that it fails to identify why Ham is notable - that he is promoting non science as science and has been at the center of much controversy for doing so. per WP:LEAD / WP:NPOV / WP:BLP.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Angela Pulvirenti

Angela Pulvirenti (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

The person is not notable enough to warrant an article. It appears to have been written by the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyfgcv (talkcontribs) 00:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The subject seems to meet WP:GNG. I've depuffed the content a bit. --NeilN talk to me 00:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Peter Luff

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

An IP identifying themselves as the subject raised an issue here at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive178#Peter Luff in June last year concerning the following statement, but got no response:

He later justified UK arms sales to serial human rights violators like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain as follows: "I'm not condoning human rights abuses, of course not, but . . . sometimes you have to be pragmatic."[7]

The same IP removed the material, but it has now been restored. The source verifies the quote but I'm not convinced it's been presented in an appropriate context.

The subject has also posted a {{request edit}} at the talk page on a separate issue. January (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked into this, and decided to remove the material per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Will add the page to my watchlist for a while. Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Michel Chossudovsky

Several editors here have tried over recent months to add a criticism section on this academic and activist's page, sourced to random comments from political opponents, both on the left and right. At its recent maximum, all this content was being inserted. Subsequently, and following some talk page discussion here – originally started a while back by someone querying inclusion but never responded to – it has now been reduced to this paragraph, sourced to a book by a rival – and it would appear, non-notable – activist and academic that accuses Chossudovsky of "distortions" and of being a fan of an indicted war criminal. The editor backing inclusion has also referred to Chossudovsky as a "dictator lover" in discussions on talk. Quite apart from NPOV, UNDUE and CRITICISM concerns, both the page content and talk page contributions would appear to be a breach of WP's BLP policy. I don't see what reporting and indeed apparently endorsing spats and smears have to do with building an encyclopedic biography. N-HH talk/edits 12:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

if this is the man - [8] - here he is on the profoundly propagandistic and Putin loving Russia Today, which is not, I believe, regarded as a reliable source on English wp, but shows something of the temperature of the mans political climate - N-HH said Karadjis was 'not an academic', but indeed, appears to be, so he is just 'smearing' a man for not saying something N-HH finds congenial -- I cant find much in respected RS about chossudovsky- probably because he is regarded as a marginal figure - denigrating differences of opinion on events in reality, wars and such, as 'spats and smears' is no use imo - if this bloke is a public intellectual, however marginal, 'spats and smears' are part of the story, that is the territory, -that's how I see it. N-HH is trying to delete what looks to me like reliably sourced and pertinent criticism. Sayerslle (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Payal Rohatgi

Payal Rohatgi (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

I don't even know where to begin to fix this hot mess of poor citations. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Chris Stewart

Hi I am an Aunt of Chris Stewart. His mother Susan Reed, my sister, is not of Arabic origin. We are English Canadians. Our Dad was born of Irish decent and our Mother, British decent all born in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindyr 3CA (talkcontribs) 18:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The ESPN source cited in Chris Stewart (ice hockey) makes no assertion about his mother's ethnicity, so I have removed that. However, the source does report the father as Jamaican. "For most of their lives, the only income their mother, a blue-eyed blonde named Sue Reid, brought in was a small disability check. Their father, a Jamaican immigrant named Norman Stewart..."[9]C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Robert H. Schuller Unauthorized and Locked Data by Unknown User

I am the authorized representative for Robert H. Schuller. I attempted to make corrections to his biography adding to the accuracy but I think this page is set up to automatically return to a locked version, constituting endorsement by and of someone we do not know. Please assist us in unlocking this page so that we can also contribute to the content assuring that it is accurate and more complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHS Trust (talkcontribs) 23:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Many of the proposed edits appear to have violated various Wikipedia guidelines and policies, including requirements for material to be verifiable in appropriate reliable sources, to be written in a neutral point of view, to avoid promotion, and to avoid inappropriate external links. The existing version of the article may have some of these issues as well. Schuller is an important figure in the history of televangelism, and the Wikipedia article could probably be improved with the addition of more independent reliable sources and better, more objectively written text.
A positive course of action for you here would be to raise specific concerns about perceived factual inaccuracies or poorly written content on the article's talk page, where other, experienced and independent editors can review the issues and make appropriate edits. Please review the pages Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for more guidance. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Anca Heltne

We have two spas, probably the same individual, adding unreliably sourced material and deleting sourced material in an attempt to whitewash this article. I can probably justifiably claim a BLP exeption from edit warring, but I'd rather have more editors involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've wutchlosted this to see what happens next. Maybe other people have too. Or not... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Obviously I have. Tried to find the source the individual (now on their fifth revert) claims to exist with no success. --NeilN talk to me 18:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a routine athletics doping case. No need for alarm. I've expanded and cited as appropriate[10]. SFB 20:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Benet Salway

After being emailed by Salway with a complaint, I have removed some personal unsourced information on this article (diff). Could the edits with this unencyclopaedic information about his family be suppressed please?

I have a mild COI as I am friends with Salway, so I would appreciate another pair of eyes on this enforcement of BLP. I will advise Salway on how to email OTRS if there are future problems. -- (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed one link, reworded a copyvio from his online c.v. etc. Looks fine at this point, though I am unsure his list of articles is altogether necessary here. Collect (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

And this is NOT the case on

and the only thing'pedians say is to "register so i can change the inaccuracies in these articles"

I (and i know EDEV & GDeckers) do NOT want to be wikipedians!

So much of what is written there is untrue and inaccurate, and the people have troubles in their lives & organisational work because of it!

libelous information & is used upon & and repeated requests to change or delete the incorrect stuff is being ignored; not just today but also before after complaining per email through official i n f o @ e d e v .nl emails

please help here as the does not seem to care! (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC) (signing here but i dont think i'll ever be able to re-find this in the wiki-jungle ..)

The has no jurisduction over the; just as they have no jurisduction over us. Stuartyeates (code test) (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Air rage

I'm concerned that the article Air rage consists mainly of a list of incidents where people behaved badly on planes or at airports. I'm not sure if the content is acceptable based on the BLP policy, and was hoping to get opinions from people who are more familiar with the policies. I wasn't quite sure if this was the right place to ask for opinions, since there isn't any dispute on the article, but this was the best place I could find to get opinions of people familiar with BLP policy. No one responded when I posted on the talk page of the article. Anyway, is that content acceptable, or is it problematic? Should the list of incidents be removed, or perhaps just the names of the people involved (or maybe just the names for people who aren't celebrities)? Calathan (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is a mess. I've started in but more eyes would help. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for working on the article. Calathan (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned up the obvious WP:NOR and removed un-sourced content. Cwobeel (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Shingo Nishimura

Article is about a Japanese politician who has made controversial statements. It is currently categorized under Category:Disbarred lawyers and Category:Japanese criminals, but these claims are not mentioned in the text, and consequently not cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Now fnixed, thank you for letting us know. (I don't see why people take objection to him ranting at Koreans; I rant at lots of people, regardless of their nationality.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst (again)

Koenraad Elst (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

After Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) and Shrikanthv (talk · contribs) nominated the BLP article and all of the authors' book articles for deletion, one of the discussions centered on the serious NPOV violations in the article.

They were already brought up at this noticeboard at least once. Some improvements were then made by User:Collect, but they were reverted by another editor. The article may need to be protected.

The NPOV violations were explained in great detail by the subject of the lemma here:

These links say among other things:

Well, there you have it. The lemma on me has ended up taking this form because some militant among your contributors purposely wanted to “warn readers” against me. Please cite me an instruction for encyclopedists that names “warning” among the legitimate goals of an encyclopedia.
Either you remove the lemma altogether, or you straighten it out and apply the rules of encyclopedia-writing to it. At any rate, in a encyclopedia, I count on being judged for what I myself have said or done, and not for the gossip my declared enemies have come up with.
If Wikipedia wants to live up to its promise of being a reliable encyclopedic source, it will strike this and all sentences resembling it from its article on me. At most, it can use me as an example of how it was fooled by some of its all-too-partisan collaborators. Speaking of whom: the history page accompanying my page proves forever that some Wikipedia collaborators wanted to inflict on me the maximum harm possible, an attitude incompatible with work for an encyclopedia.

The old discussion was here:

Someone claiming to be the subject of the article Koenraad Elst has written a long blog post with a set of criticisms of the article. Some of the criticisms seem slightly overwrought but there's probably quite a few which are valid. Anyone want to sort this out? —Tom Morris (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well -- the BLP was replete with "claims" and polemical wording which I did a little clean-up on. Not a shining example of Wikipedia biographies in any case. More for others to work on. I specifically did not seek out the blog, bit worked from Wikipedia normal best practice on it. Collect (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear; in this edit Calypsomusic (talk · contribs) reposted an old thread with commentaries of two editors, without signing it himself. --Soman (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to sign. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Some users are even calling him a fascist in wikipedia space. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Diffs would have been useful. Looks like just one editor, NarSakSasLee, here. I don't find the claim to be particularly outlandish. See, for example, Nanda, Meera (2003). Prophets Facing Backwards: Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India. RutgersUP. pp. 9–11. . However, it would probably be best if NarSakSesLee explained what s/he meant. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Commented. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The guy is a nutcase. All of his books belong on his own article - not separated. No one is discussing them except fringe authors. There is also very little criticism or praise of him. He's part of Vlaams Belang (which is fascist) and is coming up with piles of bullshit no one actually cares about. So why have his own articles on irrelevant non-notable books? NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Look who's talking? One who believes that this book is related to science. If you already know now, that you are Incompetent about these stuff, you can just stop or pursue useful contribution, in place of typing extreme nonsense that violates the policies. I cannot find any source of him being fascist anyway. So stop making up. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The Koenraad Elst section was deleted (removed from public view) by Lesser Cartographies and later archived, but the issue is not resolved. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I hatted the section, as an admin had taken a look and blocked the offending user. I think that's about as resolved as you're going to get. What else did you want to see happen here? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification. But the issue is about the Koenraad Elst article, not about the personal attacks on various talkpages. It was not related to that user, so the blocking didn't solve the issue. --Calypsomusic (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Dan Patrick

It states on Dan Patrick's Wikipedia page that his spouse is Wendy Davis. I believe that not to be true. Wendy Davis is a political opponent. I believe that Dan Patrick's spouse is Susan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Different Dan Patrick, but you're right about his wife. I've fixed the vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 13:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Billy Bob Thornton

Billy Bob Thornton (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Regarding the CBC interview incident, I have twice updated the paragraph to note that, despite negative press, Billy Bob's band The Boxmasters played the next night to not one, but two standing ovations from the Canadian audience at the end of the show. I am Mr. Thornton's Webmaster and work very closely with his team, and my source is someone who was physically present at the concert. Twice, this update has been deleted.

Also, Mr. Thornton did not complain that Canadians were like mashed potatoes without the gravy. He joked about it. Anyone who watches the interview can see that he is joking. (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Amélie Frank

I've re-worded the section somewhat, as I found it to be overly focused on a Canadian perspective despite being justified by reference to multiple international sources which seem not to share that perspective.
Regarding the standing ovations, unfortunately personal accounts of the reception of the show can't be used to add material on Wikipedia unless they're published by reliable independent sources.
An argument could perhaps be made that the section is actually WP:UNDUE and therefore shouldn't be in the article at all, but I can't quite see that at the moment; would welcome comments from others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks like it's being given undue weight. As a badly conducted interview (interviewer and interviewee), it was certainly covered, and it might be worth a sentence as a public incident under "other". But right now it's being given more weight than even his marriage to Angelina Jolie, and given equal weight as his music career as a whole. I don't usually like staff interventions for celebrities but there's no way this one interview is worth more weight than any single one of his acting roles, movies etc. Right now his career section is "Film, Music, CBC Incident".__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It also looks like the writeup of this incident relies heavily on the Jian Ghomeshi article. This was a page that had severe COI concerns in the past, as shown here. I don't think we should have more than a sentence on the interview in Thornton's BLP, and without the negative cast that could have originated from Ghomeshi's staff. If you look at the verbs used to describe Thornton's behavior, they seem to run foul of Neutrality and the spirit of WP:SAY.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Victor Yanukovych

Lvivske keeps adding a defamatory information to the article about Victor Yanukovych.

The user reverted me twice [11], [12].

The user also lied about having fact checked the source : [13].

I hope the user is blocked cause it was intentional.

(I removed the section a few days earlier and then Paavo273 readded it. I believe the readdition was in good faith.)

For the record, the source says only:

Where is Viktor Yanukovych? (VIDEO, UPDATE)

Today's great guessing game is where ex-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is hiding out. Border guards said they stopped his plane in Donetsk trying to leave the country on Feb. 22, but have not said anything publicly today. Member of parliament Vitali Klitschko said today that he doesn't know where Yanukovych went, nor were his whereabouts disclosed in parliament today. Amid the uncertainty, rumors have swirled, with places such as the United Arab Emirates or Russia as possible destinations abroad or, if he's still in Ukraine, somewhere in his home oblast of Donetsk, where he was the regional governor for several years.

A videotape shot at an unknown location and released to the pro-government UBR business channel for broadcast on Feb. 22 is all that Yanukovych left the public for clues.

--Moscow Connection (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Moscow Connection is lying. First he blanked the content and another user reverted him, and today he tried blanking the fully cited content again. The content includes a direct quote from an article by the Kyiv Post. I have since opened a talk page discussion showing both the source link, quote, and even a screen shot for good measure. I don't know why Moscow Connection is denying the source exists; this is widely cited information that a quick google search would find further information from every major newspaper in the world it seems. I warned him on his talk page and informed him that I had fact checked the source, and he called me a vandal, and now threatened to have me blocked....for fact checking? --Львівське (говорити) 19:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible the article was changed since it was originally posted? Ravensfire (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, a quick google search using the first bits of the quote show plenty of other potential sources for that quote. Ravensfire (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Article's the same, posted a screenshot of how it appears today with the quote highlighted. I've since added refs from Bloomberg and the Washington Post to assuage any doubts.--Львівське (говорити) 19:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I saw your screenshot, and don't doubt you, but there is something odd happening then. (Perhaps some regional filtering, which I've seen before) I don't see that quote at all in the link provided. I would recommend considering using an alternate source. Ravensfire (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what you see. I will reply there on the talk page with a screenshot of what I see. (I've quoted the whole text I see above.)
Actually, I've looked at your screenshot and I've heard about what it says, but it was just a statement by a party official, not an official statement by the party. There were a few statements like that issued, but the party didn't officially disavowed Yanukovich. So what your added is incorrect even if some article actually says what your screenshot says. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The timeline article says "Viktor Yanukovych, who has not been seen since his pre-recorded video apperance on Saturday, has been rejected by his own political group, the Party of Regions." The full statement is apparently posted on their website. But you've got a secondary source saying he's been rejected by his former party. Maybe just better phrasing is needed? Ravensfire (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Could you please help? Could you please ask the people who are adding the statement to either provide a link to the official statement or remove the section? --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "a statement by a party official" when it was made in a formal address by the head of the party itself. That's about as formal as it gets. Also, the quote is "The Party of Regions faction and members of our party, strongly condemn...", he is not speaking in a personal capacity, but on behalf of the entire the quote makes clear. --Львівське (говорити) 19:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It's just a statement by the party's parliamentary faction, not by the party. I've just searched the net and there were reports about some statements like that by the party's parliamentary faction and by some regional section back in February. But I believe there never was any official statement by the party.
Cause you see, Yanukovich asked to exclude him from the party much later himself and his request was granted: [14]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's remove the warnings to each other. If you remove the complete section on my talk page with some edit summary about it being a mistake or something like that, I will remove the section on your talk page. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
If we're talking about the same thing here and I THINK we ARE, I had mentioned to Moscow Connection that the reason the info was missing from the cite (which IMO seems clear if you look at the cited source) is KP deliberately cuts off articles to try get paid subscriptions. I had told MC that I would add a substitute link--the one I also added on the talk page in this section about 2/3 way down in the paragraph that starts "Здравствйте Мocow Connection...." Unfortunately, that archive is for some reason a banned website and the article would not allow me to add it--just spit it back out. That may be what precipitated all this--Causa causae est causa causati! Well that, and my originally splitting off the newer info about VY asking 2B excluded from where User:Yulia Romero had placed it as part of her IMO seemingly tireless efforts to expand and improve the UA-related articles of this encyclopaedia. Regards all, Paavo273 (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I obviously didn't notice the second half of that message.
But I've explained above (and attempted to explain before on the talk page) why the info you re-added was incorrect. These are statements by some party official and by the parliamentary fraction (see the link Lvivske provided). Not by the party (the whole party). --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Saying it's a statement by "the parliamentary faction, and not the party" is an obfuscation of the material. The faction is the party, Finkle is Einhorn. The quote by the head of the party clearly says "The Party of Regions faction and members of our party" --Львівське (говорити) 20:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The parliamentary faction is not the party. The parliamentry faction is the people who are members of the partliamentary faction. (I bet you know yourself what the situation was right after the coup.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Recognising that there may be regional filtering issues, as suggested by Ravensfire, may assist in explaining why you were arguing with a number of contributors on the talk page who could see what you couldn't is one thing, Moscow Connection; not accepting that others were telling you that the information was there is not assuming good faith. Blanking the section while we were all still actively engaged in establishing what the problem was on the talk page is tendentious editing by anyone's standards. It would have been reasonable to tag the section as needing better sources: removing it altogether (yet again) is not reasonable.
You've now essentially turned this into a demand for explicit evidence in the form of primary sources (i.e., as per this comment and the one above) on the basis that implicit secondary sources do not meet your personal, exacting standards. Your problem does not appear to be with the sources but the content itself. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reasonable or rational argument for striking a section from a timeline. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I've already explained 100,000 times that Yanukovich wasn't disowned/disavowed/excluded from the party until he asked to be exluded. I'm starting to lose my patience. Wikipedia lies. Thanks to you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Here: Talk:Viktor Yanukovych#Content blanking on his disavowing by Party of Regions.
The article is a BLP. Please remove the incorrect info. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Steve Starr Pulitzer Prize Photographer

Hi. I'm still alive. My Wiki bio has me confused with another photographer who died in November 2012. Can I get the bio changed? It seems my efforts at changing the bio are not wiki literatre. Thanks - Steve, — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you made the change to remove the offending information. That should be good enough. Somebody had already raised the issue on the talk page for the article. —mako 20:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

John Angus Campbell

This John Angus Campbell biography seems to have potential problems that I have detailed on the article's talk page. In particular, the article's subject has created a list of errors in fact and in imputation that somebody should look through carefully (also: [15] [16]).

I think these issues are relatively easy to fix. That said, I am currently a faculty member in the subject's old department so I would prefer not to do the editing myself if somebody else can. —mako 20:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Rand Paul - Quote from the Freedom Summit

Rand Paul (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Rand Paul spoke at the Freedom Summit on April 12. In his speech, he insisted that the Republic Party has to broaden its appeal in order to grow, and that to succeed, it can't be the party of "fat cats, rich people and Wall Street.”

Editor CFredkin (talk · contribs) says that the quote is sensationalistic and as such it can’t be included because it violates WP:BURDEN. My position is that this is a quote from Paul, which has been widely reported in reliable sources, and as such it is notable for inclusion.

Here is the diff: [17]

Discussion at Talk:Rand_Paul#Superfluous_quote.3F

CFredkin and I agreed in bringing this to the attention of this noticeboard for guidance. Cwobeel (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Without re-creating the Talk page discussion here. I'd just like to comment that my main point is that the quote is not relevant to Paul's BLP and adds no value beyond being sensational.CFredkin (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Deny science

The article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is a list of scientists who have expressed some differences of opinions with the mainstream understanding of global warming. For example, one of the scientists on the list is Judith Curry, widely recognized as one of the leading experts in the field, and currently the "chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology". In this edit User:Ronz states:

Let's be clear, these scientists are like creationists in that they deny science.

While there may be a creationist in the list, the remark is not limited in any way, and cast aspersions on all entries on that list. IMO, to claim that a scientist denies science is not acceptable (save very solid evidence, which is not supplied). I hoped this was just a rhetorical excess, and the editor would remove if asked. I asked (with the intention of removing my own quote) if the editor would revert, but the editor declined to remove the remark and claims it is supported. These are all scientists, who have expressed reservations about some aspects of a UN document. To characterize those reservations as "deny[ing] science" is over the top.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a problem, specifically as the editor is trying to insert other creationism items into this list in order to share his (perceived) link between these scientists and creationists. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems that some editors are incapable of reading comments, sources, and related articles. Where shall we start? The main discussion is here. Note that both editors above have claimed that I am saying the entries in the list are of "denialists". In both cases I pointed out that this is (at best) changing the topic of the discussion. I've tried to make it very clear, making initial attempts to provide sources and links to related Wikipedia articles, that clearly show that the entries are scientists who are part of the climate change denial efforts: "Specifically, the denialists find (often paying) people who can be passed off as "experts" to be used to create a sense that there is scientific doubt." So to be even clearer, I'm not saying that each person in the list is a denier, only that each person is important and listed because they are part of the denial efforts in that they are held up as "experts" when they are not. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

So, let's actually focus on improving the article. The content in dispute is the addition to "See also" of a link to Project Steve. The BLP concerns are that: --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. Adding the link implies that the people listed are creationists. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Adding the link is insulting to the people listed. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. The article is not actually related to science denialism and climate change denialism in any way, much less evolution denialism. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Ronz I agree that the above diff is problematic in relation to Wikipedia's strict policy on BLPs and has a general disrespectful tone that is not appropriate for talk pages involving BLPs. The same disrespectful tone is seen in their next edit about the listed scientists being paid by "denialists" and then passed off as experts. It's important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the right place to sound off how stupid you think some people are or similar. The more controversial the topic is, the more weight should be placed on keeping the discussion formal and correct; avoiding loaded language, insinuations etc. Unfortunately, I have seen also before that there is a problem with this at that particular talk page, as well as with multiple others. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Have you looked at the sources and related articles, or are you saying it doesn't matter? --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, if it is "tone", do instruct me on how to change the tone while keeping the information and context. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I thank Ronz for posting here, and making clear the lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Many of the editors not familiar with the climate debate may be reading but are not familiar with some of the terminology. Roughly speaking, "skeptics" are those who disagree with some aspects of the mainstream scientific consensus as embodied in the IPCC reports. A small subset of skeptics are those who could be called deniers. They actively and vehemently deny almost all aspect of the climate change issue, sometimes even claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. We have an article about climate change denial. The article in question List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is not about the denialists.
There is a tiny bit of overlap, but the climate change denial article talks about the entire effort to deny the scientific consensus, but is not limited to scientists. In fact, most of the major players in the denialist group are not scientists. In contrast, by definition, all the members of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming are scientists and most would not consider themselves denialist. Most accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, most accept that the earth has generally been warming over the last century, most accept that human action contributes meaningfully. However, they are not all on board with all of the conclusion in the IPCC reports.
As the talk page will demonstrate, Ronz has been told this many times. Yet Ronz persists in acting as if List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is about denialism.
Most of the members of the list are scientists who spend much of their lives doing science, and applying for grants to do more science. To have them labeled "like creationists in that they deny science" is quite unacceptable, and should be removed. I asked Ronz to remove it voluntarily. I now ask for a consensus that this BLP violation can be removed (I do understand I could remove it, and then debate it, but I'd like to see some others weigh in first).--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I concur. Wikipedia is here to provide information, not to make judgments about people or to make such implications about people. Collect (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello? Sources? Related articles? Or just "tone"? --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Ronz. I am not quite sure by which articles and sources you are referring to when you ask if I have looked at them. What I have looked at is for instance this article in a Norwegian newspaper written by holders of the mainstream view who discusses who the climate sceptics are and why they are sceptic. Money is not mentioned at all; nor that there are any "denialists" who lure them into becoming sceptics and then put them forward as experts. What is listed as reasons for scepticism among scientits is age and paradigm shift. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
So you haven't looked at the sources offered, and this isn't about "tone"? As I pointed out, I only offered some initial sources (19:59, 16 April 2014), which have been ignored so far. They are: "The Denial Machine", "The Scientist Deniers", and "The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society" and are currently in the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I suggest reading the entire chapter to better get a sense of the context, but here's the beginning and end of Dunlap, Riley E.; McCright, Aaron M. (2011), "Ch. 10: Organized Climate Change Denial: 2.4 Contrarian Scientists", The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Oxford University Press, p. 151, ISBN 978-0-19-956660-0 : --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
"From the earliest stages of climate change denial the fossil fuels industry and conservative think tanks, and their fronts groups like GCC, recognized the importance of employing credentialed scientists to manufacture uncertainty concerning climate change (building on the tobacco industry’s success with this strategy—Oreskes and Conway 2010), and they readily found scientists who were eager to assist (Gelbspan 1997; McCright 2007). Some had expertise relevant to climate science (e.g. Patrick Michaels and Fred Singer), but many did not.
...Indeed, Monbiot’s (2007) characterization of the ‘denial industry’ reflects the fact that climate change denial now offers the possibility of a rewarding ‘career’ for contrarian scientists and others eager to work with CTTs, front groups, and conservative media."
I read the chapter. I found zero support for the notion that the list of scientists in the article were like creationists or that they deny science. Do you have other sources making the claim?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad we're finally focusing on the initial sources that I provided.
I am focusing on "deny science" which you have identified as the topic of this discussion. For sources relating evolution denial to climate change denial, I think we should wait, but if you like, start at NCSE's website, the creator's of Project Steve.
The source puts these scientists in the context of climate change denial, correct?
The source states the scientists are being used to manufacture uncertainty concerning climate change, correct? --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Actually, I don't think it is appropriate to start with the National Center for Science Education website

  1. It is a primary source, which can be used with caution as a reference for the NCSE article.
  2. It is an organization primarily in the business of education re creationism (have you read our article, it is almost solely about creationism?) and only recently has it undertaken to do some work on the climate field, a subject matter which is barely recognized in the article.
  3. It isn't a reference to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which is the article in question.

Do you have sources used in the article supporting your claim?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

So you are withdrawing your concerns about "deny science" and moving on to "these scientists are like creationists"? If so, I'm happy to offer sources rather than confusing people with suggesting they look for them starting with NCSE's website. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I withdrew nothing. Please try posting responsibly. The claim you made is quoted in the fourth line of this section. It is a BLP violation, unless you can provide acceptable sources to support it. You have not. I'm tried of the obfuscation. Not a single contributor has supported your position. I've removing it, and you can see if you can get a consensus to restore it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Then lets focus on "deny science". --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
"The source puts these scientists in the context of climate change denial, correct?"
"The source states the scientists are being used to manufacture uncertainty concerning climate change, correct?" --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You are making the claim. You cite the source and show it supports your claim. Please. If you can.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the other editors involved in this dispute don't appear interested in examining the sources, or at least responding to questions about them, let's just forget context for a moment.

  • These scientists object to the scientific because they are on the list. Correct?
  • Objecting to scientific consensus means they deny the science. Correct?
  • Other well known groups that deny science are creationists and the tobacco industry. Correct?
  • These scientists are like the scientists that the creationists and tobacco industry have listed in their various lists. Correct? --Ronz (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Please wp:FOC and avoid characterizing the motives of other editors. Thank-you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Your first statement is an overly simplistic summary. These people are on the list because they challenge some aspects of the consensus. It is at least misleading to baldly state they object to the scientific [consensus]. However, the real key is the second statement. One can object to some aspect of a scientific consensus without denying science. This isn't a small or technical point, it is quite common. For example Judith Curry largely buys into the mean projections of temperature, but believes the confidence expressed in the estimates is too high. This is a subject in my wheelhouse, but it is fairly obvious to anyone with scientific training. It is reasonably straightforward to calculate confidence intervals around artificial experiments, such as coin tossing or dice outcomes. It is significantly more complicated to do the same exercise with even simple models of reality, and climate models are far removed from simple models. Subjective assumptions must be made and reasonable experts can reach different conclusions about how to make such assumptions. That is an issue with a single climate model, but there are dozens, and the results need to be combined. That process isn't mathematically rigorous, and well-meaning scientists sit together and reach some conclusions. Not a single person would come up with exactly the same results if they calculated on their own, but presumably, they reach a conclusion that all in the room can accept. However, scientist not in the room may reach a different conclusion, and it might be sufficiently different that they are not willing to state that they share all aspects of the consensus. This is the way science works. They aren't denying science. (Creationism is denying science, but that's a different kettle of fish.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Please stop wasting our time here. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

A procedural question

Ronz states content in dispute is the addition to "See also" of a link to Project Steve. . That is the subject of the talk page discussion but not the subject here. The attempt by Ronz to insert that link has been reverted, on BLP and other grounds. This discussion is about the BLP violation on the talk page added by Ronz (and quoted above). It just occurred to me that it might be a more efficient process to remove it as a BLP violation, and then discuss it here only if Ronz retries to revert it back in. I apologize for asking; even though I've been around for years, I think this is my first BLP issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"See Also" is for links to material directly on point to the topic. "Project Steve" is not relevant in that manner. And all talk pages must also conform to WP:BLP which means if something is a BLP violation in an article, it is also one on a talk page. Collect (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
We'll need more than a simple assertion to determine consensus. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion is about adding the link to See also, but we might just want to focus on what is and are not BLP violations on the talk page first. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No it isn't. If you would like to start a separate section about that issue feel free. This discussion is about your claim that the scientists in the list are denying science.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
As I suggested, we agree to focus on what are and are not BLP violations on the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You have not addressed the BLP concerns here. Adding refs (apparently blogs and opinion pieces)to support your supposition (that scientists who disagree with the IPCC are like creationists) at the talk page doesn't address the BLP issue raised by multiple editors above. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


BLPTALK says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate."

The comment in dispute is on the talk page, in a discussion about content choices, as part of the explanation for including content to the article. Correct? --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Adrienne Harun


The first name of Adrianne Harun is misspelled in the title of her Wiki page. It is currently spelled Adrienne. Please note that the references cited on her Wiki page support this correction. I was able to correct the spelling in the body of the page, but not in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granitedesk (talkcontribs) 04:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I have used WP:MOVE to move the article to the correctly spelled title. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Martin Landau

Just a heads up for the members of the Bio Project. A new user has made several post to Talk:Martin Landau. It looks as though they may need some guidance as to the way that things work around here. I am happy to AGF that they may be able to add information of value to the article but if we could get some an extra eye or two in explaining things that would be great. Thanks for any help that any of you can provide. MarnetteD | Talk 06:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hassanal Bolkiah

The page about Hassanal Bolkiah does not provide information on him bringing back the death penalty by stoning. See the source below: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The Huffington Post article is sourced from the "Religion News Service", whose use as a reliable source is unknown. In fact, RT and pinknews are highly questionable as to being reliable sources, especially for use in a BLP.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Elon Musk

There is a severe case of vandalism on this page from Spicyitalianmeatball and CNMall41 I have edited the page, now countless times updating information that is false, or improving on the article... such examples include...

Adding 'investor' to the title list that is currently 'Business Magnate, inventor'. He is an investor in Solar City, Tesla, SpaceX, PayPal etc. He was also listed on Forbes 2014 Midas List of investors. - This fully qualifies him as a investor, and Forbes is an extremely reliable source. However these two users, have deleted this reference every time I edit, then remove 'investor' from the list, with absolutely no reason.

Secondly regarding the Tesla Motors section, it currently reads... "The company was co-founded by Martin Eberhard, Marc Tarpenning, JB Straubel, Ian Wright, and Musk." While this is correct it does not give the full picture and is misleading, as Musk was not part of the original team. Musk came in as after the original team was formed AND had incorporated the company in July 2003. He then became involved with the company in series A round of funding as a INVESTOR. SOURCE: Mainly This is a reliable Online Busness newspaper, however both users, merely delete the source and my edit, with no real reason. I have tried to change it to The company was co-founded by Martin Eberhard, Marc Tarpenning, JB Straubel, Ian Wright, and Musk. However the company was incorporated in 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning prior to Musk's involvement. Musk became an investor in the company in 2004 in the series A round, other such series A investment groups included...." But again this is deleted.

Thirdly I have removed inventor from occupation, this implies he is inventing on a day-to-day basis. This is hugely untrue. The only this he could be considered for in terms of inventing is Hyperloop, when in actual fact all he has done is conceptualise it, while announcing it as an open source project. This means that even if it were classified as inventing it would be more of a hobby that a occupation. Therefore this shouldn't be in the occupation section. It should be: Entrepreneur, Businessman and investor, there is no reference to any other occupation anywhere. Despite the fact they have provided no reason or COUNTER-ARGUMENT to this they merely deleted this and refer the article back to inventor. I have provided a good reason to remove however, they revert the article every time, meaning they are evidently conflicted by personal opinions.

Finally, I also removed 'inventor' from the introduction titles Business Magnate, investor etc. This is again for similar reasons above, but that compared to his activity as a entrepreneur and investor, conceptualising a SINGLE technology does not seem noteworthy or significant, for a introduction title. The titles are followed with 'He conceptualise the Hyperloop' which is true, but the only thing he could ever be considered for inventing IS hyperloop, therefore including inventor implies he has multiple inventions which he has not, they have failed to provide any list of inventions and have deleted my input with no reason.

I have tried improving/editing the article tim a and time again, and ever without failed these two users have undone ALL my edits with no reason. I'd appreciate if an authoritative user could sort this dispute out. Thank You. Dirac740 (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Eric Schlosser

Would someone please take a look at this article, with an eye towards achieving a greater level of neutrality? IMO its a little self-promotional. I would do it myself, but I'm a little annoyed with some of the subject matter involved.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ian Levine

Ian Levine (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) - presently quiet, but far below standards. I just cut one completely uncited attack para, it's peppered with citation-needed tags; basically needs going over with a blowtorch. If others could watchlist it as well against attempts to readd, that would be helpful - David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Watchlisted Cwobeel (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Bobby Bowden

Bobby Bowden (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Biographical article incomplete.

No mention of letter written on behalf of serial rapist Michael Gibson: 1 2

Bowden referenced in connection with another rape case by former state of Florida assistant prosecuter Adam Ruiz: 3

Just because there is something in a newspaper doesnt mean that it is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. We almost never include unsubstantiated charges. WP:BLP -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


4 5


Russell Targ

Russell Targ (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

I am the subject of a Wikipedia biography. I am an 80 year old retired physicist. I have two issues: 1. From 1956 to 1972 I was involved in the development of the first lasers, working closely with laser patent holder Gordon Gould at TRG Inc. From 1985 to 1997 I worked at Lockheed and NASA on high-power lasers, laser communication and airborne wind-shear detection with lasers (LIDAR). Three review articles in Applied Optics. My numerous publications are continually expunged from my Wiki page. Why is this? My life's work is 25 years with lasers and 10 years with parapsychology. I am well known in the laser field. Why is all reference to my laser work erased. 2. In 1972 I was co-founder of an applied ESP program with Harold Puthoff at Stanford Research Institute. We were supported by the CIA to find American hostages, downed Russian airplanes, report of Chinese A-bomb tests. We found the kidnap car from the Patricia Hearst kidnapping, etc. Why am I not allowed to say that we had a "23 year, $20 million" program? That is well known to be true. Our remote viewing is widely replicated internationally. It is also criticized. But the CIA and NASA considered the criticisms bogus. I am willing for Wiki to feature the criticisms. But I feel it is unfair to erase my responses. We also made $120,000 forecasting changes in the silver commodity market in 1982. Widely published, Wall Street Journal, etc. Ex-CIA director Robert Gates said on television that we didn't provide any useful information to the CIA during our 25 year tenure. That's a lie. Why would they continue to give us $1 million a year for 23 years, if we didn't give them anything useful. Signed: Russell Targ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torgownik (talkcontribs) 21:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Targ (if you are really him) you have a history of deleting criticism from your article. You also have a history of edit warring and inserting original research (and personal commentary) into your article. You need to read up on Wikipedia policies. You say you are "well known in the laser field" but no reliable secondary sources indicate this (you have cited none). You claim your remote viewing was widely replicated but you give no references for this claim either. You need to cite reliable secondary sources if you are going to add material on Wikipedia. Adding in your your own papers is not recommended because they have not been mentioned in reliable secondary sources (if they have then feel free to cite references) but other users such as myself have looked and there are not any, that is why the primary papers that you published were deleted. The references that are on the article seem to indicate you are well known for your paranormal claims, not scientific work. Goblin Face (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Where has he had more impact?
I've reformatted things, a little. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Cleaned up a bit as well Cwobeel (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Rosario Dawson _

The film Rumble in the Jungle does not appear in her list of films. Please include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Fayez Barakat

Is this page really appropriate? After thorough investigation, my conclusion is that it has been written by Fayez Barakat to promote himself. --Xedyn (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the majority of the article as unsourced and assorted fluffery. There is an in-depth profile offered as a reference so I suppose he meets WP:GNG. --NeilN talk to me 16:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Doug Ose vandalism/edit warring/sockpuppet

Hello, on the page for Doug Ose, a user is reverting an admin's edits, deleting article sections, and pumping the article with biased and even blatantly false information. I tried deleting an edit made earlier by a previous user that did the same thing and had them reported, but now it looks like the vandalism is continuing under a new account. I think there is a conflict of interest with this editor because they seem to be highly in favor of the individual and could perhaps be a sockpuppet to include very unreliable and one-sided advertising. Perhaps the page ought to be protected or scrutinized by someone with more experience than myself. Thanks! Hubbardc (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Hubbardc

The page needs semi-protection, agree. Cwobeel (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Requested semi protection at WP:RFPP Cwobeel (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Patrick McCollum

The article on Patrick McCollum has a lot of extraordinary, mostly unsourced, claims. Some of it seems copied from which I presume is a self-published source. The whole article looks self-promotional. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've basically burned it to the ground. It was a truly awful article. --NeilN talk to me 17:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Much better mow. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Suicide of Amanda Todd

Suicide of Amanda Todd ( | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Will experienced editors please visit this section of the article talk page where a discussion is being held about the inclusion of an arrested suspect's name in this matter. The man has been named in media outlets, though I cannot state the level of reliability of the sources. The man has not yet been convicted. Indeed I believe that even including his forename and the first letter of his surname is probably a BLP violation. Fiddle Faddle 16:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Barbara Lerner Spectre

User:JeffLB is single-purpose edit warring here since May 2013, also editing games involving IP and self-reverts [18], [19], [20] to avoid 3R rule. WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, source is an obscure social media upload in Swedish you have to redirect and take translation on trust. Won't get it, obviously pursuing personal agenda own shtick (I dare say he wouldn't use that word) and it must be personally harassing for Barbara Spectre: this is an example of the kind of vandalism that goes on at her BLP.

I feel appropriate administrator action is needed. Lizzy B52 (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Whatchlisted. Cwobeel (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Leigh Griffiths

User:Truth, reality and justice is repeatedly adding libellous assertions to this article, based on tabloid newspapers (Daily Record and Daily Express) if there is any sourcing at all. Griffiths has been involved in some controversial incidents, but these have been added to the prose of the article, rather than creating specific attack sections. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I think to state the edits I made being described as attack sections is somewhat harsh. Many of the incidents had not been included at all prior to my updating of the article which had previously been accepted. There are in fact so many incidents it only made sense to start a new section regarding these matters. It appears the article has been continually reverted over a short period of time (in one evening) by one user.

I made all edits etc in good faith.

The original edits only ever stated the multiple incidents as alleged. This can easily be checked.

I'm not sure why it has to come down to accusations being made towards any particular user. Working together will achieve the best results.Truth, reality and justice (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You are both well over WP:3RR, so I'd suggest talking it over before you get blocked. Negative claims in biographies must be reliably sourced, must not pose a problem of weight and must be worded neutrally. Use this place or the talk page to come to an agreement as to how the material should (if at all) be incorporated. I'd highly recommend reading WP:BLP as well. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Jmorrison230582 you reverted six times in less than 2 hours, other than section in lead which gave undue weight, the main section was entirely sourced, should this of been included I lean strongly to no until he is or if he is convicted, however this was not a clear case of vandalism and I'm concerned even if it was that you would revert that many times, you state BLP excemption I would argue you are wrong as was sourced. This should of been discussed on talk page, rather than edit warring. You also didn't properly warn for vandalism if you felt it was or for a strong BLP violation which would be the same, nor did you report at such, reverting that many times is ridiculous. Im agreeing re content but not with behaviour.Blethering Scot 21:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I would say Jmorrison230582 is in the clear here - they were removing information that has BLP problems so I'd be quite willing to accept they meet the 3RR exception. That leaves "Truth, reality and justice" open to a clear block. So the onus is on them to propose a BLP-compliant version of what they want to add to the article, or leave it alone altogether. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Jmorrison but i wasn't going to report you, but if you keep arguing I will, you are clearly very wrong on 3RR exception in this case, the only bit you would of been covered for is the lead and small non sourced info, the non sourced info is easily source able but that doesn't matter here, but you certainly aren't covered for the sourced material. As for sources, if you would like to fire sources at it you know as well as i do, we can broadsheets, SKY and BBC articles to back up that claim, and there is nothing wrong with those tabloid sources either, not to the extent your trying to make out. I Don't think we should be including that information at all, i do think your behaviour is substandard.Blethering Scot 21:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I've requested page protection. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
A dispute between two editors probably doesn't justify protection, rather action against editors.Blethering Scot 21:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Even if you were covered by that clause what vandalism warnings did you issue, what edit warring warnings did you issue, i don't see any warning or final warning templates on the users talk page, i see no reporting to the vandalism boards either. I don't see enough to justify six reverts.Blethering Scot 21:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes it does, full protection actually since everyone is autoconfirmed and I'd rather do that than block accounts. Work it out please. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, you would rather not block edit warrers, 6 times and think fully protecting the page is better, ill be taking that further.Blethering Scot 21:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Knock yourself out. In the meantime, I repeat my request to Truth, reality and justice that the faster they come up with a BLP-compliant version of the information in question, the faster we can do away with the protection. Otherwise we'll assume they are not interested in including it and we can all go on with our weekend. They do have a point in that the information probably belongs in the article, and Jmorrison230582 also is correct in objecting to the way it was added. I'd rather protect an article for a few days than block an account with a (so far) clear block log. Do you have an unrelated change you want to make in the meantime? Create a request in the talk page. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
If User:Truth, reality and justice wishes to include it in a neutral way and if User:FreeRangeFrog, thinks as he says it should be included then I'm happy to help him.Blethering Scot 23:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Our own full protection policy clearly states Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others.Blethering Scot 22:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Those are not proper warnings.Blethering Scot 22:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So just because it didn't have a shiny big triangle beside it doesn't mean that it wasn't a "proper" warning? Don't be absurd. I was trying to engage constructively with a new user who clearly doesn't understand WP procedures or policy at present. That user then chose to ignore my warnings by repeatedly adding what even you admit is controversial material. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Im not being absurd, there was no increased level of warnings there and certainly not a final warning. Your edit warring wasn't helping a new user.Blethering Scot 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I am concerned that page protection has been inappropriately added to this article and left it in a state where there is reference to charges brought against the subject without any conviction. Further, the reference to a quote from Neil Lennon about racism is also highly misleading as he did not say it with reference to the player or in this context. Both these issues need to be resolved to bring it into line with BLP policies. --nonsense ferret 09:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@User:nonsenseferret the page protection is being discussed at ANI but they seem to feel appropriate, even though its not in the spirit of our full protection policy, although it is to the letter. Neil Lennon has since commented on the players future citing the racism story and Lennons previous stance should be included as its relevant. Now there are better sources including The BBC, STV, The Guardian, The Scotsman & The Herald that should be usedBlethering Scot 11:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim Zeigler

A minor Alabama politician currently running for state office appears to be using his Wikipedia biography for promotional purposes. According to a blog post attributed to the subject himself, published less than 2 weeks ago, "Jim Zeigler, a candidate for Alabama State Auditor, is using Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, to reach voters. Zeigler registered the domain name and linked it to the lengthy Wikipedia article detailing his life."

Zeiglereldercare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked at the end of January but two other accounts have made multiple promotional edits since then, mostly/exclusively on the Jim Zeigler article:

I'm less concerned by a third username AlabamaPoliticalTruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) because so far they've just made one edit, today, which is inappropriately worded but is plausible based on the sourcing:

Semi-protection until the election (November) might be helpful, if the page survives AfD, but perhaps Historicalrevision and Alabamaverify should also be warned? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

How much space should be discussing his climate change views? See Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Undue_weight. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Where his views take up two sentences, and the criticisms take up seven paragraphs, there is an eensy chance that UNDUE is being hit - especially since his views as stated do not appear to be sledgehammer-worthy. Collect (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton

Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

CFredkin (talk · contribs) is sequentially deleting content from this article, content which is sourced to some deadlinks, instead of using the {{Citation needed}} as customary. The content can be easily sourced and it is non-controversial. In total this user has performed 15 19 consecutive deletions without any explanation in talk page. Diff [21] Cwobeel (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Insert live reliable source links supporting the claims as written. Griping about any editor who actually is doing what WP:BLP says can be done is simply not a productive use of this board. This is not supposed to be a drama-board. Collect (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed content that is unsourced, not supported by the sources provided, or not reliably sourced. WP:verifiability is a core principle of the project.CFredkin (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The content in question is non-contentious, and was sourced to a Hillary Clinton's website that is no longer online. WP:BLP tell us to remove contentious material that is un-sourced or poorly sourced, which is not the case here, as the content is non-contentious and easily verifiable. Rather than deletions, you could add {{Citation needed}} instead. Cwobeel (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If the source is not available, it is better to find a damn source than come yelling here about another editor. If you want drama, go to WP:AN/I but this is not the place to do it. This board is for concerns about biographies of living persons and making sure they comply with Wikipedia policies. Verify the claims with WP:RS sources - make the cites, and do not try soring some sort of lawyer-points here -- AN/I is the place for that sort of stuff. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, will post on WP:AN/I. Cwobeel (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
And BTW, I think the one yelling is you. Cwobeel (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Benny Elias

Some users keep deleting the nickname section of Benny Elias. It is a fact that he has been known as "Backdoor Benny" and "Crimean war" since the early 1990's. I have recently sourced a news article and also another wiki page about these commonly used nicknames of Benny Elias. Can I please get some help to ensure this stays in place. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peck7 (talkcontribs) 23:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Peck7: And I have removed the nicknames again. Your first source looked little more than a glorified blog and your second source was a Wikipedia article (not a reliable source in any article). --NeilN talk to me 01:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Ta-Nehisi Coates (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) This article was the subject of edit-warring by a single-purpose account and an RFC which clearly showed consensus to omit all mention of a childhood arrest. The same editor has returned after a block and implemented a version of the article which mentions the arrest, in contravention of this consensus. I have requested that the editor open a new RFC in order to determine whether or not consensus has changed before implementation, and this editor has instead engaged in revert-warring contentious negative material into the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The editor reporting this has made a consistent habit of deriding me and my contributions to Wikipedia ([22]) and mischaracterizing the debate. See my Talk page where I address the SPA issue, which the editor never mentioned. I am trying to edit this article and started an RfC which was immediately deleted by an involved, opposing user, who then reported me on the Vandalism page ([23]) for this edit ([24]) to my own Talk page. As a result, I was banned and the RfC was speedily closed by the same user. I then worked out a compromise with an admin and offered it on the discussion page, where it attracted 4 user comments. Based on that, I made the edit. Now the above editor who was the dissenter from the discussion has again resorted to reporting me, ironically only now saying he thought the edit was mostly ok. It's hardly fair to ignore discussion then run to the noticeboard if you can't handle a debate. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
You clearly pass the duck test as an SPA. Don't like it, then maybe you should drop your single-minded fixation on inserting negative material into Ta-Nehisi Coates' biography - 95% of all your edits on the encyclopedia are related to the page. Your bias in this matter was declared way back in February, when you stated your intent to smear Coates as a "criminal." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Again you ignore my Talk page which addresses all this. I just don't edit Wikipedia very often. And I think this is a worthy edit being dismissed by editors acting in bad faith such as yourself. I provided diffs above to give examples. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
On your talk page, you deny being an SPA but your current edit history shows that you have been totally obsessed with painting Ta-Nehisi Coates negatively ever since your very first edit on February 19, using an edit summary calling him a "criminal". Editing actions speak louder than user page words. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
So what? I only have one edit I wanted to make, yet it is impossible because those opposed (like you) won't discuss it, except to revert me. Based on this experience, why would I want to edit anything else? Useitorloseit (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

H.R. McMaster

This passage is completely inaccurate. "In his opinion, the military is not a political or diplomatic tool, and is instead a force to be used appropriately to inflict massive casualties and cause maximized damage to enemy forces in order to meet objective military targets and goals."[22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The statement in question is cited to a book he wrote. If you believe that is not an accurate summary of his views, then please discuss the matter and consider suggesting alternate wording at Talk:H. R. McMaster. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Shaker Aamer more eyes needed

An editor adds allegations based on 2007 US government assessment document.[25]

Later a US government review finds that allegations in prior assessments are unreliable.

"In 2010 the Guantanamo Review Task Force found that prior detainee assessments to be overstated. Some assessments, for example, contained allegations that were not supported by the underlying source document upon which they relied. Other assessments contained conclusions that were stated categorically even though derived from uncorroborated statements or raw intelligence reporting of undetermined or questionable reliability. (p. 9)"

I have added to the allegation section of the BLP that the assessments are unreliable so that the section is balanced, NPOV and conform with BLP.

Another editor who has already bad judgement regarding this BLP keeps removing that the documents are unreliable so that the article is now misleading.

Putting serious allegations into a BLP based on unreliable documents is fine with me.

Not telling the reader that the US government review task force found the allegation documents unreliable seems to me not conform with BLP policy. Right? Mautodontha subtilis (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What our supposedly "new" editor is not saying is that I added the comment "if you really want it to stay, then you need to tell the entire paragraph, not a half-truth."
He is not giving the entire meaning of the source's statement. It's one of the most blatant examples of cherry-picking I've seen in a while. I wouldn't mind keeping it if he told the entire truth even thought it's not applicable (as I'll explain).
If you read the entire paragraph he's citing, the source says three things: 1) some of the assessments were good; 2) some of them overstate the threat; and 3) some of them understate the threat. Editor Mautodontha subtilis is pretending that only #2 happened. I said it would be okay if we include #1 and #3 even though it's still meaningless.
The reason it's still meaningless is because the real problem is not only that the source isn't particularly talking about Shaker Aamer (the article subject). The source is actually a report from a group that maintains the conclusion that Shaker Aamer should stay in Gitmo until he is sent to Saudi Arabia.
In other words, the group he's citing agrees with the previous decisions. Shaker Aamer falls into case #1 or #3, not the #2 that the editor tries to pretend is the only case that exists.
The editor is also misrepresenting what I've added before, but that's another subject.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Costas Varotsos

Costas Varotsos (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) Can someone(s) cast their eyes over Costas Varotsos and assess if the puffery tag is still appropriate. Via OTRS the subject has been in touch requesting removal of the tag or deletion of the article. Nthep (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is the text of the article also on the talk page? Any special reason for this? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe that was the proposed revision which don't garner any comment so the editor made the change anyway. Nthep (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank u. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I did a bit of cleanup and added to watchlist. Cwobeel (talk)

Creative Commons License