Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive28
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arn Menconi – Conversation dormant. Please relist for ongoing concerns. – 11:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
This article is lifted word for word from The Eagle County Board of Commissioners website, a board on which Mr. Menconi serves (http://www.eaglecounty.us/electedOfficials/commissioners.cfm). According to Wikipedia's rules for biographical entries: "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source." This article seems like an obvious violation of that rule. Nojoke89 04:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
John Stossel – Conversation dormant. Please re-list for ongoing concerns. – 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
I am reopening a WP:WEIGHT complaint in the John Stossel article after a new subsection has been added to the already very long Criticism section. The previous complaint is here. I have expressed my complaint here. I am hoping to get some input from neutral parties, especially an administrator. There has been no edit warring. I took my complaint to the talk page before attempting any edits. I fear any edits will result in an edit war. The debate has been civil. But again, I would like some neutral parties to look at the article. --JHP 03:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Update. The apparent truce only lasted a day or two. 2-3 editors are now adding all the criticism they can source, and aggressively reverting attempts to prune it under a bold claim that BLP does not limit the scope or extent of critical material they can add as long as the source is good. I've cautioned them that the article is heading for edit protection, mediation, and possibly arbitration if they can't restrain themselves but I doubt the warning will do any good. I've probably done all I can do; if someone else wants to give it a try or can speak with more authority than me, perhaps that could help. Wikidemo 22:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Murder of Joseph Wallace – Cleaned. – 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
BirgitteSB 16:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC) I know there was a lot of talk about children who died as a result of crimes as well as their surviving siblings. I never followed that talk enough to learn how it was decided such things would be handled so I thought I would bring this article to this noticeboard and hopefully the attention of editors who are familiar with result of that talk.--
I reverted this. This article probably needs to be watched closely for a while.--BirgitteSB 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Tacita Dean – Conversation dormant. Please re-list for ongoing concerns. – 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Today unregistered user removed large sections from Tacita Dean, that deal with sensitive issues. Much work was put into nPOV and to fully cite, being revised by several users, the citations are trustworthy. After reversion the same unregistered user made large additions of un-sourced, containing much personal info that had to be removed (to talk page); info that appeared to "counter" the issues they appear to contest. While the addition does add to article it was totally unsourced and had too much personal info. Artlondon 23:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Neal Winter – Article deleted – 16:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi – AfD succeeded, no longer an issue – 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
easybackgroundcheck and rickross for which those websites do not cite any primary sources. SooperJoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) appears to feel that these websites are suitable references (Talk:Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi#Restoring_Changes_2). I'd now like some guidance on whether material sourced solely from easybackgroundcheck can be considered authoritative for allegations of criminal activity on WP or not. I believe we have managed to resolve the rickross issue by identifying an alternative reference. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC) appears to suffer from frequent insertion of what I consider to be poorly sourced references supporting allegations of criminal activity by a living person. As such material is potentially libellous, I've been in the habit of removing, for example, material based solely on the websites
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Daniel Wallace (plaintiff) – Article moved. – 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
This article does not read like a biography. Instead it mainly focuses on the two lawsuits filed (Wallace vs FSF and Wallace vs IBM et al). I think that a more reflective title is in order. I can only think of "Wallace vs FSF and Wallace vs IBM et al", which is rather lengthy... Any suggestions? --Iamunknown 07:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems fairly clear to me that the only important aspect of the case is that some litigation reached the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, who decided that the question to be answered was:
Thus the best name for this article is probably something like "Wallace versus International Business Machines et all" (IBM was the primary defendant by the time the case reached the appeal stage. The case can probably be written up from legal reports. This is a very important case, actually. The circuit judge decided that
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Jonathan Lee Riches – Sourced, neutral version of article created. – 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted earlier this afternoon by Swatjester due to BLP violations. Was the entire article unsalvageable? It has been recently linked from The Inquirer and Apple Insider, and there is a section in this article that I found to be quite informative, about the reasons someone with untreated paranoid schizophrenia would be prone to going off their meds while in confinement. I'd like to make sure this article absolutely had to be deleted instead of having a few sections reworded. Could we restore from the original and make changes to help it better conform to wikipedia standards? For reference, the article can be viewed in the Google Cache. Thank you. 216.19.180.137 01:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
last name of jack/flemming mackell – Articles moved. – 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
the "k" in their last name is not a capital —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.33.16.2 (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ginger (singer) – Article scoured. – 12:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
The whole 'Personal Life' section has ZERO sources and includes graphic references to drug use & depression. Badly needs looking at. Exxolon 23:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Tania Head – AfD resulted in keep – 12:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Tania Head was president of a 9/11 survivors group, but did not appear to have had much notability until the New York Times ran an exposé questioning her claims, and questioning whether she had a fiance/spouse killed in the collapse, questioning whether she really worked in one of the towers, whether she was burned in the event, whether she was rescued by a heroic martyr of the collapse, etc. The article was created after the exposé ran. It was immediately tagged as CSD-7 for speedy deletion [3] , that was challenged, then I nominated it for AFD as a WP:COATRACK, and as being contrary to WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. The article bears watching because it has had vicious vandalism [4] and because she was for a time categorized as an imposter, which was later judged a premature label [5]. Edison 21:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Betty Dodson – Article scoured. – 12:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
This is an alert that I have removed potentially libellous material about Betty Dodson from her Wiki entry. I want it on record that I have taken this step in case there is future edit warring about it. Timothy Perper 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Jon Kennedy – Scourted – 12:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Jon Kennedy and several related articles have been the subject of repeated BLP violations for many months now. I have watchlisted all the affected articles (that I know of) and semi-protected Jon Kennedy indefinitely. But not being that familiar with Wikipedia's BLP policies as it relates to deleting the offending edits, I'd like someone experienced to take a look and see if the edits should be deleted from the history (many of the edit summaries contain the offending accusations). Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Talk:Perverted-Justice – Conversation dormant. Please relist for ongoing concerns. – 12:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Shannon Selberg – Article scoured & sourced – 12:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Pettingill family – Conversation dormant. Please relist for ongoing concerns. – 12:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
No sources. Criminal allegations against various members of this family.--BirgitteSB 19:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Jason Leopold – Issues addressed – 12:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
STOP POSTIN DEFAMATORY AND LIBELOUS STATEMENTS ABOUT LEOPOLD AND THINGS YOU CLAIM HE SAID. THERE IS A PUBLIC RECORD AND HE NEVER, EVER SAID HE WOULD OUT HIS SOURCES IF HIS STORY WAS WRONG. THAT IS A MYTH PERPETUATED BY THE BLOGOSPHERE AND BASED ENTIRELY ON SHODDY FACTS AND SOURCING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.83.153 (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Additional material was reverted again, and I restored it. Someone else please have a look. ←BenB4 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC) The bias is so blatant and obvious on the Jason Leopold biography and I fully intend to report it and have it either removed permanently or corrected if it is not addressed. there is absolutely no balance to this entry and it comes across as a hit piece on Leopold and his work. The language needs to be objective and right now it comes across as if Wiki has taken a position on Leopold. While it's abundantly clear that many of the people who worked on the Leopold article are blatantly biased toward him and his work it is wrong to allow that bias to become part of the story. PLEASE, ONCE AND FOR ALL, CORRECT THIS. Someone needs to do more research than the first two or three pages of google. How about a little more information on his groundbreaking work on Enron and the California energy crisis? Then that can be set next to the so-called controversies and allow readers to make their own opinion. And to include a section that says "FIRINGS" is libelous as well. He was not fired from Dow Jones. He was fired from the LA Times. And having a separate section on that is RIDICULOUS! People get fired all the time. That does not make him controversial. I suggest the people who work on Leopold's bio go to the library and read his book which has a ton of documents and supporting material. This is bad and IT MUST BE ADDRESSED! --Herb Cantonowitz, Newport Beach, CA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.83.153 (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
the article that the people who prepared this horribly sourced entry have quoted comes from an article that quotes an article as opposed to the original source. In the KARL ROVE section of the entry it says that Marc Ash said the information Truthout obtained stating that Rove was indicted was based on a single source. THAT IS BLATANTLY WRONG and SERIOUSLY LIBELOUS!!!!!!! That is not what Ash was speaking about, if anyone took the time to read the original article. Ash was referring to a sealed indictment, 06 CR 128, in which he has single source information. HE WAS NOT SPEAKING ABOUT THE KARL ROVE STORY INDICTMENT STORY. HE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT A SEPARATE INDICTMENT THAT WAS SEALED, AND THE SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION WAS REFERRING TO THAT, NOT TO THE ROVE STORY!!! THIS MUST BE CORRECTED IMMEDIATELY! I AM SICK AND TIRED OF HAVING TO FORCE YOU ALL TO CHECK YOUR SOURCES! YOU ARE WORSE THAN THE VERY PEOPLE YOU EXCORIATE. Look at the original article that Ash wrote as opposed to quoting from an article in CJR in which the author of said article was forced to make serious corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.83.153 (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This information in the jason leopold biography IS FLAT OUT FALSE! [4] On June 13, Truthout's executive director Marc Ash backtracked from that position, saying that the story was based "on single source information and general background information obtained from experts."[citation needed]The grand jury concluded with no indictment of Rove.[5] THIS REFERS TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STORY ON ROVE! THIS IS ABOUT A SEALED INDICTMENT! That story, and not the rove indictment story, is what Ash is saying they had one source for FIX THIS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.61 (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As improbable as it may seem, I believe the issues raised have been addressed. Might as well leave it open a week though, just in case. 1of3 02:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Barbara Schwarz – Conversation dormant. Please relist for ongoing concerns. – 12:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
An editor keeps adding material from this webpage: [7]. It says about itself: “This page is a collection of resources and opinions others have posted on the web about Barbara Schwarz, as well as information she provided herself either via newspapers, court documents, or Usenet. As such, each item is up to the reader to decide how accurate it is, and draw their own conclusions.” That does not seem like a reliable source for information on a living person to me. Steve Dufour 19:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Abdul Rahman (convert) – Conversation dormant. Please relist for ongoing concerns. – 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. | |||
Hello, Can fellow wikipedians tell me if the following edit violates WP:BLP:[8] If it does can you please quote the part of WP:BLP that it violates? A wikipedian has reverted the edit citing "BLP" concerns. Thanks in advance.Bless sins 01:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
(Reset indent)The first place to look is at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. As part of the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View policy, it's incorporated by strong reference in the second sentence of WP:BLP: "must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies: Neutral point of view". Further down, under WP:BLP#Criticism, it is addressed in more detail:
Recognizing what constitutes a disproportionate amount of space, obviously, requires some individual judgment and consensus amongst involved editors. We are urged to construct BLPs conservatively and reminded that "[a]n important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". --Moonriddengirl 15:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Please note that most of my edit constitutes of listing facts. If facts are notable (in this case they are because they were published by TIME) and undisputed, then I see no violation of BLP in adding them. Please compare that with Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais where a third of the article is devoted to critics discussing his alleged statements. Bless sins 20:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Talk:Fall Out Boy – Scoured – 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
This administrator [9] has added what I think is libelous comments about Tom Cruise, Justin Timberlake and Wentworth Millar. Should this be allowed?
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Eric Robert Hume, James Kovalesky and Harry Kirk Elarbee – All tagged for speedy. – 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
The only thing notable about Eric Robert Hume, James Kovalesky and Harry Kirk Elarbee is that they're accused in Europe of being CIA pilots who ferried Khalid El-Masri into CIA custody. (No word on whether the janitor's name has yet been determined.) The source appears to be Sourcewatch, which is another wiki. Sourcewatch's article does have some real sources, but I don't think they're substantive enough to be making such charges against a living person, particularly when this is the sort of thing that could change that status. -- Randy2063 01:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Sharon Weinberger – Conversation dormant. Please relist for ongoing concerns. – 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Background: Sharon Weinberger is a journalist who wrote a book on the topic of nuclear isomer weapons in 2006. The book described how a researcher, Carl Collins, received a large amount of money from various government sources to pursue claims that were eventually deemed fabulous by a large portion of the scientific community, notably the JASONs. Collins and his wife have spammed her amazon page and created a site, [10], consisting mainly of rambling diatribes. He also has a history of using sockpuppets on blogs and forums discussing the subject. Anyway. User User:Drac2000 is a single-issue editor, only editing topics related to nuclear isomers to defend the concept. He has two main objectives for the Sharon Weinberger page: to remove the link to her homepage and to insert the claim that her book is "fictionalized." His source for this claim is a link to Collins' website. My interpretation of this claim is that it is libelous, as it implies she knowingly misrepresented material to produce the appearance of non-fiction. Drac2000 insists on this phrase instead of merely calling the book controversial. He also has some frankly bizarre semantic argument about how this is not a defamatory statement but I don't understand it. // Bartleby 21:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Jennifer Garner – Issue resolved – 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
The questionable material and link has been removed. Sam Blacketer 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
DCBA-25 has violated the 3RR by repeatedly reinserting a link into the Jennifer Garner article three times in five hours [11]. The link contains a website which is self-published by DCBA-25 and contains unverified claims of Garner getting her ears "pierced", along with photos that were taken from numerous Garner sites and Photoshopped by the site creator to give the appearance of "pierced" ears. She also uses an article which she claims to have obtained from a British magazine that claims she got her ears "pierced" [12], but I searched the web for proof of this magazine and found no proof of its existence, leading to the conclusion that she created the "article" herself. The site contains self-created research and clearly falls far short of meeting WP:BLP and verifiability and its link should be removed and kept off of the article. Creativity-II 03:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
John Bockris – Issue resolved – 23:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Issue resolved. Sam Blacketer 23:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
John Bockris is a tenured professor who has made many controversial claims, and I personally don't think much of him. But his article is an inadequately-sourced hatchet job, and I think it could invite problems in its current form. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Daniel Passent – Problem on Polish Wikipedia only – 10:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
This problem relates to the Polish Wikipedia and not the English one, and should be addressed there. Sam Blacketer 10:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
In the polish version of the article is a sections entitled "Oskarżenia o współpracę z SB". It is to a large extend based on speculations and hearsay and as such may lead to legal problems. Nirrod 13:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Michael E. J. Witzel – Conversation dormant. Please relist for ongoing concerns. – 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
CIA abduction bios – Conversation dormant. Please relist for ongoing concerns. – 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
A few days ago, I deleted two articles about supposed CIA pilots who took part in an abduction, because the only source was a Wiki, which is by definition not a reliable source. The author of those articles has complained on my talk page, requesting undeletion... and he has given better sources, but they aren't in English. The claims about these two people, that they are involved in some big conspiracy/crime, seem to be exactly the kind of thing BLP exists to deal with... so I'm reluctant to undelete, given the apparrant nonexistence of sources in English. So, if possible, could I get an outside opinion here? --W.marsh 13:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A – Issue resolved – 20:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
The lists were kept after a recent AfD debate; particular cases can continue to be brought here. Sam Blacketer 20:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A is a featured list. However, there are several people listed who are not referred to as "gay", "lesbian", or "bisexual" in any listed source. The first example I found was Christina Aguilera. The source listed notes that she kissed a woman in a media event, and said women's lips were soft. The article did not refer to her as gay or bisexual, and she has never referred to herself that way. No source claims she is gay or bi, and no source claims she has ever had sex with someone of the same sex. I claim that calling her gay or bi is OR, and could be seen as slander by some people. I removed her from the list, but my removal was reverted, and the page was protected (with the unsourced allegation kept). There are probably many more people listed who were never called gay or bi in reputable sources. (Jane Adams, for instance, is listed; however the source given specifically does not say she was gay or bisexual, but only that she had a long-standing friendship with a woman which was probably non-sexual.) What should be done? – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Since lists are often used as an alternative to categories, I am inclined to apply the BLP criteria for the use of categories to lists. That might be considered a bit harsh by some. - Crockspot 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It strikes me that sexual orientation is rarely related to the reason that a person is notable. Simply listing people by purported sexual orientation makes just about as much sense as listing people by hair colour. The only individuals who should be on this list would be ones whose corresponding article describes their sexual orientation, and the reason that it is noteworthy. I tend to agree with Crockspot, though; a category makes a bit more sense rather than a list. Risker 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, unsourced allegations should be quickly deleted, it seems to me, and especially so in sensitive topics like this. It's especially complex for sexuality. One British MP was apparently a closeted homosexual -- after his death it was revealed that several people saw him at gay bars with attractive men, and one man claims to have been his lover. But he never called himself gay, and his family objects to the characterization. Another comedienne had a romantic relationship with a lesbian, but calls herself "straight". Another actor claims "I'm a bisexual who has never been with a man". These are are actual cases, by the way. The source for one woman casually mentions that another woman is her "life partner", but doesn't go into any detail on what that means. It's very thorny, and it's especially difficult because of the negative stigma that many perceive. I've kept all those cases listed, but I don't know where to draw the line. The Christina Ag case is pretty clear-cut, but others aren't. Keep in mind this is a featured list -- the best that Wikipedia has to offer. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
So. . . Ms. Aguilera has never referred to herself as gay or bisexual. . . no reputable source has ever referred to herself as gay or bisexual. . . and no source has said that she has committed an act that would be unambiguously gay or bisexual (e.g. had a romantic or sexual relationship with a female). And yet she is listed as "gay or bisexual" in a featured list, due to some editor's interpretations of her comments. Am I the only one troubled by this? Isn't this just the sort of thing that could lead to a libel suit against the Foundation? – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
As a further note, one could easily see Bob Allen or Larry Craig listed on the same list. Even though neither member of Congress has ever referred to himself as "gay" or "bisexual", and even though no reputable news source has ever said they were gay or bisexual, a Wikipedian could reasonably claim that "straight men don't solicit anonymous sex from men in public restrooms" and place them on the list. But this is the exact sort of thing that WP:BLP was created to prevent. How is the Christina Aguilera case any different? – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I find this list troubling. First, while being labeled as gay does not upset me at all, some people do not share my open mindedness and would consider being labeled gay offensive. Some people could legitimately argue that being labeled gay could cause actual damage regardless of whether is it offensive or not. Consider an assistant to a conservative politician who could be fired from his/her job. Second, being gay is a state of mind. I'm not debating if you are born or decide to be gay, but I'm saying that unless you can read someone's mind you cannot determine if they are gay or not. If you see two men having sex, it does not mean they are gay, even if the both agree that it was pleasurable. Certainly kissing another woman does not make you gay. I'm not clear on how this whole list is useful at all, and certainly putting people on it just because someone thinks the person is gay is plain stupid. People should be placed on the list if they have made a documented declaration indicating that they are gay. (Equivalent statements would be fine as long as they are not ambiguous.) Doing it based on observations, or hearsay is improper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Temp432 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Adi Da – Conversation dormant. Please relist for ongoing concerns. – 11:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
This is a report on user Dseer using the Adi Da Talk page for constant denigration of Adi Da and publisher ( Dawn Horse Press) , putting long strings of poorly sourced rumor , hearsay and negative propaganda into every sentence he writes user -202.63.42.221 (me) has consistently asked him to desist as per WP:BLP with no effect, could someone kindly point this out to him, and look at archiving or removing offending material Adi Da Talk --202.63.42.221 09:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
213 (group) – Issue stale. – 15:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
I have encountered this problem in not only this article, but in very few. This is the situation: I remove the unsourced material from the articles, the user spots this and somehow he doesn't like my action and revert it. He explain his action with something similar like "you can't remove the article because there are no source". Or "just put the unsourced template and let people find the references for their self." I have warned the user and told to read the official guidelines, so this is really the last option I had because it seems he just won't get it. He made some type of statement of this problem in my talk page. I really did not understand what he wanted to say there. Let me include just some of the articles: 213 (group), Young Noble, Raw Footage, B.G. Knocc Out. I had another problem with this user, he created the article Westside Slaughterhouse that is a song from the rapper Mack 10, the song is in Mack 10's album. This artists is a member of a group which the other two members are featured guests in this song. I think that as being a song from a solo artists featuring two other guests it's not necessary to put the group's template. What I spoke with the user is that the three members are not in the song as the group, but he just keep adding the template. I don't know if the user may think he owns the article or what. It's getting into an edit war. I know the above problem may have nothing to do with living persons, but I just don't know what to do and if any administrator takes action in both problem I would really appreciate it. Thanks.--Tasc0 19:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Another thing when it is a group what u left out would be "NAME" is a group who was founded by bla bla and they released .... and a discography then end everything. For me your just a disgrace to edit in wiki rather than help u just keep removing stuff because doesent cite sources. Not a personal attack but that's what i think. U think u know the right edits but they are all annoying which adds nothing but just removes. West Coast Ryda 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Impersonating me/my accountPlease read this message. It is relevant and actions should be taken. What the hell is this?--Tasc0 22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa) – Article deleted. – 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Does this article violate WP:BLP? Corvus cornix 23:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Avraham Gileadi – Not a BLP issue. – 23:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
This bio of a religious scholar cites no sources, though it is fairly detailed. There are many publications in a bibliography, but it is my impression that they are not sources for the bio itself, but rather a list of the subject's publications. --Pleasantville 00:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Javier Pérez de Cuéllar – Contentious material removed. – 23:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
A particular user persists in adding a section claiming that Pérez de Cuéllar was witness to an alien abduction, referenced by a non-credible source. Per Wikipedia policy controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. The user in question has not responded positively to discussion on the article's talk page. HiramShadraski 19:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Harry Kirkpatrick – Opinions given, no further comment received. – 15:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
I am adding the names of people convicted of offences. Theses offenses were subsequentlt quashed. There is a BLP spat going on. I do not see a problem. Please advise. Aatomic1 21:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Gustav Schäfer – Article redirected to Tokio Hotel. – 15:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
I am not a professional writer, neither am I a great cultural critic, but I am simple man, who might be insulted too easily. The page of Gustav Schäfer, same as other pages of members of Tokio Hotel, is insulting my subjective intelligence. As i said, i am not too smart, naeither am I a musical snob. I'm not a fan of Tokio Hotel, but I have nothing against them as a money machine with some talented kids. What is humiliating about this page, and maybe i'm too radical, is that as aspiring musicians, the page defines their style, and i quote -Style Georg's style consists mainly of casual jeans and tight t-shirts . His hair is shoulder length with layers, and he straightens his hair daily. or "Personality and Style Despite favouring skateboard-orientated brands, such as Element and Vans, it is unknown if he participates in the sport at all. He is also known to wear an extensive collection of Metallica T-shirts on various occasions. Gustav is the only member of Tokio Hotel who needs glasses, and he can sometimes be seen in interviews wearing his fashionable, square, thick black frames. Although he reputedly drinks on occasion, Gustav is the only band member who has expressed a dislike for the taste of alcohol" these pieces of extra information (which is, if you ask me, not really important, unless you want to make clones of the band, and you define your prototype) might be OK as extra information about their lifestyle, but as i see it, i can't see Muddy Waters' "Style" as being defined - "second hand cloths from pawn shops and cheap tobacco, wearing old shoes". It is just not serious, it's an immediate slope to what is Wikipedia's worst nightmare - making people dumber. It's a back door entrance to ignorance and i think it should be considered. MarkRabWegner 22:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Paul Danan – Everything sourced. – 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
While our most egregrious slur on Mr. Danan has, after a month of publication, been removed,[18] the rest of this mostly unsourced article is distinctly unflattering. I believe it should be deleted to protect Mr. Danan from further attack.Proabivouac 00:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Sultan Catto – Article deleted. – 15:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
The current entry on Sultan Catto is a travesty, it is riddled with whole cloth fabrications, misinformation, bad judgement, and bad English. Your article glosses a career that is thoroughly unremarkable. The article's very existence is inexplicable. I have watched this entry go through a series of completely misleading revisions. In the current version, which is by far the most moderate, one can easily identify misrepresented information with little effort. First, fabrications: Professor Catto is not the author of over a hundred publications. He is according to the Spires database (http://slac.stanford.edu/spires/) the author or co-author of 28 papers. Many of them are unpublished or appear in proceedings as talks based on previous work. His citation record is unremarkable. I invite you to study the list and see for yourself. If this is not a complete list, has the author of the entry seen and confirmed such a list to substantiate the 100+ claim? Catto is not a professor of physics at Rockefeller University. He is an adjunct faculty member there. Have you checked to see what his precise relationship is to the Krumb School of Mines at Columbia? I don't think there is anything to it, but check. Second, the misrepresentations: The Benjamin W. Lee prize is a prize given to a student at the annual summer school held in Erice, Italy every year. I was a student there myself and I know how the award decision is made. It is not based on the brilliance of one's work. It is based on (supposedly) the quality of one's participation in the school. There are around ten prizes handed out each year to student participants. The Nobel Laureates who, we are told, thought Catto worthy of this prize were probably speakers at the school that particular year. They presumably awarded the remaining prizes named after various physicists to other graduate students and young postdocs in attendance at the school. Isn't it an elementary journalistic duty to check the accuracy of such a claim and to see if there are other recipients who can confirm the existence and basis for the prize. What is the "prestigious Josiah W. Gibbs fellowship" your article speaks of? Who else has been bestowed the same honor? I seriously doubt the statement "He is widely considered to be one of world's leading authorities on higher dimensional algebraic structures". How do you substantiate something as vague as this. Is there a person you can quote who remotely thinks this? I very much doubt it. Third, bad judgment, bad English: Why Catto? There are physicists far more brilliant and influential at CUNY than Catto. In its many revisions, the article maintains fanciful, unsubstantiated relationships to everyone from the Tolstoy family, to Pushkin, to all other manner of connections that show a remarkable level of credulity as well as lack of journalistic integrity on the part of the author - what are the sources for these connections? Even in its current manifestation, an irrelevant connection to a soccer star is mentioned along with the fact that this person "played for Cosmos with great Pele". Even the soccer star's own entry makes no mention of playing with Pele. The article is riddled with bad English: the style, grammar and spelling show a lack of scholarly seriousness. Just two minor examples: the word "monogram" instead of "monograph" appears in the entry, as well as the aforementioned "[he] played for Cosmos with great Pele". In conclusion: This article concerns a rather irrelevant physicist and contains statements that are at best misleading and at worst fabricated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.237.86.7 (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Sean Salisbury – BLP violating material removed. – 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
relevant Google News search comes up empty. This New York Post column (see the last section) appears to confirm the Deadspin report, and I've added it to the article. However, since we generally don't rely on blogs, particularly for something controversial like this, and since the Post column doesn't mention the specifics of the prank, I'd be grateful if other editors could review it. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC) — I'm concerned about the "Controversy" section in this article. The cited sources are blogs, except for the CBS Sports entry, which does not mention Salisbury's name. A
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Blackwater USA arms smuggling allegations – No issue. – 15:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
User:Ipankonin raised some concerns on the talk page, and it's such a smallish group of people working there I wanted to air it out here to make sure nothing is missed. As mentioned in this section of the talk page, the Blackwater USA arms smuggling allegations#Blackwater USA Background section, is a possible BLP violation. Would more eyes be willing to take a look at this, and at this article? The background section was intended as just that--a short background on Blackwater USA for this article, so that someone could gain all the relevant info on the subject contained in Blackwater USA arms smuggling allegations without having to click anywhere else. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Jim Bede
Ronz 16:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
. Seeking additional help determining severity of the problems and as well as approaches to resolving them. Editors refuse to allow contentious material to be removed from the article per BLP, backed with threats of blocking. Making some progress at this point, but outside help would be appreciated. --Ronz 18:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
. Same content is being disputed here as well. --- This strikes me as a somewhat misleading telling of the events.
- Ronz started clipping content for BLP without first contacting interested parties to see if his concerns were even real. One editor complained and provided a reference, but it was again removed because, in Ronz's estimation, it only supported some of the statement. Other clippings followed, along with similar comments by other editors, including one extremely well known aviation contributer and admin. I then received a note on my talk page by a 3rd party. Although some attempt at reaching consensus was made, Ronz became somewhat "non-responsive". All of this can be seen on the talk page.
- Thankfully, Shot Info came in and was nice enough to go through the article and tag it. I immediately went in and followed it up by providing references, 17 no less. As it stood yesterday, there were only two statements left that were not directly referenced, and I am waiting for confirmation on these issues from third parties. I also posted back on the talk page, twice, asking for further examples so I could find references for them, or make sure the references I was providing were good enough.
- Instead of responding, Ronz posted here saying we were "refusing" to work on the problem. This is obviously untrue. Nevertheless other editors, apparently credulous, immediately jumped in and started removing any content they thought was controversial. This included statements directly supported in the attached references. The edits have occurred so quickly and without proper oversight that the article now contains text that disagrees with the attached references, broken references, tags complaining about statements that have been removed, and contradictory statements. Nicely done everyone!
- You will also note that Ronz did not bother to inform me that the post had been made here. Nor did any of the other editors. There isn't a single note by any of them here, in the article talk page, or in any related area. In fact, the only way I knew of this was due to an offhand reference in Lawrence Cohen's checkin notes which allowed me to find this.
- Frankly I would have expected better. Ronz has been invited to reach consensus on several occasions by at least two editors, and has failed to do so, and has seemingly given up on that effort. Although all of this was recorded on the talk page, the other editors joined the fray also without attempting to address the issues. This flies in the face of everything the wikipedia is supposed to be. A single editor should not be able to avoid an attempt to reach consensus simply by posting on a noticeboard, but this is precisely what has happened here. You should not allowed to wield wiki rules as a weapon to win arguments!
- Whatever. I don't have the energy to keep up. Clip away!
- Maury 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)