Knowledge

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

Jess Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - Naming of a minor

Unlike Corey Worthington, nothing has actually happened, and her surname has not been published in any reliable source. We are talking about a 15 year old minor... surely we can't let the article sit here for a full week whilst the AfD occurs. This ref doesn't even use her real first name! The one quoted in the article only uses her first name, and her father "asked for his name to be withheld".The-Pope (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate a review of my administrative actions here, as I'm an inexperienced administrator, and get the feeling I'm a little over my head. The article was created after the subject (a 15-year-old girl) had her birthday party hijacked on Facebook. As was pointed out at the article's current AfD, she has not been identified by her full name in any reliable source. I've deleted it for this reason, and noindexed the AfD.  -- Lear's Fool 15:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It all looks good to me, well done. I would also suggest WP:SALT - creation protect the article title. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I salted it for a fortnight when I deleted it. If it becomes a problem after that, we can always re-salt.  -- Lear's Fool 16:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

All good, stuff like that doesn't qualify for seven days of discussion and continued publication through wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Ἲ

Jeff Foxworthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The 'Early Life' section has been defaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.182.2.25 (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverted back to a pre vandalism version and requested protection at the WP:RFPP here. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this belongs here, but the BLP folks might know better what to do. The article in question, KORC (AM), contains the name of an owner of one of the companies that once owned the station. It appears this person didn't want his name mentioned in Knowledge, and an edit war ensued between the article's creator and this person. On the company owner's talk page, it is clear he feels bitten, although he is resigned to have his name in the article. How could this have been handled differently? WP:BLPEDIT seems to apply here though the article itself is not a biography. Any ideas? Personally I think the name of the person doesn't enhance the article, and could be taken out, but it is part of the public record as the article creator has stated. Valfontis (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've taken both names out. Explanation on article talk page. Exxolon (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Akrom Yo‘ldoshev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am the son of the person who is being regarded in this article. I found the article too brief to give the right idea about my dad. Because it lacks in details the article falsely accuses my dad in a crimes that he has never done. I want you to take this article off of the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.87.216 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have begun a deletion discussion for this article at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Akrom Yo‘ldoshev. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A small extra note - if you (Akrom's son) wish to comment on the deletion discussion, you should create an account first - also it's not a vote, but a discussion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Blooded (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contains very harsh accusations against pro- and anti-hunting organizations, with no reliable sourcing that I can spot. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The creator also created an article about the company that created the movie - Ptarmigan ACP - and uploaded the logo of the film company and three other company related uploads claiming copyright of all four - Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• - promo poster - own work - deleted
• - soundtrack sample - own work - deleted
• - source magma pictures - own work - possible PD-Text?
• - logo - own work - deleted

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Blooded (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's an article about a fiction film. And while the film itself may not yet meet WP:NF, that a admitted work of parody or satire acts to disparage the worthy efforts of notable organizations is not a BLP violation. Knowledge does not concern itself with the "truth" of the content of a fictional film, else such articles on such fictional films as Star Wars would not be allowed. Inclusion is not about trurh, its about verifiability. What we do however care about is whether the film has itself received critial comentary in reliable sources. That's why it currently fails inclusion critiera... not because of its plot. Schmidt, 23:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, the article has been edited to itself NOT contain any "harsh accusations against pro- and anti-hunting organizations"... an issue easily addressed through normal editing. Schmidt, 11:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Willow Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article space had been a protected redirect for about 18 months and was just yesterday unprotected at RfPP. I don't believe this was suggested at Talk:Sarah Palin, but a few of us Talk:Sarah_Palin#Willow_Palin have serious misgivings about this individuals' notability. I am seeking input before moving forward with an AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• She isn't; notability isn't inherited. It should be prodded and taken to AfD if contested.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

1. being a daughter of someone notable confers zero notability per se. 2. The onlyother "notablility claim" refers to her appearing on her mom's tv show. 3. The "homophobia" bit is both not nottable, it is tabloidism at its worst. Salon.com is not a great reliable source for contentious claims in a BLP in the first place, and Eonline is even further removed from use as a source. 4. TMZ basically is listed as a csource - but it has essentially no concrete information on the person, and does not qualify as a "biography" by any stretch. The NYT cite gives Willow's year of birth only, and it is a bit of a stretch to list it as a reference. The total relevant part of the AP ref is all of: The Palins' five children are Track, 19; Bristol 17; Willow 14; Piper, 7, and baby Trig. In short, she is not notable by WP standards, the "sources" basically say that she was born!, and nothing else. The gist appears to be the Salon claim of hating gays - and that is clearly BLP1E at most (appearing in your mom's tv show does not make anyone notable). Collect (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

My reaction too: just not notable, full stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I deleted it as an unambiguous A7. There is nothing there which asserts notability about a minor. BLP trumps TMZ every single time. Horologium (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the redirect Willow Palin should be recreated and protected again, ensuring an attempt to discuss recreation. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if the article is recreated first. If it is, I'll make it a protected redirect. I suspect that there will be squawking about the deletion, so I'm inclined to see how that shakes out before taking the next step. Horologium (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as we are here, I will notify the user that requested un-protection, User:Selket, of this discussion as this is perhaps as good a place as any to discuss recreation or not as the case may be. Off2riorob (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• First of all, this should not have been A7'ed. There was clearly an assertion of notability, being on a television show, even if it was "her mom's." The claim that it was "her mom's" tv show is clearly false though, as it was produced by Mark Burnett. There is clear precedent for notability from appearing on a reality show (e.g. Melinda Varga from The Osbournes). It was for that notability and the recent media coverage of her specifically that I created the article. The claim that notability is not inherited is really a strawman argument. She is notable because of her TV roll. She doesn't become un-notable because she has a notable mother. If you think she's not notable enough, or that the sources don't adequately establish the claims of notability made in the article, the route to take is AfD. If you think there is negative unsourced BLP issues, delete those parts. Deleting under A7 was a mistake, and I would request the admin who deleted it to undo the deletion. Second, if there is some special rule about BLP's of minors, I would love to be pointed towards it, because I certainly can't find it. The notability criteria is the same regardless of age unless I'm really missing something. Third, if it's not a "biography" then it needs to be expanded, not deleted. Finally, as for TMZ as a source, I cited that only for her birth-date, but if we would prefer the NYT citation with "(b. 1994)" rather than the TMZ citation with "(b. July 7, 1994)" then I wouldn't really object, although it seems silly. --Selket 03:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed Horologium's comment about it being a "coatrack" over at Talk: Sarah Palin. I would like to encourage everyone to assume good faith please, even if it is about a Palin. I created the article, because I thought a redirect was inappropriate, and that's it. --Selket 03:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

None of the "biographical" sources really give more than her age - so those sources fail the simple test that they actually back up any claims. Appearing in a single TV show does not meet notability guidelines at all - and the cavil that her mom was not the "producer" has no meaning here. WP does not allow articles on people appearing in a single tv show as themselves, and identified as the daughter of the presenter majes is even less notable. Really. So all we are left with is the twitter bit - which is 1. not notable and 2. BLP1E at best and 3. does not have strong sources as required by WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It really might be time to add this article. There is significant coverage even if most of it treats her as a secondary subject. And realistically, it is only a mater of time so we might as well address the real issue instead of the "notability" (scare quotes intended) concern. Editors are worried that it will turn into a BLP violating mess. That only means editors need to watch the article and it might need semi-protection. Calling "notability" is just dodging the bigger issue. BLP worries are of course there but coverage establishes notability and those sources provide enough info to write at the very least a stub.Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Care to actually respond, Johnuniq? I did not say she will be notable. I said she is notable. It is only a matter of time until this article is created (that has nothing to do with crystal) so the real issue needs to be addressed (how to ensure that it does not turn into a BLP violating mess). With the amount of coverage available on the subject it is obvious that fear over how to maintain the article is the real issue since we have more than enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. We might as well have the real conversation instead of bickering over notability standards (which would be sufficiently addressed if she and her mother were not controversial figures) Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

People either agree on what is suitable encyclopedic content or they don't, and I have never seen a case where discussion helped. Yes, attention-seeking politicians with awkward children attract a lot of attention, and the children get attention too. However, I do not regard omg-have-you-heard commentary as indications of what I regard as encyclopedically notable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Her mother is notable, but she is not. Notability is not inherited, and simply appearing on a "documentary" television show is not significant enough to establish notability. In addition, it should not have been unprotected. jæs (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I was traveling and therefore unable to comment for the last few days. I still think this is the wrong procedure by which to make a decision, but I'm not that invested in it. Anyway, is there a good reason the talk page history is still deleted? Perhaps a note to this discussion might be useful as well? --Selket 15:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, no worries - Talk:Willow Palin - 10 March 2011 User:Horologium deleted "Talk:Willow Palin" ‎ (WP:G8: Talk page of a deleted page) - I can only assume that the likelyhood of her achieving notability in the near future is so minimal that a talkpage is more heat than light. Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Peaches Geldof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• notified User:A man alone
• - The Sun report

A user User:A man alone is desirous to add tabloid reports of unconfirmed claims that were posted to facebook that she allegedly used heroin. The story was connected to the loss of a contract with ultimo and there were semi naked / naked pictures of the subject that are were clearly her, Ultimo withdrew the contract with no mention of the heroin allegations, just stating that they wanted a good role model and the subject had slipped below their expectations. There is some recent related discussion on the talkpage Talk:Peaches_Geldof#Alledged Heroin use claim and there were low level reports of this facebook claim of heroin use but no confirmation and the subject strongly denied it. A fate sold a story to the press, users are claiming on the talkpage that as she didn't sue The Sun Newspaper that it is ok to repeat the unconfirmed controversial claims - if the company had commented in their statement that they were removing here contract because of unconfirmed allegations of heroin use posted on facebook and repeated in tabloid press then I could see a possible reason to add the claims but without that they are just , date claims heroin use denied by the subject, imo this violates the request from BLP policy to report conservatively and that controversial claims require the highest quality of citation. The user wanting to add this content has now after my requests not to add it has moved to this ...

Peaches was subsequently dropped from the Ultimo brand in March 2010 after nude pictures and a story alledging heroin use were posted on the internet. Mone said of the decision "As a brand that targets young women, we feel it is impossible for Peaches to continue."http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/2912431/Peaches-Geldof-has-been-dumped-as-a-face-of-Ultimo-after-sex-and-drugs-allegations.html and that "Miss Ultimo is a brand geared towards a young female audience and as a company we have a social responsibility to ensure we are promoting only positive role models that young women can aspire to." Ultimo made no clarification over the exact reasoning behind her dismissal from the brand - whether it was due to the nude pictures, or alleged Heroin use was not specified by either Mone or in any subsequent press releases.

He is correct that ultimo didn't specify exactly any reason exactly - they would hardly say, as a date of Geldoffs has posted naked pictures of her on facebook and sold an unconfirmed story t the tabloid press claiming Geldoff had a heroin fueled night of passionate sex would they... and neither should we. - as I said, its basically like adding a date sold his story to a british tabloid newspaper and claimed Geldof took heroin, imo such low quality controversial claims are a clear violation of the standard BLP policy requests. I am attempting a compromise by leaving the Sun citation in the article but not publishing the unconfirmed heroin use through wikipedia, see here for that compromise position Peaches Geldof#Career - Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Rob, The Sun reports about the nude pictures on the Internet and about the heroin use. They report and quote what Ultimo did. At the moment, the Geldof article reports on the nude pictures and the Ultimo quotes but not on the heroin use. You're saying The Sun, as a source, is of low quality and that "unconfirmed" heroin allegations shouldn't be included in the article. Following that logic, why should the article report on the nude pictures? The Ultimo quotes don't mention the nude pictures or the heroin. Is the only difference that there are pictures in The Sun article that seem to confirm that allegation? I guess I don't get it. Seems like if one can be cited, so can the other. Or maybe neither should be cited.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The pictures of her are clearly confirm-able as her, it is her in the pictures that is indisputable and widely citable. After the pictures and the story were reported her contract was withdrawn - the company did not assert that this was because of any unconfirmed allegations that this man claimed the subject used heroin. Thats the question you need to consider really, do you think we should add that this man sold a story to the British tabloid press alleging that subject of the story used heroin. The Sun reported that John sold them a story and claimed the subject of the BLP used heroin. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can make the case that the pictures are confirmed but the heroin is only due to a third-party accusation for profit, then I agree. I wouldn't deflect the issue, though, by discussing the dubious reliability of The Sun, no matter how true it is. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I haven't got the diff (I will look for it if anyone wants to see it) but Jimmy said recently that such publications as The Sun Newspaper and the Daily Mirror should not be used to cite any content in a BLP, never mind anything controversial. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about the argumentum ad Cambria there, Rob.

An obvious thing to ask is: where else has this been reported? This is a fairly famous person, so if other news outlets haven't widely published the story then we should probably be equally as wary. If they have, then maybe there's a case that we can too. --FormerIP (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wales doesn't set Knowledge policy. Knowledge policy does. There were many reports in various English newspapers (I'm not sure which ones are considered "tabloids" and which are considered "reputable"). See The Independent; and Mirror. As well as reports from outside England: see One India. The language in each is similar, so the articles are probably to some extent circular. Looks to me like the report stems from someone named Ben Mills (who's John?) who (1) claims he had sex with her (2) posted the pictures on the Net; and (3) claims they both took heroin.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say: use the Independent, since that's the most reputable of those linked to above and follow the wording they use fairly closely. I think it's interesting that the denial in the report (which should also get a mention) is very specific: "...that our client was carrying and injecting heroin...". But that's just BTW. --FormerIP (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The denial by her in One India is also not a complete denial: "I am disappointed that Ultimo has decided not to extend my contract based on a wildly exaggerated account of a night in Los Angeles five months ago."--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's another newspaper source - The Daily Mail: , and for the benefit of Rob, who seems to be in denial over the existence of the allegations, here's a direct quote from the article: "Last night, Peaches' lawyers said: 'The incident and photos concern private issues and activity; the photographs were taken for private purposes only.'

They added: 'The allegations that our client was carrying and injecting heroin are denied, our client having consumed alcohol with the other individual leading to the "highs" described and portrayed in the photographs."

Now that's a direct quote from her own lawyers referencing drug use claims.

I should add here that I'm not claiming that the act happened, nor that it was even the reason she was dropped from Ultimo - all I'm trying to put forward is that a specific allegation of drug use was made, and was subsequently reported in the media - as it was.

I also note that somewhat ironically Rob has seen fit to add a 3RR warning to my talk page , despite having reverted 4 times himself:

Although Rob may claim that he has fulfilled the section under Leeway for BLP articles, this is based on his assertation that either a) the allegation simply never happened, or b) that any sources for it are not worthy. I believe him to be wrong in both cases. a_man_alone (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The allegation did happen I have not disputed that at all, the coverage of the heroin injecting claims were not covered by all the press, some of them did not repeat those claims. A guy she had a date with sold a story to the press and sold pictures of Peaches semi naked and said she was taking heroin. This is undeniable and some of the press covered the drug allegations, she denied it, the guy flew out of the country. The quality press did not cover the unconfirmed allegations of injecting heroin and we shouldn't either. We don't add that Harry is a suspected cocaine abuser or Jane is allegedly according to a friend of theirs a drug addict. If the company had mentioned anything about drugs when they withdrew the contract then we would have a reason to include it but they didn't so its titillation and unconfirmed allegations from someone that sold his story to the tabloid press. Please remember - "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Knowledge's job to be sensationalist." -

We are not obliged to cover all allegations about living people that appear in the lower reaches of the press, it was at some point also attempted to add that she was a prostitute, as it had a citation, this allegation was later taken to court http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8454088.stm and this was also in the BLP for a while that she had the same drug dealer as Amy whinehouse http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article1124313.ece - we should rise above that level of reporting and as ultimo didn't cite any drug allegations in their statement as a reason to withdraw the contract then we have no reason to repeat that either. If users like that sort of unconfirmed allegation then they can click on the external - as its covered in the BLP now its plenty of detail and covers the contract withdrawal or decision not to extend it in a conservative manner. Off2riorob (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not an unconfirmed allegation. Please stop using that term in your arguments - it's deceptive. What happened in the allegation has not been confirmed, but the allegation itself is confirmed - and the inclusion of the allegation is what I'm advocating. Unlike the prostitution label this claim has not been contested any further than a statement put out by her lawyers, subsequently printed by several newspapers, including the Sun, and The Daily Mail. Do you consider the Daily Mail newspaper to also be at the lower reaches of the press? Coverage does not have to be "by all the press" to be notable. Again, I'm not insisting that the drug use claim was influential in her dismissal from Ultimo, but I do believe (just as you believe that 3RR doesn't apply to you in this case,) that this was a valid addition to the article. I still do. Whilst BLP does indeed say that we should be conservative, that does not mean everything you read about people should be sugar-coated, and ignore the less salubrious things they have either done, or been accused of.

In fact, fuelled by this topic, and having looked deeper into Peaches history, it seems that drug abuse, both alleged, and confirmed is not a new thing for her - and yet it is completely missing from the article. Given that this is not an isolated incident, perhaps an entire section, or subsection commenting on the issues may be in order? a_man_alone (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't add to BLP article content like - there have been unconfirmed allegations and claims in the press that the subject takes drugs. - In the guardian interview - In an interview in January 2009 when asked if she had taken drugs Geldof replied, "Yes, I have had experiences, and a few of those experiences were unsavoury, not ones I want to repeat, but I was growing up. I wanted the experience.", when asked if the experiences were frightening she said, "'No. It made me feel sick. I wasn't hugely into drugs, and I'm sober now." - such an addition would also be imo trivia and unless drugs and use of drugs are part of her notability, imo such an addition would be trivia. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge has way too much content detailing at length the reported embarassing behavior of various celebrities, a problem that's particularly conspicuous in dealing with lower-grade Brith femal public figures. Most episodes of drug use, public intoxication, sexual encounters, domestic debacles, and such are utterly without encyclopedic significance and shouldn't be included in articles. Rob is entirely right to argue that simply showing such content is RS-verifiable does not automatically justify its inclusion in an encyclopedia article; we have different standards than the celebrity press. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue of embarrassing behavior by celebrities, which is by no means restricted to British females (see, e.g., Sheen and Lohan), misses the point, which, in my view, is a very narrow one. The notable event for Geldof is that Ultimo terminated her contract. Because the language used by Ultimo was non-specific as to the basis or bases for the termination, the article begged some context. The termination followed reports of posting nude pictures of her on the Internet and drug use. Geldof and her representatives responded to these allegations. No one has yet proved to my satisfaction that the allegations of the nude pictures is "more confirmed" than the allegations of the drug use. I agree that we shouldn't assert allegations of drug use, whether confirmed or not, just to put the press discusses them (Rob's last example), but, in this case, there is a connection to a notable event.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise, what about, Peaches was subsequently dropped from the Ultimo brand in March 2010 after nude pictures of her and allegations of drug use were posted on the internet. - this includes the drug use allegation that she has commented on in other interviews but doesn't give it much weight by naming the alleged drug? Users wanting more excitement can go to the external. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with something similar to that: either (1) Ultimo terminated Geldof's contact after the posting of nude pictures of her on the Internet and allegations of drug use or (2) Ultimo terminated Geldof's contact after someone posted nude pictures of her on the Internet and alleged they had used drugs together. Did the guy post the drug use allegations on the Internet? I couldn't find anything that clearly said that. Also, I wouldn't cite to the Sun article (mainly because of the pictues) when we have other sources that aren't so sensationalistic we can use.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As I remember, the guy, originally posted to his facebook page, pics and some of the story, the viral aspect kicked in and he pulled the facebook and sold the story. I agree we should remove the Sun and use perhaps the Independent source is the highest quality publication, - perhaps we should also add her lawyer denial but I don't feel its necessary. - "

Geldof was dropped from the Ultimo brand in March 2010 after nude pictures of her and allegations of drug use were posted on the internet and published in the media.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/peaches-geldof-dropped-by-lingerie-company-ultimo-1930510.html|title=Peaches Geldof dropped by lingerie company Ultimo|publisher=]|date=March 29, 2010|accessdate=March 13, 2011}},<ref> - Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to quibble, but the Independent says nothing about the nude pictures, addresses the drug allegations only in the denial, and doesn't clearly say the drug allegations were posted on the Internet (the quote from her lawyers says "our client having consumed alcohol with the other individual leading to the 'highs' described and portrayed in the photographs"). I think we should cite to the Mirror and to One India to give a more comprehensive report, and I still don't see why we have to say that the drug allegations were posted on the Internet if we have no real source in support of that.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• - Geldof was dropped from the Ultimo brand in March 2010 after nude pictures of her and allegations of drug use were published in the media.

Perhaps we should just leave The Sun Newspaper, its been there long long time anyways and the The Daily Mirror is no better at all, the Oneindia.in is not much better, an on line newsite. So actually we don't have any quality citations for this. That Sun article is awful and does need to come out and the mirror article starts"Sir Bob's daughter was "dropped with immediate effect" - apparently just like her knickers." - lets just use the independant and report only wahats in that, these other citations don't belong in a BLP.Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• - Geldof was dropped from the Ultimo brand in March 2010 after allegations of drug use and nude pictures of her were posted on the internet and published in the media. Geldof denied the claims and said, "I am disappointed that Ultimo has decided not to extend my contract based on a wildly exaggerated account of a night in Los Angeles five months ago."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/peaches-geldof-dropped-by-lingerie-company-ultimo-1930510.html|title=Peaches Geldof dropped by lingerie company Ultimo|publisher=]|date=March 29, 2010|accessdate=March 13, 2011}},<ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://living.oneindia.in/insync/2010/ultimo-dumps-peaches-geldof-310310.html|title=Underwear Label, Ultimo, Dumps Peaches Geldof |publisher=Courtesy:Agences - via ]|date=March 31, 2010|accessdate=March 12, 2011}}</ref>

• Geldof was dropped from the Ultimo brand in March 2010 after allegations of drug use and nude pictures of her were posted on the internet and published in the media. Geldof denied the claims and said, "I am disappointed that Ultimo has decided not to extend my contract based on a wildly exaggerated account of a night in Los Angeles five months ago."

I'm a little lost at this point as I'm not sure why you have two bulleted items with the same wording. Anyway, your wording seems okay with citations to the Independent and One India. I'm too tired to fight the issue of whether the allegations of drug use were posted on the Internet. At least we won't be citing to the Sun. I'm assuming you're right about the Sun and One India being in the same low category, but at least in this instance the One India article doesn't come across as pornographic tabloid.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I just posted the second one to look at it without all the cite format. We can leave it till tomorrow to see if there are other users that want to comment - anyways, its her birthday today, so happy birthday to her, 22 years young today. - well, its yesterday now.Off2riorob (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Belatedly, it's already the 14th in England. 22 years old - what's that like? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I can only just about remember, a bit like driving a Pontiac Firebird compared to this Volvo I am in now. Off2riorob (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

note - I removed the Sun (Newspaper) citation and replaced it with the two discussed here, the Independent and the one India citations. Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Been away for a day or so, but just to add to what seems like a concluded episode - I'm also happy with the current page. a_man_alone (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Matt Drudge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Last year was subjected to a series of edits by User:Ratel seeking to add a great deal of contentious material that Matt Drudge is gay. Consensus in June 2010, after Ratel was barred for socking, was that the material did not belong in the BLP. The article was stable until this week.

shows a new editor adding the precise material which Ratel had added in the past. I removed it noting the stability and consensus on the article. User:BozellHammer reverted. I noted again on the talk page that consensus did not favor the large section. He re-added a section by Ratel at then asserted that this was a "slow edit war" when he went to a slightly different version at asserting that the "edit war" started in June 2010. After the outre assertion of "slow edit war" with me having one revert in a year <g>, I reverted his new addition. He then reverted at with an attack mode edit summary of "rv edit warring by user who has repeatedly been blocked for edit warring."

Amazingly enough, I felt this person might be an incarnation of a banned editor, but he is not linked to known Ratel socks. So what we are left with is a single new editor who insists the prior consensus is invalid for some reason. Therefore, I post here to iterate the numerous times this article has been discussed on this very board at with the consensus of Since he has strongly denied the allegations, then it seems to be an WP:Undue issue at best and spreading gossip at worst, which is a BLP no-no. (note Skappensboer is indeed Ratel) concluding The most obvious thing in the user's proposed section is the lengths to which s/he has gone to propel a conclusion that Drudge must, of course, be wrong. It exceeds the limits of WP:NPOV. A referenced comment is one thing, a carefully structured and multiply-referenced enjoinder against a neutral view is quite another. with the comment I agree the presentation is WP:UNDUE and should be considerably shortened.

Note that no discussions here so far have backed the Ratel-favored attack on Drudge, and I regard this as pretty much settled in the past - the issue now is convincing the new editor that it was, indeed, settled. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As amusing as Collect's now-discredited sockpuppet accusations against me are, he's simply trying to throw dust in the eyes of the admins. Stated simply, Collect unilaterally deleted a large section of the Drudge article last June. The section -- "Allegations of homosexuality and homophobia" -- had been the subject of extensive Talk Page discussion, and the clear consensus arrived at was to include it.

Collect has a long history of revert wars on politically themed subjects. This seems to be the case yet again. --BozellHammer (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets try to focus on the content. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Note that this boiard has never backed what appears to be your position, nor has discussion on the article talk page backed your position. I note, moreover, that "politically themed subjects" make up a tiny fraction of my watch list which is posted at User:Collect/watchlisted articles for the specific purpose of making such false allegations about me as ludicrous as possible. Amazingly enough, deal with the edits, not with attacking the other editor. And again, since you are almost a brand new user , I find your comments -- interesting. Collect (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What only 424, you need to get busy dude. Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So are Matt Drudge's sexual preferences notable or part of his notability? Hes he self expressed his sexual preferences? Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It was confirmed in the Daily News (New York) - that really is a low grade publication imo, every time I see it I squirm. Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect, the place to bring up suspicions of sock-puppetry is SPI not here. And this is not the correct forum to complain about the behavior of other editors. TFD (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is what I did, if you read my post. And it is amazing that you show up here. :) Collect (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A recent emotionally-charged racist video post on youtube has severely inflamed the UCLA community. She was the culprit and thousands of peopole are rising up to declare their hate. There can be almost no neutral discussion of her until the event has resolved itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berto1286 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This article (Alexandra Wallace) is about an unrelated NBC news presenter of the same name, but was overtaken by vandals and others trying to turn it into an article about this UCLA student. I have reverted it to the original version, revdeled the worst of the BLP violations in the history, and semi-protected it for two days.  -- Lear's Fool 07:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted Alexandra Wallace (student) as an attack page. That was not a biography, just a narration of someone's stupid you-tube rant.--Scott Mac 09:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not complaining, but I had actually re-written it to be something closer to a biography. My rewrite was reverted by UCRGrad (talk · contribs), back to the narration of the rant, but there was a somewhat better revision in the article history. Nevertheless, I think everyone's time is saved by its speedy deletion: I was going to nominate it for AfD anyway.  -- Lear's Fool 09:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Andrew George (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The input of regulars here would be appreciated in resolving the problems of undue weight at Andrew George (politician). An IP editor has been reinserting material surrounding an expenses scandal, but in such a manner as to give it grossly undue weight. I've fully protected the article for 48 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks HJ, there was a recent report of this issue, see just above - Andrew George, here - Off2riorob (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ching chong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - "controversies" section on Ching chong

Can people please look at Ching chong, especially the "controversies" section? I'm enlightened enough to know that adding extensive quotes in the footnotes can easily pull facts out of context. I;m not familiar with the other cases laboriously spelled out with a play-by-play action but I did see the one with Rosie O'Donnell - I took the ching chong out of her article - and it was next to nothing. She used the phrase trying to be funny, learned from friends it was a serious slur, explained herself and apologized the next live show. I'm sure there is good reasons to magnify the incident much larger than it needs to be but I would think inferring that someone is a racist was pretty bad, especially if the facts state otherwise.Jnast1 (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Bupenda Meitei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any help with Bupenda Meitei would be appreciated,

I have done my best to tidy up and denote the problems, and to explain to the user - as you'll see from the page history and the user's talk page. However, I think this will need further attention - specifically regarding the sourcing. I am not even convinced the person is notable.

I've done my best so far, and I'm just asking for more eyes on this BLP. Thanks in anticipation,  Chzz  ►  12:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

S. Gandhirajan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsourced article is fawningly favorable to Gandhirajan, who is a former state legislative leader of Tamil Nadu. It contains (inter alia) bitter allegations against leadership of his old political party, which he has left. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything WP:RS and as the content was uncited and promotional or at least weaselly and included some personal claims I moved it to the talkpage for either a local editor or someone informed to improve and replace, and left a note. I am assuming that the political positions he has held assert automatic wikipedia notability. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the general rule that any member of a state legislature is notable, this particular person apparently has been seen as influential in Tamil Nadu politics fairly recently; see articles like this one]. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking - if you see state legislator there is automatic en wikipedia notability. Thanks for the citation, I added it and a small comment. Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rick Snyder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Under the "biography" section, passages about Snyder's upcoming commencement speech at the University of Michigan--Ann Arbor seem especially one-sided. In any case, these sentences should not appear at that point in the article; perhaps under a separate "controversies" section as in many other wikis, but that's just an idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.110.59 (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Worse than one-sided or inappropriately placed, the material was unsourced. I've removed it. Thanks for the heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Shmuley Boteach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am a colleague of ten years of Rabbi Shmuley and know that he recently fired people who are taking advantage of your system and posting libelous information. i have tried to take it down and they keep restoring it. i know there must be something you can do. rabbi Shmuley has worked hard and with the utmost integrity to get to where he is and it pains me to see that lies are being posted by two verified anti semitic disgruntled former employees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.23.173 (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We need reliable sources to determine whether what you say is true, and whether to act in it - though I have to suggest that if the rabbi has been employing 'verified' anti-semites, one might at least question his judgement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Jeselnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

the article implies he is gay, likes Daniel Tosh, and asks who he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanhobbs (talk • contribs) 02:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like vandalism - this has been reverted, and the page semi-protected, which will probably solve the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Marcia Kramer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ticket:2011031110009051

Pursuant to an OTRS complaint, I've looked at this article and removed a good bit of it as problematic under WP:BLP. The source that much of the former "Journalistic Credibility Issues" section relied on seems to be a blog. I'm not sure if it's a reliable enough source to be used at all, but even beyond that the section was full of vitriole and innuendo not even raised by that source: "Many observers concluded that..." "there was, at least, one major casualty on that street in 2011 -- Marcia Kramer's journalistic credibility."

I'm bringing this here to request review by uninvolved contributors to determine if the article as it stands now is neutral, if any content should be sourced to "streetsblog" and, if so, what would constitute due coverage.

I have left one thing added by that IP: the information on Federal Bill 602-P, though I have neutralized it somewhat. Should that remain? Or is that also undue?

Your feedback here would be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl 20:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with the content removal. The additions, all of which looked to be from a single person, turned the Bio into an attack and I'm not surprised it caused an OTRS complaint. Often its the case that someone with a partisan issue adds so much negativity that the whole lot is removed when if they had written the content in a less attacking manner and with less weight and weasel words a part of it might be acceptable and informative. I would add pending protection to the article to stop a recurrence as the content sat happy in the bio for three weeks, pending protection would at least have meant another editor giving the content a once over prior to insertion. It seems there are few editors watching it. I added it to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Quanell X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Describes Quanell X's birth as being "shat out" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.6.250.5 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed - very recent vandal edit, thank you for the report, you are of course welcome to remove such edits yourself, WP:BEBOLD - happy editing. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Federline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The 'personal life' section of this article contains a fair amount of information, much of it arguably negative, backed up by sources which may or may not meet our WP:RS guideline. Can someone tell me whether any of the following sources are reliable sources for BLPs: People magazine; The Smoking Gun; TMZ; E! News; x17online.com; marksfriggin.com; howardstern.com; The Hollywood Gossip; YouTube? Robofish (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I chopped out the part about the porn star - that definitely doesn't wash with the sources cited. Needs more attention. Exxolon (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I have requested changes to this living biography. I have submitted information that is neutral in content and appropriate for a living biography for a "living" person. What you have has been submitted by people with their own malicious agendas. The Pete Thamel articles are not credible for a "living" biography. They are subjective and in error. As you can see by my talk page, there are writers out there calling for malicious submissions. I have repeatedly requested these changes. You have made some of them but not all. There is still damaging defamatory stuff on there. Please let me know your response on this. We need to have this corrected. Please let me know what the dispute is and what the obstacles are to these changes. Do you need to hear from Bobby Gonzalez on this to make sure what is on there is accurate then that can be arranged quickly as well. Linda Gonzalez Lindag3333 (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the article. It has the following about Gonzalez being fired: "The next day, Gonzalez was fired. School officials stated that despite the team's on-court improvement, he was not a good representative for Seton Hall. Seton Hall University president Monsignor Robert Sheeran said the events of the previous night were "a crystallization of all that was really wrong" with the program under Gonzalez' watch." It's properly sourced.

The changes you requested on the article's Talk page are in the article except this one: "Gonzalez served as a member of the NCAA ethics Committee and as a television and radio analyst for the NCAA Tournament and NBA Draft." Do you have a third-party source for it?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Reza Moridi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have asked others to monitor the progress of the Knowledge article about the Canadian politician Reza Moridi Liberal MPP, Ontario. Could some of you who have the time keep an eye on this Knowledge article? I need all the help that one could get on this to properly expand and monitor it within the rules and regulations of Knowledge. Starback (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The quote at the end of the article about Armenian "propaganda" is highly problematic. The source is not clearly reliable under our rules, as it contains numerous assertions about Armenian morality and behavior which call its neutrality into question. It is phrased as if it is Knowledge's opinion, rather than the source's, that the Armenian genocide is propaganda. The quote also sounds like it is badly translated and not like something a fluent English speaker would say. Finally, see WP:COATRACK for viewpoints on the innapropriateness of attaching tangential material to articles. Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been doing some more reading about the Azerbaijani press, and believe it cannot be used generally as a reliable source for contentious allegations about living people under our rules. The interview about the Armenian genocide and even the assertion that (though born in Iran) Moridi claims Azerbaijan nationality are both sourced to that country's newspapers and either need to be better sourced or come out of the article. I would welcome some other editors here taking a look to see if they agree with me. Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Jonathanwallace (talk) your comments are appreciated and duly noted. I removed the section that you were objecting and referring to. I agree with you. Some of the English translations by the Azerbaijani media are poorly done, so as many other foreign media’s when it comes to nuance translation. Simultaneously, one cannot totally dismiss them as a source. i.e. Stratfor uses and quotes Azerbaijani media such as Today.Az, etc. when doing its intelligence analysis. The information that is used for inline citation is from Today.Az, the same source that Stratfor quotes. The following is one of the articles Today.Az has written and mentions Moridi: The keynote speaker at the event was Azerbaijani member of Ontario Provincial Parliament, Dr. Reza Moridi. Among other speakers at the Conference were Azerbaijan`s Ambassador to Canada, Mr. Farid Shafiyev. Therefore, we cannot state that what these Azeri media outlets have to say are not reliable as sources. In addition, if we always consider our own media in North America and U.K. reliable or refined then we are not really being unbiased or neutral. Starback (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I just edited the article for style and weight, but am not happy with the results. User Starback want to maintain material in the article that indicates that the member of the Ontario parliament in question thinks that the Armenian genocide was propoganda. This is a highly contentious statement and it is sourced only to an Azerbaijani newspaper, which according to a little research I did, does not seem a reliable source for this kind of assertion about living people. I tried to improve the neutrality of the assertions, but think deletion would be a better solution unless this statement can be better sourced. I would appreciate other opinions. Also, is this the kind of situation where it might be appropriate to email or call the subject and ask if he objects to the content?Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you user Jonathanwallace (talk) for showing interest in this specific Knowledge biography of a living person. First, I like to direct your attention to the fact that I was the person who posted the subject of Moridi’s biography and asked others to keep an eye on it. The main intent was to be objective and neutral. This is why I asked the other Knowledge contributors’ to keep an eye on this article. Furthermore, when presenting my point of view about the Azerbaijani media, I provided at least one research methodology and referred to Stratfor using the Azerbaijani media as a source. I respect your point of view when it comes to using reliable sources. I also value the fact that you took your time to research and come to certain findings, that have made you conclude that this specific Azerbaijani news source is not reliable. However, what you have failed to do here is presenting the methodology and sources that have guided you to come to such a conclusion. The conclusion that you so confidently rely on and state: this Azerbaijani source, as well as many other Azerbaijani sources are not reliable and/or Knowledge worthy. As far as I have learned “because I said so” is not enough reason to accept anything in life, except in fashion business. If you present the proper methodology and references indicating that how you came to such a conclusion, then I am going to delete this section, and honour your findings. Nobody who is reasonable would argue against evidences, facts, rationality and logic. Furthermore, you suggested contacting the subject. Isn’t this against the Knowledge rules and regulations, when someone directly contacts the subject and becomes his/her representative? The question to ask the user Jonathanwallace (talk) is: if one truly has the intention to misrepresent something, then wouldn’t it be very unusual to post a message here and ask the other Knowledge constrobutors to keep an eye on the article? Starback (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I believe you are in good faith and am sorry if you felt I was accusing you of any dishonesty. The problem is that, for many Knowledge readers, associating Mr. Moridi with denial or doubt of the Armenian genocide would be disturbing information, very similar to saying that he doubted the Holocaust. We don't make such statements lightly about living people, without really strong sources. The Azerbaijan newspapers you use as a source contain other articles saying that members of the Armenian military are sexual perverts, that people who use social media are mentally ill, and other statements that gave me some concern as to whether I was reading a really neutral newspaper, reporting both sides of an issue. I then did a Google search on "Azerbaijani press freedom" and found articles like this from Human Rights Watch and this from Freedom House questioning the extent to which the Azerbaijan press is independent of the government. WP:NOTRS says: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.... They are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." The assertion that Mr. Moridi doubts or denies the Armenian genocide is a contentious claim about a third party. I hope this helps communicate my concerns. One way to resolve thus would be to contact Mr. Moridi's office and see if he agrees with the information in the article. If he does not, it would have to be removed. I am hoping to get the opinion of other editors whether that is acceptable, as I have never contacted an article subject before. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Friday_(Rebecca_Black_song) is an article about a viral video of a song produced by a 13-year old singer, Rebecca Black. I'm wondering if the article about this meme is even notable? If kept, the article clearly needs some work, because it is most decidedly NOT BLP-compliant at the moment, containing multiple parts which seem specifically intended to mock the singer & her performance. Many of these points do not even seem to be accurately based on the cited sources. And, even if these points were accurately based on the sourcing, the negative focus makes it decidedly non-compliant with the encyclopedia's articles about biographies of living people. There seems to have been an AN/I thread (WP:Ani#The_latest_meme) on this topic yesterday, but the article remains in need of pruning... CordeliaNaismith (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

File an AfD if you feel the notability is questionable. I have been pondering such a move myself. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it deplorable that we're hosting an article that is essentially an attack piece on a 13 year old minor. --Jezebel'sPonyo 18:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion: Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Friday_(Rebecca_Black_song). CordeliaNaismith (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It closed as a snow keep, its a hit song now.--Milowent • 04:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Geoffrey Beattie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Representative of Geoffrey Beattie reporting re-occuring changing of information linked to place of study for PhD - correct information Cambridge University (Trinity College). Repeatedly being changed to Middlesex University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsale11 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Lsale11 (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, it seems a couple of experienced editors are currently active at the article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Jonalyn Viray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A lot of people have been making wild, exaggerated claims in this article, and it's turned into a battlefield which wound up with the article being fully protected. But the entire Biography section is unsourced, and should, per WP:BLP, be removed until such time as sources are provided. Corvus cornix_talk 20:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Jeanette Winterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All I want to say is that my 1992 novel Written on the Body was NOT inspired by any relationship with Pat Kavanagh. This is an invention of the media and I am rather tired of the repeated repeating. My 1987 novel The Passion was inspired by and dedicated to Pat Kavanagh. Facts can be wonderful. Thank you.

This whole entry is pretty shaky... and sometimes you wonder who is the fiction writer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.200.63 (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times pretty clearly states that Ms. Winterson and Ms. Kavanagh did have an affair, and that it was the inspiration for 'Written on the Body.' If you are indeed Ms. Winterson, and have been, as you say, trying to correct the record, can you point me toward one of the published interviews where you made this clear? Since we don't have any way of verifying that you are really the author, and not someone playing a prank, and since the New York Times seems pretty sure, that would really help in setting the record straight. (PS- if you really are the author, and not a prankster... I loved "The Stone Gods!") -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: I happen to have a copy of 'The Passion' on my bookshelf, and it does have the dedication to Pat Kavanagh. I don't have a copy of 'Written on the Body, and Google Books doesn't seem to show the dedication page. But The Telegraph does say that 'The Passion' was the book Winterson wrote for Kavanagh. Times Online says it was 'Written on the Body.' Prospect Magazine says 'Written on the Body....'

I also need to start with a bit of gushing fandom: it's an honor to have such a wonderful writer visit our humble Knowledge page. (My particular favorite is Sexing the Cherry.) As to the current issue: here's an article in the October 26, 2008 Sunday Times that is consistent with the comment here:

The relationship ended in 1989 and was made public three years later when Winterson – who by then had ditched the services of an agent – briefly talked about it in a newspaper interview to promote her novel Written on the Body.

“There are many lovers in Written on the Body, and not all of them are Pat,” Winterson said at the time. “It’s well known that we had an affair, but that ended three years ago.”

This weekend Winterson insisted the novel was not based on the couple’s affair – instead pointing out that she had dedicated an earlier book, published in 1987, to Kavanagh, who was renowned for her elegance and formidable negotiating skills.

“The book I wrote for Pat was The Passion. It’s dedicated to her,” she said. “Of course I did a book for her. It was important – at that time I was very much in love with her . . . It’s no big deal. It was 21 years ago.”

I have to run out right now, but anyone should feel free to edit that text accordingly--maybe it would be appropriate to mention the New York Times statement and then include Ms. Winterson's later correction?--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You say the article is 'pretty shaky...' are there other inaccuracies we can help with? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you may want to have a look at Pat Kavanagh (agent) for the same thing, then... Echoedmyron (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You're very smart. I fixed that one as well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Andrew George (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An anonymous person keeps adding defamatory content to this article under the heading Expenses Controversy. Whilst this appears ostensibly to be sourced and be from a NPOV, it is in fact defamatory since the material it keeps presenting - largely from the highly political organ The Daily Telegraph - is itself defamatory, in my view. It is trite case-law that promulgating a libel in this amount of detail is in itself defamatory. The fact that Mr George did not see fit to commence action against the Telegraph does not mean the defamation can be repeated ad nauseam in other media. In fact, Mr George was exonerated of any impropriety by the Legg committee, the body convened to investigate MPs' expense claims.

My own personal view is that the whole exercise is party-political mischief and does not in any way promote the encyclopedic approach expected from Knowledge. Mr George could have his right to reply about this material but that would not be encyclopedic either and would turn the article into a blog. I believe the material should be permanently excluded.

Gkerridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkerridge (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• - This content has been in and out since last May, originally added in May 2010 by this IP 109.202.225.122 and now its being added by 109.202.227.31 .. the content is just a bit undue and written without a neutral position, resulting in weaselly worded phrases and editorial exaggeration imo. I think rather than total removal it more needs trimming and a rewrite from a neutral person. If you look at the think he actually did wrong or had to pay back - nothing as far as I can see? Was he punished or charged in any way? All I can see is that he put a claim in for £3,999 bill for furniture and household items and the fees office reduced this by £1,488.95, - so he had an expenses claim cut in half all the rest is partisan attack with no substance at all, this content is around 25 percent of the text in the BLP. If there were punishments and charges that I have missed please point me towards them. Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with Rob. While I think this incident is worth mentioning given the front-page-of-major-broadsheet and extensive other coverage, the way in which huge amounts of trivial detail are mindlessly repeated from that coverage, is totally unencyclopedic. I'm not a politician, but I've ordered from room service on business expenses many times, and for things a lot more expensive than a cup of hot chocolate! Maybe the guy was staying in top-end hotels when he shouldn't have been, but that's what politicians do, and anyone who has stayed in that type of hotel knows that they leave those £3.50 bottles of ordinary mineral water lying around to encourage you to drink them. And he and his wife drank just one between them? That's hardly earth-shattering enough to need to be featured in an encyclopedia.

The point that he should not have been claiming for his wife as well as himself is a valid one to make (but someone needs to find reliable sources discussing George's response to that point, and also reliable sources concerning Gkerridge's assertion that the investigating committee found that George had done nothing wrong.) The docklands flat and the beds nonsense is possibly worth covering too, but it needs more clarity than is present right now, and there is no need to repeat the exact figures and dates and minutiae in the way that's done at present. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think if I remove the trivia and the undue there will be little left, allowing your daughter to sleep over or stay in your apartment for a while is not either is not illegal or even anything wrong at all. I get the feeling that when all the smoke and mirrors had died down there was no allegations worthy of reporting left, although I imagine the damage was done my then. I would like to see laid out any charges or punishments or even slapped wrist, apart from having a good job and a dry cleaning bill. Off2riorob (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In the 2009 United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal, Andrew George attracted sustained scrutiny, with the Daily Telegraph devoting a front page to his housing arrangements. In particular, they queried how after 10 years of George living in hotels and rented flats as an MP, in 2007 he had used his parliamentary allowances to buy a two-bedroom £308,000 Docklands flat which he admitted was used by his daughter as "a bolt-hole" as she moved to London to attend university. However, George countered that his daughter had not stayed in the flat for long, and had moved into student halls by the time her university course began in Autumn 2007. George also came under criticism by the Telegraph for several other items. They queried how he had claimed £1,898 for furnishings for his second home in London, including a sofa and bed, when he asked them to be delivered to his main home in Cornwall (which he was not entitled to claim for). When nine months later he claimed a £3,999 bill for furniture and household items including a bed and a futon for relatives staying over, the fees office reduced this by £1,488.95, arguing "You have already claimed for a bed in anticipation of your purchase of a second home. You may not claim living costs for anyone other than yourself." George drew further criticism from the Telegraph for including his wife in expenses claims for hotel stays, with the Telegraph citing one example of the couple spending £399.05 on two nights’ accommodation, including continental breakfasts on both mornings and a hot chocolate ordered on room service in June 2005; and a two night stay for the couple in September 2005, during the summer parliamentary recess, when they spent £303.41 on a room, breakfast and a £3.50 bottle of water. When challenged, George pledged to repay £19.90 for one of his wife's breakfasts, although he subsequently refused to pay the amount. The same piece also queried his claims for dry cleaning, citing £233.05 spent in one month alone.

• - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5315055/MPs-expenses-Liberal-Democrat-claims-for-308000-flat-used-by-daughter-as-bolt-hole.html
• - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1181009/Lib-Dem-MP-Andrew-George-claimed-expenses-300-000-flat-used-bolt-hole-model-daughter.html
• - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5320779/Andrew-George-claimed-for-hotel-stays-with-his-wife-MPs-expenses.html

• - rewrite

In 2009 George attracted criticism regarding his housing arrangements and some of his expense claims. Such as ordering furniture for one property and having them delivered to another. The fees office also reduced a request from George for furnishings by £1,488.95, arguing "You have already claimed for a bed in anticipation of your purchase of a second home. You may not claim living costs for anyone other than yourself." George drew further criticism from the Telegraph for his dry cleaning claims, citing £233.05 spent in one month alone, and for including his wife in some expense claims for hotel stays.

Addendum

A further representation has been made on this subject by the subject, Mr Andrew George MP:

"The Sir T. Legg 'vindication' is a negative resolution thing. They resolved to thoroughly investigate every single newspaper 'story' during the whole expenses 'scandal' and to report on those which were found to be unacceptable. They did this in my case and found no case to answer. I pleaded with them for a letter to say as much and they refused on the basis that they would only report matters where they felt claims were either improper or in error, not to report that there was no case to answer.

Therefore the fact that they made public that they would investigate each newspaper story and the fact that they did not discover any wrong doing as implied in the newspaper story following the investigation is the basis for the vindication claim."

Re letter(s) of apology from the Fees Office, they are attached to the relevant claims which refer to them on my website - www.andrewgeorge.org.uk." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkerridge (talk • contribs) 07:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• - in the letter to Mr George the Fees Office said that they “apologise for errors which were clearly our responsibility and that we did not identify or correct at the time".

“I warmly welcome the Legg Report," said Mr George. "I have always said that the system needs tough independent auditing. “Sir Thomas has, as I asked, thoroughly investigated the wholly unfair reports published in a number of national newspapers last summer and has found that there was no case to support the insinuations that I had acted improperly. The impact which untruthful reports have had on my family and I over the last year has been intolerable. “I have also drawn to the attention of the authorities a number of book keeping and clerical errors which have come to light during this 5 year review. I am grateful that the Commons Fees Office has issued me with an apology.” Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jim Cramer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cramer claims to be 65 years old. The article says he is 56. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.248.115 (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You will need a more reliable source WP:RS than the one in the article now currently claiming 56. I left you a menu of helpful links on your talkpage, happy editing. Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Added a fn for 56.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Charlene Leonora Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article reads like a CV from start to finish, has few verifiable sources, and other than bots, the only contributors have been from two usernames, neither of whom cite sources.

The main book that Charlene Leonora Smith is supposed to have written is attributed most recently not to her, but to another author, a man named Peter Hain.

Looks to me like this article was published by a sock puppet and should be deleted -- or at least that the poster must provide burden of proof that the content of the article is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.A.Activist (talk • contribs) 01:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As you have blanked the article, there are no sources for us to evaluate. As you have reportd it here, suggest restoring the content so other editors can weigh in on the quality of sourcing. The Interior (Talk) 01:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I restored the article and began the process of adding some more references. The article already had some references. It does have some WP:PEACOCK language but the subject is clearly notable (I found New York Times coverage among others). WP:EDIT says, "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a 'finished' article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary". Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I overhauled the article, made it more neutral, added some new information and references, and removed the unsourced resume material. I also removed the "resume" and "wikify" tags. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks much better, good work! The Interior (Talk) 01:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Orlando Figes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm new to this article: I saw today's complaints about it at the COI noticeboard. But it's an issue that needs to be treated by those expert in BLP issues. I restored content that appears to be perfectly well sourced and the subject of widespread media commentary. As far as I can tell this is a simple issue of some people not wanting the subject's embarrassing situation reported, even though it meets our encyclopedic criteria. But I'd appreciate it if others would step in to endorse or oppose my judgement. Wareh (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: This is perhaps resolved, as one of the two main voices calling for the removal of the Amazon controversy section has accepted that it is sourced and that it may remain (while still maintaining a preference to remove it as relatively unimportant material). Wareh (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think so. Conflict develops. Just remove libelious materials from the BLP article, please. End of story. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Harvey Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an editor who is absolutely determined to add the single sentence "Harvey Levin is also a jew" in the Harvey Levin article, sourced to a Hollywood blog. Not only is it poorly sourced, it also is tacked on to the article as an afterthought - even if it was sourced to The New York Times, it should still be integrated in to the article in some way that would show why this information is relevant. I've already reverted the addition several times, but every couple of days the editor comes back and sticks it back in. Given RenamedUser5's history of personal attacks on other editors and contentious editing history, which can be seen in their talk page history, I don't think that this is an issue that is going to go away. There are so many issues with the article that I feel I've lost perspective - I would appreciate a fresh set of eyes to look at the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo 13:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This editor has a very bad habit of confrontational editing, including the above example. She has made numerous personal attacks and has been given several warnings to stop. If needed I can provide links; she has removed the warnings from her talk page. I think the polite requests and firm warnings have reached their limit. I hope an admin will have a serious discussion with her about collaborative editing, the consensus process, sourcing, not making personal attacks, and assuming good faith. Cresix (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I have previously explained to RenamedUser5 that her editing style is unacceptable, I believe that I have now had enough run-ins with her in an editing environment that I now consider myself too involved to consider any future admin actions. If she restores the BLP violation in the Levin article again, or continues on with personal attacks despite multiple warnings, it may be time for an uninvolved admin at ANI to review the history and decide whether a block would prevent further disruption. --Jezebel'sPonyo 16:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The user User:RenamedUser5's additions have been brought here before in nov 2010 regarding additions to Saud bin Saqr al Qasimi, see here and in Jan 2011 regarding additions to Mark Hardy (ice hockey), see here. The user also seems to have a few cut and copy copyrght warnings and no personal attack notes and recently deleted them from her userpage, see here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

So you guys are saying that a person's religious affiliation can't be mentioned in a wikipedia article? Or just that you cannot mention whether or not someone is jewish? If that is the case, I wonder why you would be against jewish people. The whole reason why the jewish information was included is because, at the bottom of the article, where you have categories listed, someone earlier (not myself) had placed the jewish category there. And then someone else removed it claiming that it was poorly sourced. I know that Harvey is a jew because he has said so himself on numerous occasions publically. It even became an issue when the whole Mel Gibson DWI rants were publicized and that Mel, supposedly, was mad at Harvey cuz Harvey is jewish. The guy who has made the complaint here claims that this information (that he is jewish) is poorly sourced. It is not. A simple Google search would show that this guy's position is bogus. See http://www.tmz.com/2010/12/17/tmz-live-eli-roth-harvey-levin-jew-not-a-jew/4/ But it seems that instead of you guys worrying about whether or not the source is good or not, you want to throw out a red herring about alleged "confrontational editing" (whatever that is). There is nothing confrontational about someone being right and in this case I am clearly right.

I see nothing wrong with Harvey Levin being jewish. Maybe other people have a problem with that religion. I do not. If the problem is simply mentioning the fact that a particular person is a member of a certain religion, then you guys had better go check all the other wiki articles for religious references, too, because nearly every article in which a bio is done, the person's religious affiliation is also mentioned.

FYI - the wiki article also mentions that Harvey is gay. Do you guys wish to take issue with that, too? User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

RenamedUser5, here you go with the personal attacks again. Please stop. No one has expressed any anti-Jewish sentiment in this section in the least. No one here has made any statement that could even remotely be construed as having a "problem with religion", or being against Jews, or being against gays. Please. Confine your comments to the content issue, not your misinterpreted assessment of other editors' biases and prejudices. This is a matter of policy and style guidelines, not whether an editor has something against including ethnicity of only Jews. Levin could be Hispanic, Arab, African, or Martian and the issue would be the same. Is his ethnicity important to his notability? That has not been demonstrated. And no one here is arguing that his Jewish ethnicity is unsourced. Finally, yes, you have edited confrontationally. You have made multiple personal attacks, enough that you already could have been blocked if any of us had decided to pursue it. As I've already told you, if you want to continue editing here you will completely drop any personal reference to any editor and comment only on the content of articles. Cresix (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Well it just seemed to me that some people were being anti-jewish around here. When you are making a bio of someone why would you leave out things like their religion, nationality, who their mom & dad were, what kind of work they did, and stuff like that? And I disagree with your assessment that this is about style guidelines. The original reason why the referral was made here is because someone felt that his being jewish was poorly sourced. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ponyo opened this discussion saying the assertion he was Jewish was "poorly sourced" (blog) and not sufficiently integrated into the article to justify its relevance to the article. And Cresix didn't say this was about "style guidelines"; he said this was about "policy and style guidelines".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

RenamedUser5, don't make any assumptions about what another editor is thinking or what their motivations are. None. Absolutely no presumptions. That's where your thinking starts to get warped, which alone wouldn't be so bad, except then you begin talking about the assumptions you make as if it is fact. Don't do that. You can think it, but don't write about it. To paraphrase Lilith Sternin, "It is permissible to have an unexpressed thought" about another editor on Knowledge. If you can't get control of writing everything you think about everyone, I can virtually guarantee you that you have one or more blocks in your future. Cresix (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So what is it going to be? It is interesting to note that Knowledge has devoted an entire article to the listing of people who are of jewish/American heritage. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:American_Jews So I do not understand what the big deal is? Today I have attempted to rewrite the article to include this relevant information in a more stylized fashion - which I felt was in keeping with what y'all were saying here. Is there a problem with that? User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What it's "going to be" at Harvey Levin is abiding by WP:BLP. What it's "going to be" for you, if you continue this type of editing, is a block from editing. Cresix (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well there is nothing that I can find in BLP that says that you cannot mention someone's religion. From looking at the discussion above, no one has pointed to a specific provision of WP:BLP that says that you cannot list one's religion. All that has been made are generalized statements saying that this inclusion violated BLP. But no one has pointed to any specific provision of BLP policy and how that SPECIFIC policy relates to this specific issue. So how about it? User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless ... the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Cresix (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Cresix's point is well-taken about categories, but we should also address the issue of including his religion/ethnicity in the lead, or even in the article at all. As for the lead, according to WP:OPENPARAGRAPH:"Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." And that means that even if you think it's relevant to the subject's notability, the article has to make it clear why. In addition, according to WP:NOT: "information cannot be included solely for being true or useful." Finally, Knowledge is not just about a collection of policies and guidelines. It also assumes that editors will exercise some judgment in their decisionmaking. Here, the consensus is that putting in Levin's religion/ethnicity, particularly the way you've done it without any context, is unwarranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

List of ex-gay people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Is this kind of list really allowed?

List of ex-gay people is essentially a list of presumably living people who might apply this contentious label to themselves. It's a touchy POV area a for obvious reasons. Can editors more experienced please look and see if everything is OK? Thank you!Bee well (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a Category:Ex-ex-gay people too... Marvelous. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think ex-gay is a kind of activist group with a religious aspect Ex-gay and would imo be more notable than the original declaration of their sexual preference, if they did self declare that. The people will clearly need to self identify in a reliable source. The cat is also fine imo as its titled under the self declaration title. Category:People self-identified as ex-gay - The issues of BLP and notability seem to have been met under these conditions. - This cat is just getting silly though Category:Ex-ex-gay_people and could be followed by Ex-ex-ex-ex gay people] - there is some confusion there between people self identifying as a member of Ex-gay and just someone updating their sexual preferences or just changing his or her mind about what their sexual preferences are. Peoples sexual preferences are in themselves not notable. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether such a list should exist on Knowledge, there are 19 people listed. 7 of the 19 have citation needed next to their names. 4 of the remaining 12 all point to one source, which doesn't mention their names at all. 2 of the remaining 8 (Hallett and Wyler) are sourced to dead links. Gee, that leaves 6 with sources. What a list.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to correct on thing I said above. The one source sentence is wrong because I didn't realize the source had multiple pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Expanding on Rob's ex-ex comment, shouldn't we have a list of ex-straight people?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking only at the first entry on the list, Alan Chambers, the Los Angeles Times reports that not only does he not self-identify as "ex-gay", but that he has denounced the term and "talks deliberately about a possible biological basis for homosexuality, in part to explain that no one can turn a switch and flip from gay to straight, no matter how hard they pray." () It's a pretty glaring WP:BLP issue to list him as "ex-gay", given that context. In fact, this whole list is an un-policeable BLP nightmare and should probably be done away with. MastCell  21:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added a speedy deletion tag based on the fact that the article does not expand on Ex-gay#People associated with the ex-gay movement. If it is declined, I thought of nominating it for deletion, but when I looked at the notability requirements for standalone lists, I couldn't follow it, so am not sure. Can someone else figure it out? It blends lists within articles with standalone lists and doesn't really say much about the standalone lists.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I notice the category itself was recently expanded, maybe that is part of the issue? Maybe it should only include people who currently and explicitly self-identify as ex-gay.Bee well (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The language in the category ("or who have eliminated (or reduced) unwanted same sex attractions") is similar to the language in the article ("or who have eliminated unwanted same sex attractions"). I gotta say that is truly weird, but then, in my view, the whole thing goes beyond weird.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That language is not supportable in the mainstream, it's promoted by some ex-gay groups ostensibly to boost their success rate.Bee well (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

My speedy delete nomination was speedily declined for the following reason: "The article is not a duplication, some members of this list are not in Ex-gay." I don't intend to nominate the list for deletion without understanding the criteria better. One possible solution would be to take any standalone list members that are not in the internal list in Ex-gay and insert them. Then, the standalone list, theoretically, could be eliminated, just like unwanted sexual attractions, and the list could become the ex-list.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Could we expand this list by including people who were gay, but are now dead?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Only if they eliminated their same sex attractions after they died.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The -main- list at ex-gay includes the very weaselly "people associated with the ex-gay movement" and the List of ex-gay people is apparently only those who identify as ex-gay although it looks like many of them don't and per the definition at ex-gay should not include "or who have eliminated (or reduced) unwanted same sex attractions".Bee well (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Some ex-cons might qualify as well, if what I hear about prison is true. I have no first-hand experience about prison, but evidently being in close quarters with only your own gender for long periods of time can be quite transformative. I don't wanna find out for sure. Please don't make me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Joking aside shouldn't this be switched back? And maybe the category explanation changed to only people who have self-identified as being ex-gay can be in this category (article must have strong sourcing where the person's ex-gay self-identity is discussed) . Bee well (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:People self-identified as ex-gay edited as commented.- Off2riorob (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, your wording is much better!Bee well (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Born 16 July 1982 (age 29) Gujarat, India Occupation Senior Team Lead (Knowldege Process Outsourcing) Years active 2005- present — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infiabhi (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That's very nice. Assuming you think there should be an article about Shah, it doesn't sound likely. Look at WP:PEOPLE. If you are Shah, look also at WP:COI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ricardo Duchesne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BlueonGray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BlueonGray appears to be a WP:Single-purpose account which holds for some reason a grudge against the person. One could give him some credit for a sense of humour, but it has been the second time today he has massively descended on the article without a viable reason:

1. 1
2. 2 (credit for humour goes here) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its much of a grudge, just they don't think the subject is very notable. Your expansion and improvement seems to address that, the good natured humor is far from the worst kind we get. I will leave then a note and see if the user stops the behavior, hopefully they will and that will be the end of it, if not then we can look again. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

BlueonGray holds definitely a grudge and I stumbled across the definite proof of it (navigate to Comments on this Article: Posted by Blue on Gray, Feb 12, 2011 5:28 PM). So he came to WP to edit-war the biographical entry of a man whose opinions he does not like. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, although we are unsure if the users are the same person, anyways, the user has been warned and any continuation of similar edits will with this detail reflect badly on the user. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruby Jewelz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The only references are image files and a Facebook group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modo13 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Ruby Jewelz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Barbara Plett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe this biography (of the current BBC Correspondent at the UN) violates Knowledge's NPOV policy and request that Knowledge editors flesh it out with more biographical detail to create a balanced whole. NB Earlier this month, I drew Ms Plett's attention to the fact that this biography was locked against editing - evidence if any were needed that the main author of this biography had an obvious agenda, contrary to wp:NPOV. (I believe the BBC then got in touch with Knowledge and as a result, this biography is available for editing once again.)

As I said to Ms Plett, I find it disturbing and antithetical that Knowledge effectively allowed one person to assume sole ownership of her biosketch on their website. (I hope it's an isolated incident - otherwise, Knowledge has a problem!) 87.86.118.227 (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The article certainly needs attention from other editors - frankly it seems to be nothing but a WP:COATRACK attack article, and should probably be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I would accept deletion of this coatrack article (hopefully to be replaced some day with a modest, balanced and open biosketch that reflects credit on Knowledge and, equally, does justice to Ms Plett). 87.86.118.227 (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has now been proposed for deletion: Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara Plett. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Igor Shafarevich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article suggests that (1) Igor Shafarevich, a prominent Russian mathematician, is an anti-Semitic extreme nationalist, and also (2) that Shafarevich views the execution of Tsar Nicholas II as an example of a "Jewish ritual murder."

Claim 1 was refuted in a doctoral thesis written by Krista Berglund in 2009. Berglund concludes that Shavarevich is not an anti-Semitic extreme nationalist. WP:SOURCES states that, "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." To my knowledge, Berglund's thesis is the most recent academic contribution to the controversy. Thus, she has the final word. However, since the accusations of anti-Semitism do have biographical significance, it seems reasonable that they are mentioned on Knowledge.

I shall argue that the inclusion of Claim 2 violates WP:BLPSTYLE: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all... Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content."

The source used to verify Claim 2 is a Russian essay written in 2000 by Semyon Reznik, a Russian journalist. It is critically important to note that the term "ritual murder" does not occur in Shafarevich's own writings. Claim 2 is based entirely on speculation. In his essay, Reznik quotes the following paragraph from Shafarevich's book, Russophobia:

Николай II был расстрелян именно как Царь, этим ритуальным актом подводилась черта под многовековой эпохой русской истории... Казалось бы, от такого болезненного, оставляющего след во всей истории действия представители незначительного этнического меньшинства должны были бы держаться как можно дальше. А какие имена мы встречаем? Лично руководил расстрелом и стрелял в Царя Яков Юровский, председателем местного Совета был Белобородов (Вайсбардт), а общее руководство в Екатеринбурге осуществлял Шая Голощекин. Картина дополняется тем, что на стене комнаты, где происходил расстрел, было обнаружено написанное (по-немецки) двустишие из стихотворения Гейне о царе Валтасаре, оскорбившем Иегову и убитом за это. (И. Р.Шафаревич. Сочинения в трех томах. Т.2., Москва, "Феникс", 1994, стр. 145).

Translation:

This ritual action symbolized the end of centuries of Russian history, so that it can be compared only to the execution of Charles I in England or Louis XVI in France. It would seem that representatives of an insignificant ethnic minority should keep as far as possible from this painful action, which would reverberate in all history. Yet what names do we meet? The execution was personally overseen by Yakov Yurovsky who shot the Tsar; the president of the local Soviet was Beloborodov (Vaisbart); the person responsible for the general administration in Ekaterinburg was Shaya Goloshchekin. To round out the picture, on the wall of the room where the execution took place was a distich from a poem by Heine (written in German) about King Balthazar, who offended Jehovah and was killed for the offense.

Note that the words set in bold type are simply omitted by Reznik. The reason is that here Shafarevich compares the execution of the Tsar with the executions of Charles I and Louis XVI; and this does not suit Reznik's purposes. By means of speculative arguments, Reznik attempts to show that what Shafarevich "really" says in this paragraph is that the execution of the Tsar was a ritual murder performed by the Jews. Reznik's (mis)interpretation collides with Shafarevich's own announcement that he is not an anti-Semite.

To my knowledge, Reznik is the only writer to have suggested that, in Shafarevich's writings, the execution of the Tsar is described as a Jewish ritual murder. Aron Katsenelinboigen, too, is a sworn enemy of Shafarevich, but contrary to Reznik he stresses that Shafarevich does not accuse the Jews of ritual murders: "The only thing lacking in the book is the accusation that Jews perform ritual murders!" (The Soviet Union: Empire, Nation, and System, p. 176).

Conclusion: Claim 2 is clearly the view of a tiny minority. It is biased and malicious, and should not be included in the WP article on Igor Shafarevich.

There are other problems as well. Claim 2 is brought twice; and at least one source seems questionable. WP:BLPSTYLE states: "When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page."

I suggest that Claim 2, which appears twice, is removed from the article, and that the sources on Shafarevich's alleged anti-Semitism are re-examined. If citing Russian sources, please provide a translation of the relevant paragraphs. Nidrosia (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The two "claims" are clearly on different levels. I don't think we can accept that Krista Berglund's thesis is the "last word" on Claim 1: there has been a long debate on the issues there, which should be reported neutrally and proportionately in our article. Further it is not clear to me that Berglund's work on Sharafevich has actually been published, which means that there is an problem with treating it as a source; we can of course report on it. It is in any case not Knowledge's way to go to sources and come up with verdicts, where there is substantive controversy: we are supposed to give a fair summary of the debated points and leave the rest to the reader.

But as for Claim 2, it would be reasonable at this point to treat it as a "fringe" view, depending on interpretation, and currently below the threshold for inclusion in the Shafarevich article. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that Berglund's thesis is not yet available as a published book. According to an unconfirmed source at the University of Helsinki, an edition of her dissertation is forthcoming in 2011 as a monograph, published by a European academic publishing house. I realize now that maybe I should have waited before citing her thesis here on WP. Information on her views was obtained from a press release. However, as far as I can see, the discussion on the inclusion of Claim 2 is a separate matter, and does not involve Berglund. Nidrosia (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I created this as a biography of my work. I would like to change the page titled "Richard A. Berman Master Drawings/Fine Art" to just Richard A. Berman. My first edit =was ore of an advertisement taken from a business profile on Manta. I realized with its present title it seems more of a solicitation. I have been a dealer and conoisseur of old and modern master drawings for 22 yaers and I doid not think ot unresaonable to ae descriptive page of my work.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardaberman (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Creating a page about yourself is highly disfavored here, see WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO. In general, if you are notable, someone else will write about you sooner or later. We also tend to be concerned when an article is too much like an advertisement or a marketing brochure. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I see someone already posted some helpful links on your talk page, and an explanation of why your article was deleted from Knowledge. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Moises Salinas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both in the 3. Academic activities section as well as in the 4.Sexual assault conviction, the information is biased and intended to cause harm and affect this persons privacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lianto (talk • contribs) 00:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you figure? The Academic activities section, although without any inline cites, is a list of his achievements. His plea of no contest to the sexual assault charge is a matter of public record and properly cited.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Source seems inaccaurte, and some claims make no sense (e.g., No Contest does not equal guilt, only federal court can order deportations, and no court can order a U.S. Citizen to leave the U.S.). Second source is only copy of first. BLPN places burden of proof on person placing content, and is highly protective of contentious material. In any event, I will submit to consensus on BLPN board discussion.--LiteraryEditor 16 March 2011

Even if it was true which I dispute, BLP's clearly states...even if true is it relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. It also states, do not use court or public records, furthermore, as to avoid victimization, materials should be paired back to the basib and stay on topic. I fail to see the relevance of adding this "interpratation of an event on this persons personal life as part of his Academic Activities, saying or trying to say it bears a relationdhip is clearly with intent and not with dissinterest. Lianto (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There are unfortunately two discussions going on in parallel here on Salinas. That said, part of the plea agreement was he had to resign his position at the college. Hard to understand how that's not relevant to his academic activities. No "court or public records" were used in support of the assertions in the article about the plea.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There might appear to be two issues here, still a plea agreement is NOT an academic issue, it is a legal one. For academic purposes you would only need to state that in 2011 he resigned or was terminated whatever legal proof supports the information and leave it at that. Doing anything else, is questionable, in one hand, for the motives behind doing so, as well as for the legal aspects since the facts only show he pleaded no contest, and in the state where this took place, no contest does NOT equate to gult. Questions are; Is there a chance of this infringing BLPN rules as far as privacy and accuracy? I believe so in both cases AND does there appear to be an intent of spreading negative information that true or not has a bias and at the very least affects the privacy of the person at hand without adding valuable information? I am positive. Lianto (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: The editors involved opened a second case on this page regarding the same issue, which I have consolidated here for convenience. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Repeated changes to biography that are possible violation of BLPN policy. Article has been subject to many instances of vandalism before. It is doubtful that cited reference is accurate, due to numerous contradictoions. For example, a No Contest plea does not equal a conviction, and state court does not have authority to issue extradition orders against U.S. citizens. Request reverting to last stable version before 3/9/2011 and semi-protection while issue is being investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiteraryEditor (talk • contribs) 12:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is perfectly reliable. I've also added a second source. In many jurisdfictions, a no contest plea DOES equal a conviction. What the state has the authority to do or not per LiteraryEditor is irrelevant as long as the assertions match the source and the source is reliable. Even with the second source, LE has reverted. I've reverted again, but I can't get into an edit war over this.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Source seems inaccaurte, and some claims make no sense (e.g., No Contest does not equal guilt, only federal court can order deportations, and no court can order a U.S. Citizen to leave the U.S.). Second source is only copy of first. BLPN places burden of proof on person placing content, and is highly protective of contentious material. In any event, I will submit to consensus on BLPN board discussion. .--LiteraryEditor 16 March 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC).

Here is the material that LE has removed: "On March 9, 2011, Salinas plead no contest to a charge of sexual assault of one of his students. He received a one-year suspended jail sentence and a two-year conditional discharge, provided he resign his position at Central Connecticut State University and leave the country." Here are the sources: No. 1 and No. 2. The second source is not a "copy" of the first, it is substantively similar because it reports on the same event. In support of the assertions in the Salinas article, Source No. 1 says Salinas "pleaded no contest Wednesday to a charge of sexually assaulting one of his students." It says he was sentenced to "a one-year suspended jail sentence and a two-year conditional discharge." According to the source, the sentence "was issued with the conditions that Salinas resign his job at Central, not teach again and leave the country." To the extent it matters, the source also says that a plea of no contest is "recorded as a guilty plea." The second source says similar things but worded differently.

There is no issue here except LE's conclusion that because he disagrees with what the sources say, they must not be reliable. There's no reason I have to explain all this here. The so-called burden of proof was met by the cites to the sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that it matters to the BLP discussion, but in Connecticut, a plea of nolo contendre, or "no contest", means that you are not admitting guilt, but you are also not disputing the charge that has been made against you. Essentially, it means you're throwing yourself at the mercy of the court; it's theoretically possible (although exceedingly unlikely) that the court could find some reason why you should not be convicted after pleading nolo contendre, such as the prosecution completely failing to make a case. The main benefit to pleading nolo contendre comes if you are subsequently the subject of a civil lawsuit related to the criminal charge: while a guilty plea can be used against you in a civil case, a plea of nolo contendre is not an admission of guilt, meaning the plaintiff can't use your plea against you. A nolo contendre plea may also bring a lesser sentence, if the judge believes you are making the plea because you are innocent but are unable to effectively fight the charges (that is, you figure you'll be convicted anyway even though you're innocent, so why spend the money on lawyers?), or if you think the judge will be more lenient than a trial jury. While a "no contest" plea doesn't establish guilt, it virtually always results in a verdict of "guilty" from the judge—typically immediately—so there's no logical contradiction in the article or sources there. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on this BLP. I've held off doing anything, even though the material has been removed, because at this point we have a dispute between LE and me with no one else voicing an opinion. Meanwhile, another editor, whose interest also seems to be only on this article (why is that?) has removed material. Because it's related to the removal of the no contest plea material, I am leaving the latest removal alone until the issue is resolved.

Opinions please?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Users Lianto and LE misunderstand our rules. The assertions are reliably sourced, to newspapers, not to primary source court records. Nor do the articles claim that a state court deported him, merely that he worked out a deal under which he may leave the country. If you believe that the two newspaper sources are wrong, please feel free to add another reliable source to the artiole contradicting them. Your statement that you think the article false is not sufficient. However, may I suggest a compromise solution we have applied before in cases of arrested professors? The bio as is does not establish his notability under WP:PROF and deleting it would end the argument. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have several comments. First, I have no problem with the move of the material to the Academic activities section to give it less prominence. Second, I, too, think the article fails notability. I get a little lost in Knowledge deletion procedures (AND tracing the history of previous attempts), but assuming it was proposed once before (that's what it looks like to me), can't it be nominated - just not proposed? Third, I have a couple of quibbles with the rewording of the material. There's no good reason to put no contest in quotes. We don't put guilty or not guilty in quotes, and no contest is a standard plea. Also, saying he resigned without saying he was forced to resign purusant to the terms of the plea is misleading. I can live without the plea term about leaving the country, although I don't why it shouldn't be there.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding deletion, I started to propose the article for deletion but saw it had been nominated for deletion once before, so it can't be PROD'd as a result. It can be nominated any number of times, but the intervention of people not involved in the current dispute who thought it should be kept last time may happen again. I deleted the "leaving the country" material as a compromise solution because its easy to misinterpret and more properly, was one of a number of features of the plea deal, so potentially creates WP:WEIGHT problems if phrased as something the court "ordered" Salinas to do.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Any problem with my removing the quotation marks from no contest? What about my resignation comment? As I said, I'm willing to let go of the country part.

If it was nominated for deletion before, shouldn't there be a discussion on it somewhere to read?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm also willing to accept removing the quotation marks from no contest, and leaving the rest of the information as is. The discussion on notability seems to be here : http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moises_salinas There also seems to be the issue of Zionist Activities, which is the main focus of the aforementioned discussion. I will do some more research on Salinas (time permitting).

In any event think its fair to have a reference to the sexual assault case, as long as it is objective and not misleading. LiteraryEditor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.230.31 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the 2007 delete discussion. When I looked at, I remembered how to find these by searching the archives. I haven't done it enough to keep the process in my brain. Based on my read of the discussion, I'm not sure there would be a consensus to delete now. Because you're okay with removing the quotes, I'll remove them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Reza Moridi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Question inspired by the Reza Moridi thread above. I am inclined to contact the article subject, a Canadian politician, to ask if he is concerned about some questionably-sourced information in his article, which assigns him an ethnic identity and some views on the beliefs and behavior of another group. I have never contacted an article subject before and was wondering what our experience has been and whether this is a generally approved approach. I could simply challenge the source (a foreign country newspaper which may not be independent of government control) and delete the material, but if the subject says "I gave that interview and the information is correct", would leave it in the article (as it consists of then non-controversial personal information and a controversial opinion which could come in under WP:SPS). Thoughts, please. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ask him for a commons licensed picture.(joking) Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is questionable ethnic and similar weakly cited views I would just move them to the talkpage for discussion. I don't think we should be contacting subjects and asking them it they said this or that, or what they meant when they said this and that. Off2riorob (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Commented out a rather vanilla repsonse to a quite strongly worded question as giving more weight to the seeming view of the questioner than to Moridi's actual views. Revert if anyone feels that the wording actually reflects Moridi's position (I doubt that a fuller answer would have been published by that source). Collect (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this was helpful and I will not contact him. Please note that even the assertion that he is of Azerbaijani origin is not reliably sourced. He was born in Iran and is now presumably a Canadian citizen. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to make the general point that the one area where subject's can help the most is in identifying sources. Many people who've been written about in the public sources have kept clippings and could either suggest some good sources which would be useful, especially for articles on more obscure subjects. Of course, any subject-provided sources need to be used with judgment.   Will Beback  talk  09:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

• quotes by him removed as BLP violations

An editor has just removed this edit saying that association Tabor with Barry Fell is a BLP violation. As it is Tabor who is quoting and supporting Fell, I can't see how this is a BLP violation. Much of Tabor's writing has been controversial and I don't see this as any different. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, a BLP violation by association. The removed paragraph could have used some rewriting, but I don't see any BLP violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a BLP violation. It is probably WP:UNDUE and a WP:COATRACK. I think it could be shortened to a sentence and stay in the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I did so. This is an interesting one--it appears that there really is a rock in a New Mexico park inscribed in a Greek-influenced Hebrew. There are a number of professors who say it may be genuine, and since it has been cleaned by amateurs, there is no longer a patina which would permit the carving to be dated. It was first reported in the 1930's with one eyewitness claiming to have seen it in the 1880's. So the jury is out as to whether it really was carved in ancient times or is a much later forgery. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Glen Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is woefully undersourced, including for contentious claims - heck a huge amount of the entire article is lacking references. Everything might be true, but this is a fairly popular article, and should not be so seedy. Collect (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a tag to the top of the article. It may be popular, but it's not watched much (32 before me), so I don't know how much attention it'll get.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I took out some of the contentious material that was either unsourced or sourced only to sources of questionable reliability. There was duplicated material in the article also, I had removed the first version of it because the source did not look reliable, but left the second one in, the source does appear reliable there. GB fan (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Carl Wimmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Negative material being added by User:Wimmerleaks to bio of U.S. state rep. Appears to be a smear effort: quotes from blogs, editorializing about speaker's fees, etc. Could use some eyes. The Interior (Talk) 01:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I stubbed the article. Some of this material may be appropriately added back in later, if reliably sourced and neutrally phrased. As it stood, it was an attack page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I left User:Wimmerleaks a helpful menu of links to help him get acquainted with our WP:policies and guidelines and a note linking him to this report and asking him not to add the content in such a manner again and watchlisted the BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• update - User:Truconservative was created to replace the content. User:AlexiusHoratius Semi Protected Carl Wimmer: Violations of the biographies of living persons policy - Two weeks.Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking point on that one guys. The Interior (Talk) 21:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The article in greek wikipedia. There was a poll about delete or not the article. There were 25 votes supporting deletion and 5 votes suporting no-deletion. The poll was terminated, and the conclusion was no deletion! The justification was that more votes were trolls and pupets, the decision was taken after Liakopoulos said publicly that he didn't want an article about himself exist in wikipedia. Greek wikipedia authorities think, that Liakopoulos didn't like what was written in the article. I think that: he knew that the article would propably be deleted, so he would lose free advertisement via wikipedia. He wanted an article about himself be in wikipedia, so he claimed the opposite, greek wikipedia authorities would do the opposite of what he wanted to, so voila! The decision was taken, and the article preserved!

The truth is he doesn't deserve an article (the english version is already deleted), but greek wikipedia authorities aren't proffesional and were spooved. It seems like a conspiracy, but Liakopoulos is conspiracy analyser, so it may be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.112.133 (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Our deletion discussion is here. The article was deleted from English Knowledge on somewhat unusual grounds, that he is notable but that no independent third party sources are available. Each Knowledge is independently edited and rules and their application re notability and sourcing may be different. We have no involvement with or ability to affect Greek Knowledge, and the fact he was not found worth keeping in English Knowledge does not mean he is not to be considered notable there. It is also possible that Greek-speaking editors found third party sources that were not recognized here (though foreign language sources can also be used in English articles). Sorry we can't do more to help. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Goldberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article seems to be just about self promotion of the subject. It seems to be disproportionally long and it is questionable whether he even requires a wikipedia entry at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.114.139 (talk • contribs)

Goldberg seems to be notable. He is or has been affiliated with many prominent organizations in major capacities, e.g., London Jewish Forum and CCJO Rene Cassin. Nor do I think it is self-promoting, at least not in style. It has no areas of criticism, but maybe there aren't any notable ones, don't know. As for its length, that's a matter of judgment. If you think it should be pared down without removing relevant and noteworthy material, do so. You've apparently stated your intention to do just that on the Talk page. My biggest quibble with the article is the formatting of references and the use of inline URLs.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• GrassrootsPA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Albert Boscov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chris Lilik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP address has been slow-motion edit warring to add some negative information about living people, very badly sourced, into these three articles. Someone who is apparently Chris Lilik, turned up on IRC to ask for help. The IP address has received a final warning and the negative information has been removed, however it'd be useful if some extra people could watchlist these three articles in case the behaviour continues. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The IP address concerned came back with a rather angry edit summary and is now blocked for one week (and has been reverted again). It's a static IP so we'll see what he does next. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Pacelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article stated as fact: "Pacelle is a dumbass". I reverted it and warned the dumbass who inserted it, but I would ask this question: doesn't Knowledge have some kind of filter to detect words like "dumbass"?  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the right person to answer your question because I don't know all the relevant bots or how they work, but ClueBot does, at least partly, work off of a list. See User:ClueBot/Source#Score list. You might be able to get more information at WP:BOTREQ or its Talk page. Also, more experienced editors than I may have information for you here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be interested if anyone else has further info. BTW, I have no problem with the Alexandre Dumas article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this the place Knowledge:Edit filter/Requested. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) A slightly different IP has reinserted the material, and I reverted again. Some protection might be appropriate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• additional report

In the artlce on Wayne Pacelle, under Career with USHS, someone wrote: Pacelle is a dumbass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.115.130 (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The inserters are ip's from Michigan university, I warned and templated, User talk:35.8.214.121 if it occurs again - I agree, semi-protection request for a few months. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mummar Gaddafi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The neutrality of the articles written about Muammar Gaddafi have many biased statements. It is also questionable that those who write the page are being unconsciously controlled by propaganda on the news.

Here is a simple argument: Libyan rebels are a minority , Libyan rebels are armed. Before Gaddafi armed his volunteers, this is no different than armed minorities oppressing unarmed civilians.

Also contradiction in the article: in the article it is said he "gave up all his government posts" (says citation needed- Gaddafi did also claim this in an interview before foreign intervention), if he has given up his posts, it is incorrect to assert all blames on him alone. He is simply the figure head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom ko (talk • contribs) 13:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

He is simply the figure head. - If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. – ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that with this wikis current policy and guidelines and the weak application of such in situations as that, there is no chance of a neutral article here. In the future when the biased reports have been forgotten and the long term details are revealed and all the attracted contributors have gone, only then will a decent neutral article have any chance of existing. All you can do is watch for the worst violations and bring them to uninvolved editors, but even then the sheer weight of numbers can overwhelm attempts to balance such an article - I recommend you take it of your watchlist and never look at it again. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Matt Hermer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following sentence is not true nor has it been documented anywhere -- it has been added by someone trying to make a joke but it needs to be removed immediately. <In his free time Matt enjoys practicing Limbo and he aspires to be President of The International Limbo Brotherhood.> http://en.wikipedia.org/Matt_Hermer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissailamae (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You succeeded in reverting the vandalism yourself. Please let us know if there are other problems with the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is in need of a tidy-up. I have added a tag, and will be back to copyedit if no-one else does this first. Acabashi (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An Individual has expressed concerns about misrepresentations made about himself within the article. I would strongly encourage level headed people to examine things there. Talk:Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at it. He was indeed misrepresented. This will be an interesting article to get right. --JN466 19:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Pat Stryker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Citation 5 is a store. Citation 7 points to a 404. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.47.234 (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Repaired one with wayback and replaced the other. Such issues are not really within the remit of the BLP noticeboard issues, I left you a menu of helpful links to help you edit and correct simple issues, new users are encouraged to WP:BEBOLD - happy editing.Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Micheal Fitzgerald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't believe this person warrants a wikipedia article or at least the extent of the article should be limited somewhat. Knowledge should not be used for advertisement or to increase somebody's profile beyond what they deserve. It appears that either the subject, or a close acquaintance of the subject, is the author of the article. He appeared as an extra in a TV show and raced cars as little more than a hobby. Any reference cited is either irrelevant or a link to a web page authored by the subject. Cleary the person wants to increase their exposure by having a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.88.217 (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The sources provided give little indication of notability by Knowledge standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't look very notable to me either and whats with that back lit promo pic, james bond style. Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Early on the article was nominated for a speedy delete. An admin removed the tag. A little later, somone proposed the article for deletion, but that tag, too, was removed when a reliable source was inserted. It's true that the article has been heavily edited by one user, but what makes you think she is falsely stating that she is someone other than the subject, or she is a "close acquaintance of the subject"? Fitzgerald doesn't seem particularly notable to me, but I haven't done any searching for references in the media or in books to verify my initial take. You could add a notability tag to the article. You could then raise your issues on the Talk page. You could also nominate the article for deletion, which should trigger a discussion. See WP:AFD.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed IMDB as it is not a reliable source and flagged other areas in need of citations. Bagumba (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged article for notability. Also other sources are dubious as they are short snippets about some person named Micheal Fitzgerald and its not obvious its about the same person with such a generic name. Bagumba (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion has been started at Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Micheal_Fitzgerald Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Having a disagreement over the presence of this text: As an outspoken critic of capitalism, Michael Moore has been accused of hypocrisy for being wealthy, with an estimated worth of over $50 million. It is sourced to this blog: Michael Moore's hypocrisy My feeling is that this source is insufficient to cite his net worth or his hypocrisy. The Interior (Talk) 22:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right here, because the quoted text is not a good representation of the source, which only makes the comment in passing. It certainly isn't a good source for Moore's bank balance. The comment itself does not seem very insightful - the same criticism, if it is considered to be a valid criticism, can be applied to most high-profile figures who lean to the left. The fact that one minor blogger has made it regarding Moore does not make it a noteworthy criticism of him. So, WP:UNDUE. --FormerIP (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Its Armstrong Williams blogging, he is self published from that source see here - the blog site is linked from only ten articles on wikipedia - two BLP articles where the blogger is the subject of the article, four talk page, this BLPN and the Michael Moore BLP and one other BLP and one other article. As a SelfPublishedSource its WP:SELFPUB - its only good to support content about himself. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the blogger gives no indication of where the estimate of Moore's wealth came from, that looks dubious. It could be used to source the accusation of hypocrisy, if it could be shown either that (a) this bloggers opinion is of any significance, or (b) the opinion is more widely held. So no, it doesn't seem to be much of a source for anything in itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'll say this: I am a supporter of Michael Moore, and I consider myself a liberal. However, given the amount of controversy on Michael Moore (which is really undeniable), I think there should be a controversy section. Is this agreed?

As for the hypocrisy claims, this seems to be a fairly common criticism (perhaps the claims of hypocrisy as related to the lawsuits should be specified). See here: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/21/101857.shtml, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/3/150518.shtml, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/10/the-hypocrisy-of-michael-moore/, http://exposethemedia.com/2011/03/03/the-blistering-hypocrisy-of-michael-moore-part-352/, and http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/02/08/note-to-conservatives-it-isn%E2%80%99t-hypocritical-for-michael-moore-to-sue-someone/, among many others. Are none of these usable sources? Are editorials or newspaper-owned blogs not enough? Quoting WP:IRS: "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."

I agree that the worth should be cited from another source. InverseHypercube (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• - I can't see a declaration of blogger editorial control on the hill, it it there somewhere? Controversy sections should be avoided - integrate content into the body of the article where it sits well. Also please attribute who it is that is critical and use the highest quality citations available. There has been on wiki and off wiki issues regarding that BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Moore is a divisive figure. For every right-wing blogger calling him a "hypocrite", we could find left-wing blogs calling him the second coming. What's needed is a reliable source (non-blog) discussing this divisiveness. Agree with Rob that this info should be incorporated into an existing section, probably "Political views". Trying to aggregate public opinion using blogs is an impossible task, and not within WP's mandate as an encyclopedia. The Interior (Talk) 23:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Different categories of criticism also need to be distinguished, though. Simple pot-shots and purely rhetorical criticisms don't normally have encyclopaedic value (particularly for a BLP) unless the criticisms themselves have been widely commented on, because they don't tell us very much about the subject, only that a certain form of argument is possible. "Michael Moore criticises capitalism yet he is wealthy" would come into this category, along with imaginable criticisms such as "Michael Moore criticises the automobile industry yet he owns a car" or "Michael Moore criticises American healthcare yet he has received medical treatment in America on a number of occasions".

Substantive and artistic criticism of Moore would of course be suitable for the article, but that's not the question in the OP. --FormerIP (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps you are correct. Particularly, the arguments are ad hominem and seem to rely on association fallacy: Michael Moore criticizes capitalism; Michael Moore is a capitalist; therefore, Michael Moore is a hypocrite. Don't all claims of hypocrisy follow this pattern, though? Are all claims of hypocrisy non-encyclopedic, even if they are widespread? Nearly all forms of criticism could be traced to some logical fallacy, but is it an encyclopedia's job to determine which are valid? InverseHypercube (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'd answer it's WP's job to determine which criticism the reliable sources think are valid. It's the only way to wade through the murk of public opinion. The Interior (Talk) 06:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Moore actually an "outspoken critic of capitalism," or just a critic of the parts of the system that he sees flaws with? Dayewalker (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Declan Lynch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To whom it concerns

I am the subject of the above entry which, apart from being factually inaccurate in at least three places, is grossly libellous. As a journalist myself, I know that the reference to an article of mine as "trivialising sexual abuse" would never have been printed in any responsible publication. It must be removed immediately, as must all associated references to the relevant article on the Irish language -- I have written thousands of articles over the years, yet the majority of my wikipedia entry is about this one article, which tells you a lot more about the person who made that addition, and his prejudices, than it does about me. There was no great "controversy" about that piece, which is crudely misrepresented anyway. But the notion of it "trivialising sexual abuse" is the most defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.1.51 (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed two sentences from the article as I felt they weren't sufficiently well sourced to justify their making up half the content of the biography. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Disgusting self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.43.250 (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is:

Sean O'Brien (windsurfer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's not that bad? However, a strong case could be made that the references are very weak, and after a quick look I could only see confirmation of a couple of minor competition results, with no verification of any of the bio assertions. Notability may be weak, so WP:AFD is a possibility. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Declan Lynch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thank you for removing libellous content from my biography (Declan Lynch) ,and for doing it so promptly. In the interest of factual accuracy, it is not true that I dropped out of law school and moved to Cork and later started to write for Hot Press. I dropped out of law school at 17 years of age IN ORDER TO work for Hot Press. And I live in Wicklow, not Dublin.

My list of publications is also incomplete. It should contain:

• The Book Of Poor Ould Fellas (with Arthur Matthews) (2009)
• Days Of Heaven -- Italia 90 and the Charlton Years (2010)
• A Football Man - John Giles with Declan Lynch (2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.1.51 (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I addressed what I could, the article needs more WP:RS reliable citations. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This blog post likely deserves some attention. My interest is simply in making sure that this entry accurately reflects what reliable sources have said and that no reliable sources are omitted based on anyone's agenda in either direction. I'm posting this notice on the BLP noticeboard and the talk page of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Case of WP:GREATWRONGS? --John (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Possibly. But also possibly a case of WP:OWN. The blog post contains some perfectly legitimate kinds of objections. Are reliable sources that don't jibe with our article's perspective being omitted? Does our article accurately reflect what reliable sources have said? Does our article rely on tabloid press rather than serious journalism? Those are all worthy questions of review, always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Reviewing the 27 pages of Talk page archives might be a good place to start, as every single item there has been hashed out amongst parties. MLauba 17:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • MLauba, if that is the case then succinctly summarizing how they are addressed, or at the very least calmly explaining to Jimbo the nature of the situation might be a bit more appropriate than the reception his post on the talk page has garnered. We should all take care to make sure we're reflecting NPOV, and also in this case BLP concerns. It is not an attack on the editors of that page to say, "hey someone has expressed concern, can you all have a look into this"? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Considering the particular aura that Jimbo carries, I'd expect that before asking questions like "Are reliable sources that don't jibe with our article's perspective being omitted? Does our article accurately reflect what reliable sources have said? Does our article rely on tabloid press rather than serious journalism?" he would spend a bit of time and look at the article before raising them and throwing WP:OWN around. The question about the tabloid press for instance can be answered by looking at the article proper. MLauba 17:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Suit yourself. When people innocently raise concerns about material that I have edited and/or am familiar with I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and explain to them what's up. But we all have our own methods of social interaction. Have a pleasant day. (Note: WP:OWN only appeared here after you all jumped on him at the talk page.)Griswaldo (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Don't see how you find pointing to the previous discussions objectionable then. An equally pleasant day to you. MLauba 17:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
              • When any experienced editor raises concerns about an article, telling them they ought to read 27 pages of discussion before they are allowed to comment is the equivalent of telling them to ***ck off. There are plenty instances of 27 pages of discussion by small groups leading to dreadful articles and an attitude of ownership. When I review an article for neutrality and BLP compliance, the pertinent thing to read is the article itself. If it is biased and based on poor sources then the talk pages be damned. (NB I've not reviewed this article, so I'm not commenting on the content.) Further, although Knowledge's founder enjoys no privileges in terms of editing I think what he posts generally merits a little more though than that curt dismissal.--Scott Mac 17:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
                • The concern here is that Knowledge's founder appears, at least on the face of it, to let himself be uncritically canvassed by an offsite blog post. Again, just by looking at the article's reference, the question "are we relying on tabloid press?" can be answered (and the answer is no, the article doesn't rely on tabloid sources). MLauba 17:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable for Jimmy to post because a blogpost has been addressed to him. On the other hand, there is reason to be cautious about the blog post because it comes from a site which is connected to past edit-warring on the article. That doesn't mean everything it says must be ignored, of course, but I think that is why MLauba is referencing past discussions. It can be seen from those that a number of editors have been banned in the past, but this was for behaviour, not for having the wrong POV.

As an involved, I'll take a look at the blog post and then I'll post again. We should not be jumping to the tune of a pressure-group, obviously, but I wouldn't claim the article is a work of perfection, so it is not inconceivable that they might raise reasonable points.--FormerIP (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've commented instead on the article talkpage: Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Open_Letter. --FormerIP (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps split to content-forks to avoid WP:UNDUE: With the recent broadcast of new U.S. TV film Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy, then Amanda Knox can be considered to have reached individual notability, so there is no reason to restrict coverage about her 4 court cases to just the 1 MoMK article. Much of the concern over the article has been trying to avoid a WP:UNDUE balance and retain the focus on the article's title subject: the murder of British student Meredith Kercher. However, news reports about Amanda Knox's trial, re-trial, and pending trial for slander, have completely eclipsed the original event. Meanwhile, Amanda Knox has continued to gain in individual notability, to finally allow separate articles about her with notable criticism of the trial proceedings. There have been years of news events: with the November 2007 arrests, then the October 2008 Perugia court ruling which sent her to trial, followed by the June 2009 televised court hearing when she claimed she was hit on the head to force a false confession, then the new 2010 charges of criminal slander against the Perugia police. Add to that, the ongoing January-July 2011 appellate re-trial to re-examine the DNA evidence (by a university in Rome) and eyewitness testimonies, plus her parents being indicted for criminal slander against the police, and then this February 2011 TV film Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy, starring Hayden Panettiere (which all 3 families, Knox, Kercher and Sollecito, objected to being shown). It is time to "untie the Gordian Knot" and allow multiple articles, so that people will no longer claim that attempts to balance the text for WP:UNDUE are attempts by "moderators" to slant the article by suppressing opposing views. It is time for separate articles:
  • Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito - to cover both the joint trial and subsequent joint appellate re-trial on the evidence, plus media responses; this is called "Italy's trial of the Century".
  • Amanda Knox - as a bio page, with sub-section about Raffaele Sollecito because sources support he met her first and allowed her to spend nights at his 2-story house, plus their trial together.
  Those 2 articles would untangle the restrictions of WP:UNDUE and allow ample space to write volumes about whatever the reliable sources say, without an imbalance to the original MoMK article. The notable February 2011 film was the final event which justified this separation into larger, broader content-forks to be completely acceptable. What else needs to be done to proceed further? -Wikid77 (talk) 03:50, revised 04:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Bopp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To Whom it may concern,

The image of Thomas Bopp that is posted on this page is not the image of (me) Thomas J. Bopp D.Sc... co-discover Comet Hale-Bopp I have written before, not to this page, so I guess I didn't reach the right person to do something about it, to ask that this image be removed, and a proper replacement image be inserted instead.

Someone can easily do a web search, and find other images of me to prove to you that I am who I say I am, or you may contact me and I can email you a proper image.

(address and email redacted)

Please advise me on how I may provide you with a proper image.

Thank you for your kind consideration regarding this matter, Sincerely Thomas J. Bopp D.Sc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas J. Bopp (talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Judging from the images I found, I am inclined to view this complaint as accurate. The picture has been removed from the article by another editor.

As far as providing us with a photo, you can do one of two things:

* Upload a photo of yourself that you own the copyright to. For us to be able to use that photo you will have to release the photo under a Creative Commons license.

* Point us to a photo that is in the public domain, such as a NASA photograph. We'll upload it and put it in the article.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Gamaliel (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Uploading images also contains a useful overview of Knowledge copyright requirements and the uploading process. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Joan Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editing of this article was reported in the press last year when some edits were being made from UK Houses of Parliament IP addresses. This sort of editing has continued sporadically and has been reverted. Following a section removal today I have attempted to get things into some sort of order. However, I am not used to editing in this sort of area and it would be good if someone else could take a look. Is the article, particularly the expenses section, acceptable in all the circumstances? Thincat (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All of the expenses sections in British politician BLPs were written in an emotive high profile time are pretty undue as a result and they all need rewriting for weight. What did she do that was not allowed? Was she made to repay any monies by the fees office? Was she investigated by the police for anything? Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the section to the talk page where we can address it. The section is biased, inaccurate, uninformative and weasel. See Talk:Joan Ryan#Section removed under BLP--Scott Mac 21:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Nye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Josephnye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has blanked a large sourced section of Joseph Nye having to do with an article Nye wrote for The New Republic about Qaddafi. The edit summary claims that the article is false and The New Republic has issued an apology; more context on the situation can be found here. Obviously, this is just a content issue but the username of the user making this edit makes things questionable. I'm not sure if this issue belongs here or at WP:UAA or both. Chillllls (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph about Libya until editors can reach consensus about the WP:BLP issues. It is unpleasant to get into a revert war with an article subject about the inclusion of negative material, in a case where the sources are confusing. Irrespective of possible defamation, there is also a question of undue weight, since it will take a lot of space to lay everything out correctly, and it may not be of earthshaking importance. I see three options:

• Supposing it is agreed on the talk page that this material is essential to the article in all its details, we could construct a paragraph that includes a lot of direct quotes from the parties (Nye himself and the various magazine editors). This way we don't have to figure out who is right; we just report what everyone says.
• If the editors feel that a shorter report of this incident is enough, we could just state that an article by him on Libya led to a controversy about the sponsorship of his trip. We could boil it down to three or four sentences and not be too specific.
• Leave the whole thing out, since it may look like cherrypicking a confusing incident out of a long career, and making a lot out of it.

Please comment on these ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally prefer the second option and have stated so on the talk page. I believe that the incident is notable enough to be mentioned in the article but the way that the section was written gave it way too much weight. In my opinion, it should be nowhere near the three paragraph, separate section length it was before. My big concern here is that the user actually is Joseph Nye. We have to balance a whitewashing of the incident with being bitey towards the subject of a BLP that probably doesn't know much about how Knowledge works. Chillllls (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. This is the same issue which just came up in the Benjamin Barber situation discussed below. The Foreign Policy article which I just added as a reference in the Barber article, also mentions that Nye "was among a small group of democracy advocates and public intellectuals...working under contract with the Monitor Group consulting firm to interact with Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi on issues of democracy and civil society". My suggestion is to add this sentence to Nye's article, because his consulting to Libya is the significant fact here; the dispute over the TNR article is secondary. Since The New Republic apparently now (per the link above) agrees that Nye disclosed the Monitor relationship, I don't see that this is significant enough to mention separately in the article. In any event, I agree per WP:WEIGHT this material deserves not more than two or three sentences maximim. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Barber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contentious comments with spurious allegations regarding the subjects association with Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi are being deleted. Missing citations and political speculations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnach (talk • contribs) 02:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes - this was a mess. I've deleted all references to Libya/Gaddafi as unsourced, per WP:BLP policy. If the links claimed are true, they should be easy enough to source.

I'd ask others to keep an eye on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

His association with Qaddafi is confirmed in this article in Foreign Policy, which states that Barber "was among a small group of democracy advocates and public intellectuals... working under contract with the Monitor Group consulting firm to interact with Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi on issues of democracy and civil society and to help his son Saif implement democratic reforms and author a more representative constitution for Libya." I added a careful sentence back to the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Raju Narayana Swamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have reasons to think the editor on Raju Narayana Swamy has filtered and beautified some neutral information. See diff. Jo9100 (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just alerting people to this requested move discussion. Talk:Death of Philip Gale#Requested move. You input would be appreciated.--Scott Mac 09:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Gale died in 1999 and there's nothing obviously BLP-related in the article. Why is this here? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Lynne Spears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I quote wikipedia, "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."

This is under 'Later Life and Fame.'"The libelous part to be deleted." Also "Delete Footnote 11"

In 2008, her representative reported to the National Enquirer that in 1975, she was driving her injured brother to the hospital in Kentwood when she accidentally hit and killed the 12-year-old Anthony Winters, who was riding his bicycle. The representative subsequently released a statement: "Anthony Winters and his friend were in the road on a curve on a bicycle. As Lynne rounded the curve she could not avoid the boy in the street as there was oncoming traffic in the opposite lane... Lynne realized the boy was struck immediately and to this day is grieved by the Winters’ loss of their son."

That 'National Enquirer' and 'The Daily Mail' are tabloid magazines noted for making "libelous" statements that are totally "contentious" and "unsourced" information unsubstantiated by any factual evidence. If I have to hire a attorney and sue you to remove this particular libelous information, I will do just that. This is the attorney representing the Spears family <redacted see below -floq>. If you have any questions, you can call <redacted see below -floq> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.168.231 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. <redacted see below -floq>;

We will attempt to address the issues here; however, please send any future concerns of such a serious nature to info@wikimedia.org, as outlined on Knowledge:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). This will ensure the problem is handled by the OTRS team, which lends considerably more weight to edits. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 00:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a very strict policy against legal threats here - see WP:NLT. Please retract this threat or you will most likely be blocked from editing. For assistance, see Knowledge:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). Exxolon (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the legal threat we do have a serious problem here. A poorly sourced BLP violation was restored multiple times using Huggle and the IP was eventually blocked for repeatedly deleting it. Exxolon (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• nb I've removed the IP's claim to be a specific attorney; we have no way of verifying that, and I must say I have my suspicions about the claim. As KC says, using OTRS is the way to go if you want to verify your relationship with the article subject. (also, KC, I edited your post too, sorry). That said, I think the legal threat can be safely overlooked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

  Concur with both. Thanks, Flo. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 00:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on my assessment of this sorry sequence, it would appear that nobody bothered to consider WHY the IP was repeatedly removing the section, they just assumed it was vandalism and reacted accordingly. Exxolon (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There's monkey business going on here. There's no reason to believe the IP has any connection to the Spears family or to the named lawyer; the story's been published and republished for years, in more reliable sources than the Enquirer (where it originally appeared), and I can't turn up any trace of any other prior or current claims that it's not true. It's hardly libelous -- kid playing in street killed in auto accident, driver not at fault. The lawyer whose name was used is representing people recently sued by Charlie Sheen, and I suspect a Sheen fan making trouble is more likely than any legitimate communication. RevDel at least the name used, and send the issue to the article talk page -- true or not, I don't see any encyclopedic value to the story, any more than in the horde of embarrassing celebrity events WP regrettably documents. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

John Cullum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mr. Cullum's biography indicates he is "currently appearing on Broadway in "The Scottsboro Boys" (2010). Since the show closed several months ago, this should be amended to read "Mr. Cullum most recently appeared on Broadway in "The Scottsboro Boys." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.20.229 (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Next time, you can edit articles like this one yourself. I'll post some links on your user talk page which will help you to get started. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Linda Morand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Stalker

Someone whose ip address 173.68.239.236 appears to be is actively stalking Linda Morand printing libelous information about criminal activity. They are misinformed and appear to be targeting someone else with the same name. I am Ms. Morand's official biographer and can assure anyone that these posts are false, defaming and libelous.

ElaineBender (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I edited the offending comments in the talk page. This is the third time this ipp address has attacked this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElaineBender (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Elaine - thank you for bringing this to our attention. The talk page is clear of the BLP violations at the moment and I have added the article to my watchlist in order to ensure it is not restored. I have also added a warning to the IPs talk page which links to our policy on biographies requesting that they desist from adding the contentious information. If you encounter any further problems please leave another note here and we can elevate the warnings and/or apply protection to the article if required. --Jezebel'sPonyo 18:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Heads up for anyone who is interested. There is discussion at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher of creating a biography for Amanda Knox, one of the accused. An early draft can be found here - User:Wikid77/Amanda Knox. As this is as clear of a WP:BLP1E violation as I can possibly imagine I figured I'd alert those interested in BLP matters about the brewing situation. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#User-space_draft_bio_page_about_Amanda_Knox for further information.Griswaldo (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but when someone is imprisoned long enough and there are enough appeals and disputes about the conviction, we eventually cross out of WP:1E into more general notability which might justify a separate bio. Mumia Abu-Jamal is an example. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I take your point in general, and specifically in terms of Mumia, but he was convicted to life in prison for a murder that occurred over 30 years ago now, and as such has sustained coverage in reliable sources, and indeed has become more notable perhaps even since the one event that originally defined his notability. The appeals are still ongoing and Knox has had no opportunity to build notability above and beyond her trial. I just feel that people confuse real enduring notability with current events, and the shock culture of tabloids. We live in an information age where everything sensational that makes the news does so with a splash that perhaps mesmerizes people into thinking it must therefore have enduring meaningfulness when they are in the thick of it. I think the aspects of notability guidelines and BLP1E that emphasize enduring notability ought to be given more weight here. IMO.Griswaldo (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would Support an article for Amanda Knox. She even got a TV-film about her in particular.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So Lifetime movies are now the criteria for pushing a BLP over the BLP1E threshold?Griswaldo (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I also wonder what sources are going to be reliable enough to write her biography with. Sure there has been plenty of coverage of her trial in the news, but where does one get reliable information about her life in general from? Sensationalist books? Made for TV movies?Griswaldo (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I will not get involved in a never ending dispute that centers around the wikipedia guidelines which can be twisted and turned in any direction. But the facts are that Knox has reached the notability needed and there are plenty of sourcing to provide a good wikipedia article for Knox. End of story!, All ready in 2008 there were enough notability etc etc to justify a article for Knox.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Five years in the New York Times: Per WP:BLP_NewYorkTimes_5_year_coverage, "Anyone appearing in the New York Times for 5 years in a row, automatically gets an article" (just kidding). However, at some point, claiming that Amanda Knox does not have individual notability begins to sound like a Kafkaesque universe. Here are some of those 5 years in the New York Times:

• Nov. 13, 2007 - "Grisly Murder Case Intrigues Italian University City - New York Times"

• Sep. 29, 2008 - "Perugia Journal - Details Only Add to Puzzle in Umbrian Murder"

• Jun. 12, 2009 - "American Testifies in Her Murder Trial in Italy - NYTimes.com"

• Nov. 21, 2009 - "Life Sentence Sought in Italy for a U.S. Student, Amanda Knox"

• Dec.  4, 2009 - "Italian Jury Convicts U.S. Student of Murder - NYTimes.com"

• Nov. 24, 2010 - "Amanda Knox Murder Appeal Begins in Italy - NYTimes.com"

• Dec. 18, 2010 - "Court in Perugia, Italy, Gives Amanda Knox a Victory - NYTimes.com"

• Feb. 28, 2011 - "Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy - TV Movie - Cast & Credits"

Of course, appearing 5 years, in the New York Times, does not confer individual notability, but reading some of those reports helps to access the notability, spanning 5 years. Note how, by 2010, the headlines all say "Amanda Knox" as though everyone in America had been seeing her on TV for years. They had. -Wikid77 02:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Bradley A. Buckles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Name of article: Bradley A. Buckles. Two sentences were added to the end of the second paragraph on February 2, 2011 by an anonymous user that are false, misleading, defamatory and unsourced. Edit reference: 06:16, 2 February 2011 98.71.87.97. While the material has been removed from the current version it continues to appear in the article history and google searches are still displaying the offending language in search returns. Can this material be removed entirely from the edit history so that it is not picked up through google? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryb45 (talk • contribs)

You would better make this request at Knowledge:Requests for oversight - Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Karlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a vanity article that appears to have been authored by the subject himself. It lacks a NPOV and reads like an advertisement. I think deletion should be discussed for failing to meet notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainBen (talk • contribs) 18:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've started a deletion discussion here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Michael Karlan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

F. Charles Brunicardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

not a noteable person

someone has simply uploaded a summary of his CV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.48.110 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like there is a bit of copyvio here too. Sections look to be copy\pasted from different online bios. The Interior (Talk) 00:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions have come up on the Gavin Menzies talk page relating to BLP standards for statements by the subject of the article that appear in reliable sources. These questions are complicated by allegations that Menzies is habitually untruthful. The life events in question are related to Menzies' career as a controversial bestselling author. Is his own account sufficient? These questions first came up on the talk page here: ], and have continued in subsequent sections of the talk page, especially here: ]. Thanks! --Other Choices (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to bring to the attention of this august and noble forum that certain articles created by the Article Wizard (so far I've only seen some articles about Idaho politicians, i.e. Chuck Winder, Shawn Keough) have at least two problems:

• All have the same date of birth (December 30, 1959) in the Persondata section by default unless changed manually by an editor
• Have all bare reflinks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

S. P. Balasubrahmanyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor adding blogs, etc as references for S. P. Balasubrahmanyam, including a claim he is in the Guiness Book of Records. As I asked the editor to use http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com as a source, and he has reinserted the claim, I'm asking for eyes on it. Searches of the Guinness site turn up nothing so far as I can find, and a look at the editor's talk page shows a long history of complaints about his edits with not one response from him. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we have a reliable source (Hindu.com, an article, not a blog, in a respected Indian newspaper) which happens to be wrong. I think the Guinness site, which does not list him, trumps the Hindu article, so I will delete the assertion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor in question has demonstrated problematic behavior on many occasions. He seems to be trying to glorify certain articles and inserting "POV" and other such tags to articles which he apparently do not like. See , , . He was even blocked by admin SpacemanSpiff for his disruptive editing. Salih (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)