Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - Wikipedia

1 person in discussion

Article Images

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives
Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

This entry lacks objectivity and appears to be written by the subject. An independent impartial and knowledgeable person should edit it for a more balanced view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.29.124 (talk • contribs)

I'll give it a go, and I'll tag it with {{like resume}} - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Paulioetc and an IP sock are continuing to edit multiple articles, to add a claim that a British Forward Air Controllerd (FAC) faced manslaughter charges as a result of a friendly fire incident in Afghanisation. This is based on an old report in the Daily Mail [1]. That information is seriously out of date, no charges were ever brought, the subsequent investigation cleared the FAC and the coroner found no individual to blame see [2].

Articles involved: Friendly fire, Royal Anglian Regiment, List of post-1945 U.S. friendly-fire incidents with British victims

SPI Check: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulioetc‎

As the FAC is still alive, this appears to be a BLP violation to me. I have deliberately avoided naming the individual, though his name is in the public domain and a simple google search will find it. Note: Talk:Friendly fire and Talk:List of post-1945 U.S. friendly-fire incidents with British victims for attempts to engage the guy in talk, he routinely ignores and deletes any warning template. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

- User:Paulioetc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

- User:67.164.105.159 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The above also now also seems to be using the ID below, and is continuing to ascribe the initial error to the FAC, which is contrary to the cited sources. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

- User:JamesHawks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is insensitive and offensive in the way it describes a victim who has been in a coma for 37 years. Especially, the line "That "muscle in her mouth" with which she flayed a subordinate for not doing his job no longer receives any signals from her brain" though taken from an article in an obscure magazine is of extremely poor taste and should be unacceptable for international readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.1.26 (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

That is one of the worst articles I've ever read, even without the statement quoted above. At the very least it should be completely rewritten from scratch, and deletion should probably be considered as well. *** Crotalus *** 15:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Concur with Crotalus. Largely unsourced, few footnotes. Doesn't seem very encyclopaedic. wp:ONEVENT would seem to apply. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

- I have renamed this article 1973 attempted murder and robbery of Aruna Shanbaug and trimmed some content and imo its better, although the attack was a one event - coverage and additions have continued up to the present day. I think its a notable case, especially in Bombay - for continued notability the BBC reported on the case as recently as Dec 2009, thirty six years after the incident. - Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

India court admits plea to end life of rape victim - The BBC - 17 December 2009 -

If someone wants to suggest it, there maybe a case to merge to this recently created article that seems to be primarily about her

Euthanasia in India - Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Keep as a separate article. The fact that her case was discussed in the Supreme Court of India should put her notability beyond doubt. Compare Tony Bland. Though I note Terri Schiavo no longer has her own biography. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It would appear from the edit summary in this edit (which should probably be revdel'd?) that (alleged) subject contacted helpers in IRC with concerns about this article. (I was not present for that discussion).

Due to significant concerns over unreferenced controversial BLP material, I have removed most of the article with this edit.

I hope that was the right thing to do. Chzz ► 20:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

While some of the writing you removed had neutrality problems, not sure why you needed to stub it down so far as to eliminate inoffensive content like "He began his radio career in 1973 as a country music DJ at KWMC in Del Rio, Texas", as opposed to just adding a "citation needed" template. There seem to be reliable sources out there from which details can be confirmed. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fair point; there were some bits that could have been kept - and I was going to revisit it; however, since then, others have been editing and some info has been added back. It also may have been listed at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Marvin. I'm not sure if that blog is a reliable source. But anyway, the AfD would now be the best place to discuss it. Cheers, Chzz ► 00:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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. Wikipedia 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, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Resolved

– I left you a template of handy links, this is article update or improvement and not a BLP issue

When viewing your entry on the rap artist NAS, your failed to mention what I think is an added factoid.

I only first heard of this rap artist when I viewed an Indi movie from a British source called "Fish Tank" a very highly rated story of a teen girl's 'coming of age' living in the council flat apartments in England that received much praise. The main character sought her way out of her miserable existance with a 'loose' drunk whoring single mother and younger sister by teaching herself hip hop dancing. She used the NAS song " Life's a Bitch" throughout the movie during her dance practice and especially in the emotional ending, when she found her way out; they played the same song and her mother, sensing her daughters' talent, accomplishments and bittersweet happiness about her 'getting out' started dancing with her daughter in the ending scene. And they were bonding due to the song 'life was a bitch for them'. Even the younger sister joined in. The song was SO RIGHT for this movie and I had to read the credits at the end to see what the song was and who performed it.

This was the first time I ever heard of NAS, being an american woman and only knowing and liking the mainstream rap artists. Needless to say this song is on my IPOD now. Try to watch the movie. I don't expect a whole paragraph in WIKI, but at least the important contribution of this song on a truly great movie. Thanks for hearing me out. Mary Drew, Illinois, USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.105.17 (talk • contribs)

- We have an article regarding the movie you mention - Fish Tank (film) - Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Last line of article concerning Oxford Union debate is untrue and libelous. Not from an authoritative source. Repeated attempts to remove this have been blocked by administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.10 (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the text (actually, I tried to but someone beat me to it) since it is not from a reliable source. We'll just have to see if that sticks. If it doesn't and you find that the problem continues, your best course of action would be to raise it at WP:RSN. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes - clearly not from a reliable source. I've added the article to my watchlist. Other editors should note that ubder WP:BLP policy, such unsourced and contentious material is exempt from WP:3RR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Rove McManus is an Australia television personality who has recently moved to the United States. For years, his biography has described him as a Comedian, and various editors have added quotes around the word "Comedian" in his biography in an attempt at sarcasm. It used to be more common when his talk show was being broadcast here in Australia, but it has happened 9 times in the last 12 months. For years there was a comment in the page's wikitext insisting that people should not add the quotes again. I have created a bot (computer program) that can scan the biography once an hour, remove the quotes whenever they are added, and warn any user who adds them, as well as roll back any contributions that occur along with the addition of quotes. It is submitted for approval here : Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/RichardcavellBot. The bot is completely customisable, since I wrote all the code myself.

The questions for BLP enthusiasts are :

Do you agree that any further addition of the quotes should be rolled back, with prejudice?
Do you agree that any edits by the most recent author, where that recent author has placed quotes, should be assumed to be unconstructive and rolled back?
Do you believe that it is appropriate to run my bot continuously to perform this task?

All contributions to this discussion are welcome. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

[3] is presented as the single source for :

Truscott was appointed by the attorney general to serve as ATF director, a role he held from 2004-2006. Under Truscott’s leadership, ATF expanded its role in explosives investigations, developed a National Center for Explosives Training and Research and constructed a new training academy. Most importantly the 5,000 men and women of ATF were able to make effective contributions to the Department of Justice’s highest priority – the prevention of terrorism – through intelligence sharing, investigations, regulation, training, laboratory services and an expanded international presence. He resigned in August of 2006 amid allegations of irregular spending practices and ethics violations that were the subject of a Justice Department Inspector General’s Office Report.

Does this source fully support the multiple claims made for purposes of a BLP? In addition, a primary source is presented as an "External link" [4]. Does this run afoul of NPOV or BLP by its title (stated in the EL as Report of Investigation Concerning Alleged Mismanagement and Misconduct by Carl J. Truscott, Former Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) and does it properly belong as a primary source in a BLP? Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 ^Talk 03:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

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 ^Talk 03:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Resolved

– content not hosted on this wikipedia, advice given

I would like to point out that the authors of this article have come to some validations according to the rules of article creation wikipedia has established. 1 The article, which is referred to a living person, lacks in objectivity. In the article, the author states his personal opinion about Dhmosthenis Liakopoulos which can be concluded by his kind of writing. 2 Absence of well balanced sources. There are more sources that support opinions against Dimosthenis Liakopoulos than those in favour of. Please consider my report and examine closely the article. Mgbfw (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

- Seems like the article has recently been blanked, and was hosted on the Greek wikipedia. This is the EN Wikipedia and we don't appear to be publishing an article about this living person here. You should discuss content issues on the local wikipeda. If you get no joy and there are serious issues, you can try asking the wikimediafoundation. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be some forum shopping going on here, so I'll repeat my suggestion already given elsewhere: If Demosthenes Liakopoulos receives significant coverage in independent secondary sources then maybe you should create an article about him here on the English Wikipedia - there doesn't seem to be one at the moment. The English Wikipedia has far more readers than the Greek Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Actually, having read the deletion log, maybe not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Shmuley Boteach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is kind of a mess. I found things like two sentences from different parts of an article strung together as a single quotation, a few weasel words, and a blog used a source. I don't really have time to carefully check the whole article, but it could use more eyes. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have read this article and checked the sources. One of the more frequently cited sources is a series of blog posts by Fox News columnist Roger Friedman, which is almost entirely opinion. Among the facts attributed to that article:

That he was "banned from preaching in any British synagogue by the United Synagogues of Britain." This may or may not be true. I could find no reference on the internet to an organization by this name. There is a synagogue by the name of "United Synagogue", but as far as I can tell, it represents only itself, and there is no reference on its website of a ban of Boteach. (This fact is also attributed to a Guardian article, but the Guardian article makes no such claim.)
That the British Charity Commission "froze the bank accounts" of Boteach's charitable trust in Britain. This is true; the article omits that the Charity Commission reached an agreement with Boteach, which involved his closing the trust and reimbursing it for funds that the commission determined had been wrongly withdrawn for Boteach's personal use. The issue was concluded amicably, and no charges were brought against Boteach. All of which also appears in the blog post but is omitted from the article.

The article relies on a very odd and eclectic collection of sources, none of which are generally considered reliable by Wikipedia. The fact that he was asked to leave his post as British Shaliach, for example, is attributed to the Jewish times Asia. I could find no reference to this in a British paper, Jewish or otherwise. The paragraph about irregularities in Boteach's British trust is attributed to six sources. Two of these are blogs, one is the Friedman column from Fox News (also a blog), and two are pop music sites. The one reliable source, a Guardian article about Boteach, makes no mention of the episode. Other sources include the Canadian Michael Jackson fanclub, the AV club, which is the entertainment news site of the Onion, and another Jackson fanclub called MJEOL.com

Some of the sources, such as the Guardian article and an article in the Slate, an online daily magazine owned by the Washington Post, are not at all negative about Boteach, but have been carefully pruned for negative comments in this article.

In sum, the article as it now stands is, in my opinion, uninformed on legal issues though it may be, actionable, and should be shorne dramatically and immediately. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would strongly disagree - Is Fox News not a reliable media source ? Of course they are and so too is The Guardian, and the Jewish Times of Asia. You may not like the facts, but surely they are facts.

The article by Roger Friedman is factual - its based on British reports and research.... United Synagogues of Britain is a well known umbrella organization

If you'd like to add that the Charity Commission reached an agreement with Boteach, which involved his closing the trust and reimbursing it for funds that the commission determined had been wrongly withdrawn for Boteach's personal use is fine - He wrongfly withdrew charity money. Thats factual and can be added.

None are reliable ? The British papers arent reliable nor is Fox News ?

Some of your comments are ok - but I do believe we 1st need to address the repeated single user vandalism account which is vandalising the user page repeatedly. Can we agree to a lock until this is resolved ? Jonathangluck (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Fox news site includes both news articles, which can generally be considered reliable, and opinion columns, which are essentially blogs and are not considered a reliable source of information (of course, they are reliable sources for quoting someone's opinion, but not facts). A column entitled "Jacko's Rabbi Gets Meshugah on Court TV" should not be considered a reliable source for information about a living person, since the title itself (and, in fact, the rest of the article in its entirety) displays a clear and, I might say, venomous, bias.

The Guardian is most certainly a reliable source. However, the Guardian article says nothing to support the statements attributed to it in the article. For example, the article says, "Boteach was separately banned from preaching in any British synagogue by the United Synagogues of Britain." What the Guardian article says is "he was publicly reproached by the president of the United Synagogues and was forced to resign from the synagogue in Willesden where he preached." Not the same by a long shot.

As regards the United Synagogues of Britain, I am a little wiser now. There is an organization called "United Synagogue of Britain", which is a union of orthodox Ashkenazic synagogues. I can believe the article's claim that United Synagogue banned Boteach from preaching in their places of worship, though the claim is currently unsupported by a reliable source and must therefore be removed. However, in any case, that organization represents only the Orthodox Ashkenazic synagogues. There are also Sephardic orthodox synagogues, as well as Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform, and unaffiliated synagogues in Britain, none of which are affected by United Synagogue's alleged ban. Therefore, the statement in the article is patently false, and probably libellous.

The Jewish Times Asia may well be a reliable source for things happening in the Jewish community of Asia. To rely on it for information on events in Britain is really stretching the limits of reliability. For a piece of information so imflammatory - that he was forced to resign his post as Britain Shaliach because he invited Rabin to speak - you should certainly be able to find a reliable British source (if it is true).

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why wouldnt A column entitled "Jacko's Rabbi Gets Meshugah on Court TV" be considered reliable ? Meshugah means crazy.... and besides that whats so out there ? And yes perhaps theres bias - Werent many biased against MJ when he was accused of molesting children ? You can remove The Guardian as the source, but that doesnt mean you can remove the statement about "Boteach was separately banned from preaching in any British synagogue by the United Synagogues of Britain." Fox News says it - What would you propose to amend it to ? As you say the Guardian article says is "he was publicly reproached by the president of the United Synagogues and was forced to resign from the synagogue in Willesden where he preached." If we agree that United Synagogue banned Boteach from preaching in their places of worship, Do you believe Boteach could be a rabbi in a Sephardic orthodox synagogues, as well as Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform, and unaffiliated synagogues in Britain ? They'd take him or vice versa ? Should we change it to say Roger Friedman a columnist for Fox News says ? I would agree to that.

Absurd to say The Jewish Times Asia is only reliable for the Jewish community of Asia - is The New York Post only reliable for New York ? or The Jerusalem Post only for Jerusalem ?

Condemned by Crown Heights - http://www.slate.com/id/103323/ Movement severed ties with Shmuley: http://www.atlantajewish.com/content/112005/shmuley.html Boteach's official break with Chabad came not as a result of his writings about sex, but before. A few months after the rebbe's death in 1994, he invited Yitzhak Rabin to speak at a forum. http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/10385/orthodox-equivalent-of-dr-ruth-to-dive-into-spicy-sex-at-mjcc/

Boteach himself saying he was forced "to relinquish my position as his emissary in Oxford" (He says is because of Booker"... many others say differently...If youd like to take his position that he was removed because of the thousands of non-Jews who had joined our organization is fine too. http://www.crownheights.info/index.php?itemid=17270&catid=55

And its not inflamatory to say he was forced to resign after the facts above ? if you'd like to make changes lets discuss 1st... Jonathangluck (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

We can change this sentence: After inviting left wing politician Yitzhak Rabin to speak, despite protests from the Chabad movement leadership, he was asked finally to leave his posting as shaliach.[8]

Can make it Roger Friedman a Fox news columnist rather than Fox News if thats better ?

Any other issues ? Seperately I am concerned about the continued single user vandalism and would like a lock on page. Jonathangluck (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would appreciate some comments from others on this noticeboard more familiar with BLP issues than I. To me, this article looks like a not-so-subtle smear of a popular if controversial religious figure. But almost all the people I have written about on the Wikipedia have been dead these few hundred years, so I don't consider myself an authority. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ravpapa asked me to comment on this. Having just read through the article, it is a very poor example of a BLP. Citing the The Sun (United Kingdom) as a source for negative and controversial information about a living person?!? Jonathan, doesn't it occur to you that when an article used as a reference has the text "spicy sex" in its headline, and not as part of quoting a third party, that may not be an especially reliable source? Why is the Fox news columnist's opinion relevant? The extensive quotes from Michael Jackson fan websites etc are also completely unnecessary. The majority of the article reads as a thinly disguised attack piece. Permitting three sentences of "Awards and recognition" doesn't change that. As for needing to lock the article, User:Spaghettiear got a 7 day block starting this afternoon, so there is no crisis there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

user: shalominthehome once again vandalised - Will he also be blocked ? Controversial information ? Thats his calling card ? He has had 2 financial scandals ? The Sun is a major paper ? Why is Fox News relevant about a Rabbi close to Michael Jackson ? Are you joking ? Lets get some more opinions Jonathangluck (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Sun does indeed sell many copies, but it is a low-end tabloid given to sensationalism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist. That's according to our policy on WP:BLP, which takes precedence over guidelines like WP:RS. (Although I don't consider The Sun to be a reliable source for anything other than what opinion The Sun had on an issue.) We write conservatively about living people, even living people who are controversial and court publicity. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and as regards "once again vandalised" -- actually shalominthehome last edited the article the day before yesterday, in my timezone, and has received a whole bunch of advice on his talk page since then. They already have the helpful menu of handy links. Will he be blocked? I have no idea, but if he continues to edit the article disruptively then presumably he will be. That's not a crisis, but having negative controversial statements about a living person sourced only to The Sun and to Michael Jackson fan websites, is a crisis. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Who says it is a low end tabloid ? You do ? Its the 10th largest newspaper in the world and surely has libel concerns as well.. Its factual, as is Fox News. Can write conservatively as you wish, Boteach has been censured by governments in both the UK and US for financial misgivings regarding charities.... I dont object to some of what you are saying - Care to propose more specifics ?Jonathangluck (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Am missing this issue with the Sun - I see the Independent and Guardian as major sources - Where do you see The Sun ? Rather than talking hypothetical, what do you propose (and regarding your comment about Spicy Sex, you are aware thats a reference to Boteachs book which is relevant ?) ?Jonathangluck (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have removed all the potentially libellous material and dubious sources from the article. It now meets, in my opinion, Wikipedia BLP standards.

The article still needs a lot of work to include material, mostly from Boteach's recent activities, but at least it is no longer grounds for a lawsuit.

Thanks to TheInterior, Deryck C, and Demiurge1000 for their help and support. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've doubts about the notability of this individual on her own merits. Would somebody review the article? GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree the current content of the article isn't enough to establish notability. It already seems to have survived one AfD, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No doubt Gretzky fans had somthing to do with it. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

A separate article had been created as a content fork, under the title Yunus Under Attack, and had become a bit of a walled garden. I turned it into a redirect, and created a new section Muhammad Yunus#Yunus under attack containng all the contents of the fork, in order to preserve the edit history of the content. This material is highly contentious and needs attention by other editors more knowledgeable of BLP rules on accusations against politicians, etc. in a South Asian context. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I left a note regarding this thread and article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh - might get some feedback. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Someone is creating a biography for me, with libelous information. I tried to fix it, and he or she just changed it back to the way it was. I am Dan Wells and I was not born in 1972. The "source" he lists, has my correct birth date: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1067391/ And when I try to add my new experiences/TV credits, this person deletes that as well, returning the page to the way he wrote it. This is impacting my career. Please get this person to STOP. Regards, Dan Wells — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdanwells (talk • contribs)

Actually, the source listed didn't mention a birthdate at all, it was just Dan Wells' homepage. Info removed, lacking citable source. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The reversion was not made by a person but by a bot which, among other things, reverts the addition of links to social networking sites like Facebook for reasons set out at WP:FACEBOOK.

If you find unsourced or poorly-sourced negative information about yourself you are free to remove it; however, in keeping with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline you should generally avoid editing this article except for the kind of uncontroversial edits set out here.

What part of the article do you consider libellous? I couldn't see anything objectionable. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article is currently under attack by a series of "new" users repeatedly adding the same POV content. Obvious sock or meatpuppets. Corvus cornix_talk 03:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have semi-protected that page for one week. --Orlady (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I responded to some edits but I'm not sure if I'm doing this right. Can you look at my comments and tell me if they have been seen before and if I'm doing this right? Still trying to get some disparaging statements removed. Lindag3333 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another user reverted all of your edits under Wikipedia rules which require that articles be neutral and based on reliable independent sources. Your additions to the article did not refer to any sources. Also, you have the same last name as the subject and may have a conflict of interest editing this article if related to him. I suggest rather than making any more changes, you post requested edits on the article's talk page, quoting reliable sources, so that other users may comment and make the changes on your behalf if they are appropriate. Jonathanwallace (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could an administrator who has the ability to lock articles from being edited unless a user is logged in please look at the recent edit history of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Addington&action=history There has been a credible (at least to me) allegation that the subject of the BLP (or someone close to him professionally, at say The Heritage Foundation, may be tinkering with the article themselves, using either an "SPA" (single purpose account such as User:MuqtadaAbu's edit on May 4, 2009) or an unregistered, shifting IP address. Although Dick Cheney no longer holds elective office, the subject of this article remains highly influential in a low-profile way at The Heritage Foundation, which along with the American Enterprise Institute is one of the top conservative "think tanks" where the party not currently holding power in the White House readies an "administration in waiting" for when it does win another election. The subject of this BLP was behind the scenes in two of the Bush Adminstration's most controversial lingering legal controversies, namely the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" on detainees in the "war on terror" and the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy.I would recommend at least locking the article so only logged-in users can edit it, or perhaps the additional level where only verified editors have their edits made immediately visible. No barometer of intelligence (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protection of the article, which would prevent IP users from editing, can be requested at WP:articles for protection. Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Resolved

– no WP:BLP action required - editing issue only - new user has been provided with a handy list of links to assist them

Susan Orman has told millions of people to consoladate their student loan to help better their credit; however by doing so will increase the interest rate from your low 3.5% reducable to 2.75% raising interest to 7.25% reducable to 6.75%... Do not listen to this reasoning on school loans unless you want to add 30 to 150,000 dollars to your student loans. Per: Sally mae/ FASFA. Read your contract before following this Susan Ormans advice.. You will be the better for leaving the loan as it is as designed by the goverment who this time knows best.. ck it out...and good luck to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getoutofdebt (talk • contribs) 12:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for calling this to our attention. Per Wikipedia rules, changes to articles must be based on reliable independent sources, and not on the opinions of individual editors, which are hard for us to evaluate. If "Sally MAE/RSFA" is a source, please give us the details, such as a web link or publication; or please provide some other source for this information. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

There appears to be an author intent on sharing negative slander and libelous material against Dr.Lim based on her recent court case (still unresolved). The case which is to continue on 28th March has yet to hear any defensive testimony or evidence. The cited article from the other Author is poorly researched, based purely on rumor rather than unsealed court documents from the case which paint a very different picture. The motivation for posting this negative and unproven information is purely sensationalist, and given that there has not been a result to the court case, the inference of posting is decidedly towards guilt since people are given to believe accusations. Dr.Lim is a highly notable professional in the medical field, and having been through all the court documents its painfully clear she is correct, and in fact is was she who took the Government body to High Court to defend her rights. It is coming out now that the entire case was politically motivated, thus the inference is to protect Dr.Lim until the case is resolved, at which time it is ethically acceptable to post the FACTS about the case, rather than post the ACCUSATIONS which damage a prominent Doctor's reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegurukl83 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The text currently in the article is cited to an article in The Straits Times. I pared down some of the more sensational allegations that were in an old version of the text, but I see no reason not to include the allegations, since they have been reported in a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I trimmed it down a little more, the case is not even opened yet they are just talking about opening a case, I don't know what went on at the article but a lot of content was removed. I have also added a few ref tags and tidied a little and commented on the Talk:Susan Lim - Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Joseph Lerner is a Canadian politician whose article has been subjected in the past to promotional and problematic editing (I had to block one editor for legal threats. I'd appreciate another eye or two on it as there seem to still be problems. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I trimed back a lot of stuff not supported by secondary sources. This article needs a lot of work. Racepacket (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Mike and Janeen Bjugstad DO NOT have 3 children. They have 2, Abbie ans Nick. Please make that change. Thank you, Mike Bjugstad [phone number reverted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.173.224.18 (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the information entirely, since it does not seem to be included in the source given as a citation. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear Editors, could you please make minor corrections to your page as per subject caption. Glen Vella was born in 1983. His official website has changed to www.maltaeurovision2011.com. The official facebook fan page is www.facebook.com//profile.php?id=100001970225687. Kindly make changes with urgency as you are directing the media to outdated information. You can confirm this information by contacting the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) Malta. Best regards,Daniel d'Anastasi Media and PR Malta Eurovision 2011 Team daniel.danastasi@gmail.com [phone number reverted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.73.192 (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

- I will have a look for you. Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

facebook one

facebook two

How do you tell if a facebook is official? Nither seem flagged in any way..Off2riorob (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

This edit is troubling: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=418294668&oldid=418293408 I think it's POV and it's repeating accusations that have not been evaluated by a court yet. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think it's also questionable and possibly misleading to use the term "sexual assault" in the section title and in the article's lead-in without providing the details that this refers to condom use and not common rape or beating, etc. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes it is repeating the undisputed statement that these allegations have been made. How exactly is that POV? And rape is one of the allegations.

There are currently serious problems on the Assange article, and at Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange‎, caused by attempts to play down the nature of the allegations, and to cast aspersions on the alleged victims, the police, and anyone else that it suits this blatant POV-pushing agenda to attack, with a complete disregard for WP:BLP policy (and possibly, libel laws too). I'd like to see a few more editors watching these articles, with the objective of constraining this sensitive issue to factual matters, rather than spin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Claiming that this is only about condom use is not NPOV. The claims that this refers to condom use is the version put forth by the defence. When the prosecutors and the extradition judge use the word rape they are refering to an alleged instance of Assange initiating sex with a sleeping woman. The English judge ruled that these allegations, if true, were considered rape in both English and Swedish law. On top of that, there is an allegation of Assange using his body weight to hold a woman down. Again, that has nothing to do with condoms. We might not like or agree with the allegations, but the ruling of the judge is a fact, not an opinion. We should present both the prosecutor's and the defence's side. Mbulle (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is rather confusing because although the word "abusive" sounds more serious, the women have said the sex became abusive, but they have not claimed that they withheld consent at any point. I do think it is important to make this clear, although I am not sure how. It's not just to do with a condom though. One of the woman says she was still "half-asleep" when Assange initiated more sex with her the following morning. I think there needs to be some way that we can make clear that neither woman is claiming to have said "no" and been ignored at any time. For example, the statement that Assange was "using his body weight to hold a woman down" might imply that this was against her consent, when in fact she has not alleged that she told him to stop. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing confusing about the wording of the allegations as presented to the English court - and the judge stated that one of these would constitute rape under English law. These are the facts. Your opinions on what you think occurred are utterly irrelevant. You might well benefit from looking up the word 'consent' in a dictionary, though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

(ec) I agree with Greg. I have changed the section header and the sentence. I changed assault to improprieties. The sentence was more problematic becuase it really didn't conform to the source. Unfortunately, the source was a series of factual allegations by the women, and it was almost impossible to put them in a single category. Without actually listing the allegations (refusal to wear a condom, refusal to take a test, pinning a woman down who wanted to retrieve a condom, etc.), it was really hard to create a sentence from it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Andy: with regard to the sentence (not the header), each source has to support the assertion. It wasn't a function of Greg's opinion as to what happened - it's what the source says or doesn't say. The word in the header is a different issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not that I'm surprised, but my changes didn't last long (typical in highly contentious articles). Unfortunately, the editor backed out everything I did, even though he complained only about the word "improprieties" (called it prudishly Victorian - heh) in his edit summary. I decided not to fight the word "assault" in the section header and undid the reversion but restored the word "assault". I have no idea how long even that will last, but the sentence in the section was absolutely wrong, even if one doesn't like my rewording.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Was it "assault" I reverted to? I thought it would be to "misconduct"; changing that right away. I think that word fits best the description, and is most middle of the road between the allegations of the two parties. I hope I didn't hurt your amour propre too much with the Victoriana :) ^walk victor falk^talk 00:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

As far as I remember I wrote "abusive after sex which was initially consensual"; I think the exact details of the accusations, like the condom, should be developped in detail in the SJAvJA article; that's what's it for after all. Perhaps this sentence could be amended to "His two accusers charge that some of the sex that began consensually developeded into acts they felt were non-consensual and abusive~". That conveys better the disagreement between the two parties. ^walk victor falk^talk 00:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think "misconduct" is just right, and, no, you didn't offend me, I just found your comment amusing. As for the sentence, I see no support in the source for saying that the sex became nonconsensual or abusive. If you can point to a passage or passages that say that, please do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

- The exact problem is that there is an attempt to try the case in the article and it hasn't even got off the ground, there is clearly pre judicial considerations, all the minor details and attempting to find a way to say she never actually said no and shall we call it rape when swedish rape is different to everyone else's rape is what is causing all the disruption. Just keep it simple, there are plenty of tabloids that are reporting such like. Just stick to the simple notable details. Assange is wanted in Sweden for in relation to sexual allegations, assaange was arrested in England after a extradition request from Sweden,assange was at extradition hearing and the Judge upheld the request, assange appealed, and the outcome was...? Thats it, just redirect the legal article and add that to assanges blp and take a break. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. It isn't our job to take sides, and spin the allegations down to what we think actually happened - that is a breach of basic Wikipedia principles. We should report what was alleged (in minimum necessary detail), and report that the allegations have been denied (again, in minimum necessary detail). We should report the facts regarding the ongoing legal case (the extradition). That is all. We don't need gossip, rumour, and attempts to smear others. Just the facts.AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Rob and Andy. That would mean removing from the Assange article his denial and the accusers' allegations.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with Andy's change of the section header to "Allegations of rape, coercion and harassment". Even assuming there've been reports that the women alleged those things (and some of them are nebulous - what is harassment? what is coercion? what definition of rape are we using?), it doesn't belong in a BLP header unless the accusations have been substantiated. What if someone accused him of murder? Would just the fact that we say "allegation of murder" make it acceptable? Maybe we should avoid this issue completely and change the section header to "Swedish extradition" or something similar.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The wording is from the Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange article, which in turn sources it to the arrest warrant. The warrant is clearly the best source for the allegations which relate to the extradition case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

With the header in the Assange article and with the sources in the Assange article, the header wording you chose is not, uh, warranted. A more in-depth treatment in the main article is a different issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with minimum necessary detail; I see no reason not to include as much as allowed per wp:v, wp:rs and wp:blp? For one there's hardly any point in having a whole separate article if it sounds like the summary of the police report. An encyclopedic should have ideally a mix of entertaining trivium and enlightening quadrivium; see the Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Featured article advice, in particular, point #2: it's comprehensive. ^walk victor falk^talk 02:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, if you're gonna use words like trivium and quadrivium, who can argue with that? For the moment, the Swedish stuff shouldn't get a lot of coverage in the article, particularly because it's covered in another article in more depth. That doesn't conflict with point #2 in the FA advice ("A featured article should cover all facets of the topic in relation to their importance to the overall topic.").--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think you might not have followed the trial article so closely. Material disappears from the biography, but does not reappear at the other article, but vanishes in some limbo inbetween. What with all the removing for some reason or other there's hardly anything left. Sins of ommission are often worse that sins commission when it comes to neutrality, because if something is there that's partial you see it, whether if it's missing you don't notice anything. I've begun to think maybe a merge back would be for the better. ^walk victor falk^talk 02:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yup. The spin-off article was created as a POV-fork, and it has done nothing but cause trouble since. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It wouldn't be a problem if the editing climate was more cooperative. ^walk victor falk^talk 03:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the "sex with a sleeping woman" charge, I believe one source said the sleeping woman's reported response to Assange was "are you wearing anything?" If that account is true, it would appear she wasn't objecting to sex but to condomless sex. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Again, our job is not to find evidence and make a judgement on what happened. We should report the allegations put forward by the prosecution in hearing, and the defence put forward by Assange's defence in the hearing. All evidence that is put forward outside the courts is just speculation and trial by media/wikipedia. Mbulle (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I believe we should step back and bear in mind that at this point we have only an arrest warrant and an extradition in response to that warrant. I don't know much about the Swedish justice system, but if this were in the U.S., it is unlikely we would report details of what victims say after a mere arrest. We would wait at least until a person was charged.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Resolved

– small write to remove a cut and copy violation and the education ambiguity

Appears to contain contradictory information. The (Early life) phrase "she graduated from high school at 16" may contradict the later (Journalism career) phrase "by earning her GED." Since only individuals not earning a high school diploma may take the GED tests, one phrase or the other must be incorrect. I have not been able to verify either phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewartx5 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, heres the wayback to the high school drop out claim, written by Cory Johnson and published by The Industry Standard, seems a bit of an op ed to me, at the time she was getting some flak and jealousy type reports from people in the media because of what they conceived as her undue rise to high office. Off2riorob (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Doughweller and 4meter4 for keeping an eye on Lerner's bio. If you look at my talk page you would learn that I am a new contributor with not much experience. Furthermore, each time that I have made a correction to this specific article I have described the nature of the change in my talk page. If you refer to my talk page and see my last edit of Lerner's bio, you would precisely see that I have removed a piece of information that I thought it had a promotional nature. At the same time, I noticed that some of the stubs are removed from Lerner's bio "North American composer" and "Poli-bio-stub". Lerner is a Canadian composer that is fact. Therefore, he is a North American composer. Lerner's bio also falls into the "Poli-bio-stub", which is a fact as well. I am going to put the stubs back. If you decide to remove them then I respect your choices. My question is: if there are enough reasons that we so meticulously need to monitor this specific bio and spend time and energy on it, then why bother. Why not just put it for deletion and get rid of it. (Watcherpost (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

Hi, Watcherpost. Thanks for your contributions. He looks clearly wiki notable to me, the minimum requirement is WP:GNG and the changes of deletion at this point would be minimal indeed. As for the stub templates, they can be removed and usually are in such situations as the article develops, as a note, if you want to lets other users know you have made an edit and why, the best place for that is the article talkpage Talk:Joseph Lerner .Its not a stub any more but it is in need of some wikification if anyone is interested in tidying it up a bit. As you didn't seem to have one, I have left you a menu of helpful links on your talkpage, happy editing. Off2riorob (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Off2riorob (talk) for the advise and more so for leaving a "menu of helpful links" on my talk page. (Watcherpost (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC))Reply

Yesterday I restored several deleted sections containing criticism of the subject after realising they were removed by an IP address registered to the subject's employer, the BBC — see also Talk:Pallab Ghosh#Possible conflict of interest. I've just self-reverted though, as I've realised not all this material was reliably sourced, as I first thought, and perhaps other parts could be considered WP:SYNTHESIS. There is no current editing dispute, but I'd appreciate if others took a look today as this article is experiencing a sudden spike in its page views and I'm planning a short Wikibreak as I'm somewhat tired and stressed and seem to be making mistakes. Thanks, --Qwfp (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

We all make mistakes, no biggie. Its the ability to review and correct them that is important. The BLP was being coatracked by undue G.M. food add-ons, he is science editor but way back in 2007 an 82 IP range increased GM coverage to around three quarters of the biography content, undue and coatracky reporting. Its imo better at some other article where it probably is already covered anyways, so imo it did need trimming as to the position now. Off2riorob (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have noticed that an IP added information about the death of Miss Universe 2007 Riyo Mori. According to that she is one of the victims of the Earthquake in Japan yesterday. Anyone having any information about that or can we rule it out as pure speculation or a silly rumour?--BabbaQ (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nothing at all in a google search. As per blp, an uncited death claim that stayed in the article for nine hours on a BLP with - 30 watchers is completely unacceptable. After such an edit to a BLP I would suggest adding pending protection. - Off2riorob (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think this is a case of WP:Oneevent. This is a person who is famous only for his legal actions against the makers of Monopoly. The current content of the page probably should be entirely removed and has lots of contentious information.

There is an article on "his" game Anti-Monopoly which from a board game perspective would count solely as a variant. If it was connect to any other board game than monopoly it would be clear to AfD both pages and reduce the section in History of Monopoly to what is verifiable. The article had no RS I was able to add a RS quickly due to the Monopoly connection so I was looking for some advice.Tetron76 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I stubbed the Anspach article, which read like an anti-Parker Brothers screed and contained assertions not supported by the sole reliable reference, the Wall Street Journal. To the extent this other material was sourced to Anspach's XLibris book, it is banned under WP:SPS as self published contentious material about third parties. I also fixed the Anti-monopoly article by trimming it and citing the Wall Street Journal. I think Anspach is probably not an example of one event as he is potentially notable both for introducing the anti-Monopoly game and then being sued by Parker Brothers. The lawsuit itself last many years and involved separate events such as trials, appeals and a settlement. However, he may not have stand alone notability and perhaps the Anspach article should be merged to "Anti-Monopoly" or both to the appropriate article on the history of Monopoly. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article is now much improved. I guess the next step is to deal with the Anti-Monopoly which would no longer be BLP/

The one eventissue for me is he would not pass the board game designer criteria.

The game is so similar to monopoly that you could use a monopoly set to play the game.
Many variants of games don't get mentioned at all i.e. Diplomacy (game)
It was not the first game to work on the principle of reversing the monopoly objective
He could have made some minor changes to layout and name and have a legal version of the game.
Hasbro own the rights to Anti-Monopoly as trademark
The Anti-monopoly game in its current incarnation would count as self published.
Triopoly without a page has more novelty (cannot link due to blacklist)

The game was clearly renamed with a view to getting sued both for copyright and trademark infringement. I guess with a view to exploit the most valuable brand in games but the RS do not cover the story in this light but it is difficult to see this as more than one thing. Tetron76 (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Wales doesn't set Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Here's another newspaper source - The Daily Mail: [5], 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 [6], 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)Reply

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. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia'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)Reply

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 [11][12] 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)Reply

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)Reply

Wikipedia 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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=[[The Independant]]|date=March 29, 2010|accessdate=March 13, 2011}},<ref> - Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

- 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)Reply

- 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=[[The Independant]]|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 [[Oneindia.in]]|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."^[1]^[2]

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

There was previously a BLPN discussion about this article.[13] The article was fixed up to remove BLP problems. But since then IPs have reverted, including today.[14] Maybe semi-protection would be in order?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The poorly sourced material has now popped up in a new article.[15]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've started an AFD discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

With increasing Social Media presence that various political and news groups, as well as celebrities and politicians have, how do we treat them in terms of either being or not being a reliable source? This is considering the fact that Social Media has become a very important source of news and reference even in journalism and news business. Social Media meaning: Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc. Your insight on this is greatly appreciated. Watcherpost (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources for the policy covering this type of source. --Allen3 ^talk 10:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would someone with experience in current BLP policy (I am a bit out-of-date) please review the article? The Brunei bit is unsourced though probably could be sourced. The first arrest is unsourced and the second seems undue weight (UNDUE does not exactly apply but you know what I mean). The whole article is very tabloid. Thanks --Lyncs (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I deleted the Brunei stuff because it was sourced only to legal documents in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Some of the aseertions in it were also inaccurate. I note it can be better sourced, to the Indepedent and People magazine. Ordinarily I would do so myself but this "sex slave" story is not my kind of editing, so let someone else handle this one. I also deleted an unsourced allegation about an arrest, and revised one remaining assertion of another arrest to comply better with WP:WEIGHT. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looks a lot better, thanks. --Lyncs (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

A small issue on this page: an editor has removed the info that this individual is the brother of Robert Downey, Sr.. The ref used for this was an NBC bio (NBC is the individual's employer). When challenged, the editor has cited personal knowledge of the family. User Talk:Jespah#James Downey and NBC quote Would like some help figuring this one out. The Interior (Talk) 22:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have a reliable source. I'd go with it. In case it helps you, here's a news article from 1985 identifying Jim Downey as the head writer of SNL.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit confused with precisely what Jespah is saying Jim Downey did or did not do but are we sure the refs we're using are referring to the same person? Nil Einne (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

(e/C)The third item on this GB search seems to corroborate this as well (assuming The H.W. Wilson Company doesn't use us as a source!), however the snippet view doesn't give you the goods. (I've seen GB do this before, anyone know what's up with that?). I'd really like more info from the below poster before restoring, but judging from here comments, she's done with this. The Interior (Talk) 23:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused too, but the Jim Downey, long-time SNL writer, Harvard Grad is who the article is talking about. The Interior (Talk)

(ec) You're both confused because the explanation is confusing. :-) If I understand Jespah (Jespah's Talk page is a little clearer), there are two Downeys, both of whom appeared on SNL, but the one who just did a short appearance is the brother of Robert Sr. However, putting aside the probabilities of two James (Jim) Downeys on SNL, there is only one James Downey listed on IMDb and connected to SNL (as an actor, producer, writer, etc.). Although IMDb is not a wholly reliable source, it's pretty good when it comes to cast information, etc. Plus, there is zero proof of what Jespah is saying, just his/her say-so, which ain't good enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wish you all could see your comments from the perspective of one who actually knows Jim Downey. Very funny. IMDB does, indeed, include the work of both James and Jim Downey into one profile of a James Downey. Amazed at how not one of you really researched this. But you know it all... Here's a clue... look for a photo of the Jim Downey who appeared on Kate & Allie and the James Downey who wrote for SNL. Nell 07:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

response to interior re downey bio

you can choose to believe me or not - that is up to you. i don't need to discuss this. the james downey I know is referred to as jim downey, not james. he co-authored parodies of some of martha stewart's work. Nell 22:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC) refactored from bottom of page by The Interior (Talk) 23:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC) note: this poster is User:JespahReply

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

Just to let you know, the "F" word is inappropriately used in the line talking about Corneille leaving Germany. You probably would want to Corneille (singer)edit that out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.41.210 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the heads up. It was already reverted it by the time I looked at it. For the future, you can revert the vandalism yourself if you wish. See Help:Reverting. However, if you feel uncomfortable doing so, reporting it is appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

- Gavin Menzies "vexatious litigant"

The Gavin Menzies article currently makes the simple statement that he was found to be a "vexatious litigant" by a British court. I wanted to add a bit of detail, and made my suggestion on the talk page. But then I read WP:BLP, which made me think that my proposed addition might not be appropriate. Could someone please comment? The discussion is at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gavin_Menzies#.22vexatious_litigant.22
Thanks! --Other Choices (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Said editor made the following comment yesterday "If we are to be expected to heed Reed and the body of 'historians' she represents..." [16]

I understand this violates policy under WP:BLPTALK (not limited to to said person's bio), and that is "contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" WP:BLPREMOVE. I said this was an attack [17], and he claims otherwise [18].

Annette Gordon Reed is a highly respected, Pulitzer Prize winning historian [19]; deniers of the Jefferson/Hemings relationship often seek to discredit Gordon-Reed. It's clear from his comment he also questioned if Finkelman was an historian, though he's a respected academic (Phd, writer etc) said editor happens to disagree with [20].

His denialist/unfounded claims on the Hemings/Jefferson affair were commented on the fringe board [21]. He made similar comments on Paul Finkelman in Jan [22], and ignored warnings [23]. His demands to change the article now have added what I'd say is an attack on someone who "is recognized as one of our country’s most distinguished presidential scholars" [24]. I've got reason to believe some of his other comments/edits, on speculation directed towards Sally Hemings & Gordon-Reed, may support racial views incompatible with wikipedia's stated mission. Singling out Reed (an African American) without any basis is worrisome, particularly when this is what she herself describes as a problem. Ebanony (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

While I agree with you on the substance of the issue and am fine with the phrasing of the lede, on reviewing his comments, I don't think that the other editor's comments (while a little bit edgy with that "entities" crack) cross the line into the type of contentious material that can be deleted from Talk pages. Deleting other people's comments on Talk pages is highly disfavored, and the gist of his remarks is that he doesn't believe certain material belongs in the lede, but only elsewhere in the article. This is an acceptable position for him to take, even if against consensus. Jonathanwallace (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the comment & the clarification. Thank you for looking into the matter.Ebanony (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

^ "Peaches Geldof dropped by lingerie company Ultimo". The Independant. March 29, 2010. Retrieved March 13, 2011.,
^ "Underwear Label, Ultimo, Dumps Peaches Geldof". Courtesy:Agences - via Oneindia.in. March 31, 2010. Retrieved March 12, 2011.