Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive31

In August this year, while RC patrolling, I came across this edit by IamJennaG. Judging by her edit summary, she claims to be Jenna Gibbons. The user requested that her full name not be made public. There was a similar case with The New York Times writer Touré who didn't want his last name shown. The Mediation Cabal Case in Talk:Touré resulted in his last name being removed because of WP:BLP concerns. Perhaps the Jenna Gibbons article can be renamed to simply "Jenna G" (assuming the user is who she says she is). Spellcast 21:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The user has never returned to Wikipedia. Either it wasn't her, or it wasn't a big deal. --Orange Mike 21:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on her talk page shortly after her edit to see if she would respond. But since there was no reply, I decided to let it pass. Just thought I might as well bring it up here. Better late than never. Spellcast 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I ran across this article today and was surprised to see a pretty lopsided POV on the cookbook thing. The account reads like someone's opinion. For example, one comment starts out "Interestingly..." and then proceeds to insinuate Seinfeld and/or Harper Collins lifted ideas from another cookbook. I think this article could use more help. . --Horoball 21:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I took out some of the worst stuff. Steve Dufour 14:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• The content of the dispute is discussed here: Talk: David North (Trotskyist)I do not think that any other information is required to have this dispute settled and the relavant link removed. However, if it is necessary to substantiate in greater detail the nature of the violation of Wikipedia policy I will do so. // Joekay 04:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• [1]

I work for MTV and am updating the biographies for all the MTV host which where written by them. How would I source this if its in a word document? Also why were the links taken down if it links you to video footage of the host themselves? Jamierush 17:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Jamie Rush

1) A Word document is not a reliable source. Information in Wikipedia needs to come from neutral, verifiable third-party sources not linked to the subject of the article (or his/her advocates). 2) Those links were inappropriate, and violated our policies on external links. These articles are not to be used as a directory or advertising for the subject persons. Please - read and follow our policies on conflict of interest. Briefly, an MTV employee is advised not to edit or create such articles at all (except for certain non-controversial edits, such as to repair blatant vandalism) but to instead use the talk page to request help from neutral editors. --Orange Mike 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of the defamatory statement "and pseudohistorian[1]/novelist." in the listing for Dr Robert Lomas is inaccurate and libelous. He has never published a novel and he The term which it replaced 'amateur historian' Is accurate and fair. The replacement term is damaging to the reputation of practicing academic who works at reputable university and runs that university's masonic archive. I would suggest the phrase contravenes Wikipedia's policy on making libelous statements about living people and helps bring the site into deserving disrepute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.68.134 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no article Dr Robert Lomas are you thinking of Robert Lomas? Oysterguitarist 22:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing in this article that really asserts this person's importance, other than being a socialite, yet it's full of attacks on his character. Corvus cornix 04:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am placing that article in AfD. Not a notable individual. 04:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs)

• Marilyn Carroll - There have been repeated entries by a few users to add in information from an opinion article written by a POV source in a student-run newspaper. The comments from this source do not match statistics found in the peer-reviewed journal articles, so I don't see it as a reliable source just because it is in a newspaper (additional thoughts on this at Talk:Marilyn Carroll). Would someone be able to check and offer their opinions? Thanks! // Umn student 06:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor edit war on this text. The main cited source is a website called "Exxonsecrets", run by Greenpeace. There is also an opinion piece from The Guardian that briefly touches on Singer.

I have concerns about this kind of sourcing in a BLP article. The allegation is financial conflict of interest, and I believe the sources are weak for such a loaded charge. I also believe there are WP:WEIGHT issues - for an article this small to devote a large paragraph to a poorly worded and vague charge is not appropriate.

Input is appreciated. ATren 01:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The allegation has been reported by a major newspaper (The Guardian, and it was not an "opinion piece" either) and highlighted by Greenpeace, both notable organizations. It is not "tabloidy" and does not fall under presumption in favor of privacy - it's directly relevant to the work that Singer is notable for. This would appear to fall under the portion of WP:BLP stating: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." MastCell ^Talk 04:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Greenpeace is a strongly POV organization, and thus is a weak reed to lean upon for reliable sourcing. --Orange Mike 04:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the author of the Guardian article is an environmental activist. So the sources cited are an environmental organization and an environmental activist. ATren 05:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that most criticism is going to come from hostile sources. The primary sources on which Greenpeace draw make it clear that SEPP (=Singer) was funded by ExxonMobil. The article notes that the evidence regarding tobacco is not conclusive, but you'd have to be pretty naive to suppose he was doing it because of a late-life switch of field to epidemiology. As regards policy, note that what WP:RS requires here is that we verify the allegation has been made by a serious group, not that it is correct.JQ 06:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Further note that WP:BLP requires "We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'." So your contention that we don't have to be "correct" in this circumstance is bogus.

I also think that the fact we are "discussing this" while the section remains visible in the article is in itself a violation of WP:BLP. --GoRight 17:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS specifically disallows extremist sources such as Greenpeace. Iceage77 08:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Are others opposed to the inclusion of this material agreed with Iceage77 that their objections rest on the claim that Greenpeace is an Extremist group?JQ 10:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; they are a group with strong POV; that's not the same as "extremist"! --Orange Mike 13:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The allegations themselves are also vague. There is a vague tie to tobacco, but no evidence of actual money being exchanged. And there is no evidence he received money from Exxon directly - the Exxonsecrets site indicates Exxon contributed to organizations Singer was involved in. IMO, the vagueness of the accusations combined with the partisan nature of the sources makes this a POV section. Now, I did find this Wash Post editorial] which seems to make a similar allegation, so I don't deny that people have made this claim. But the current section as it stands violates WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. I suggest the following sentence, not in a separate section, and sourced to the Wash Post editorial: "Environmental activists have questioned Singer's past involvement with oil companies and automobile manufacturers, which have a vested interest in fighting off reductions of carbon dioxide emissions." ATren 14:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The WP comment is a direct statement of fact, not attributed to "environmental activists". And there are good primary sources for the fact, noted by critics, that he has worked with the tobacco industries. So the material should read something like "Singer has worked as a consultant to tobacco companies, oil companies and automobile manufacturers. Critics have argued that this constitutes a conflict of interest in relation to his work downplaying the dangers of tobacco smoke and CO2 emissions."JQ 23:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion of this material. Greenpeace is clearly a biased source in this context and if you follow the link provided there are allegations made but no sources provided. Given this, we have no reason at this point to believe that they have not simply fabricated everything found there on Singer. If more neutral and more direct sources are available, simply provide them and I will withdraw my objection to the inclusion of this section. I believe that WP:BLP is crystal clear on the demand for high quality references for contentious material as well as the need to "be right". --GoRight 17:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow. The ExxonSecrets site links to a vast array of sources. The Guardian piece is not "environmental activism" - it's published in a respected, mainstream newspaper with editorial oversight, fact-checking, a legal department, etc; it's not an "opinion piece" but a news report; and I don't think the efforts to dismiss it are at all reasonable. It's an entirely suitable WP:BLP source. But in answer to User:GoRight's request for "more neutral and direct sources" documenting Singer's ties to the oil industry, how about this recent Newsweek article on climate-change denial, which notes: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty. The plan was to train up to 20 "respected climate scientists" on media—and public—outreach with the aim of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom' " and, in particular, "the Kyoto treaty's scientific underpinnings" so that elected officials "will seek to prevent progress toward implementation." The plan, once exposed in the press, "was never implemented as policy," says Marshall's William O'Keefe, who was then at API." Does that help? MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I stand by my original statement that the Guardian article was written by an environmental activist, and barely touches on Singer. A Newsweek article is certainly more reliable. Now, was that so hard? :-) ATren 23:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, how does the NewsWeek piece demonstrate any conflict of interest? It demonstrates that "his group" attended a meeting. It does not demonstrate that he accepted any funds or helped in any way. For all we know they were invited to the meeting and when the whole thing was raised he objected and walked out of the room (assuming "he" was there at all). In the end the plan was never implemented anyway so, again, where's the conflict of interest? If this is the best Newsweek could come up with to smear Singer it isn't much of a smear. This is flimsy at best IMHO. This is nothing but guilt by association, pure and simple.

This is material better suited for the list of deniers page or the controversy page, not a BLP. --GoRight 04:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, and it's fine to request additional sources. Adding more sources is always a good thing. I do still reject the idea that a report published in The Guardian discussing a public figure in his public context is an unreliable source for a BLP, but fortunately in this case the item in question is backed by multiple sources, so perhaps we can consider this resolved? MastCell ^Talk 23:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll back down on the Monbiot piece even though he is biased. The publisher is reputable and the article does claim that Monbiot did some follow-up research which is note worthy I guess. If the section does not already do so, however, I will update it to briefly characterize Monbiot's views for additional perspective to the reader. --GoRight 04:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is another BLP for a global warming critic. The dispute involves two allegations that are sourced to blogs. See this historical link to the current revision. One claim is sourced to a personal blog, the other to a blog written by environmental group RealClimate.org. I believe these are insufficient sources for a BLP. Even if RealClimate might be acceptable on a (e.g.) the global warming page, I believe it is inappropriate to source for a BLP, especially for critical claims.

User:William M. Connolley has edit warred on inclusion of these allegations ([2], [3], [4]), which is also a concern given that Connolley is one of the contributors to RealClimate - so he is effectively linking to his own work. I am not going to revert this anymore, since I don't want to wander into 3RR territory, but I believe it is inappropriate. Input is welcome. ATren 21:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess global warming is the new big fad here on this page. :-) Steve Dufour 05:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They're both from me. :-) I was reading about global warming and came upon these two scientists' articles. I'd never heard of these scientists before, so I can't really evaluate their reputations, but the blog sources seemed to be blatant NLP violations. It appears that I may have taken too literally the uncompromising language of the official BLP policy. If it's common practice to allow self-published sources in BLP articles for non-personal criticism, then that should be reflected in the policy. ATren 07:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring complains should not be posted here. Place these at WP:AN/3RR if needed. As for the use of sources used, I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not much of a war - not worth reporting at 3RR - I just mentioned it because we are at an impasse and input is needed. ATren 21:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked these sources. The Denver Westwood News, is a long article that surely can be used. The RealClimate website may also be used, as it includes commentary of named scientists [5]. The other blog, seems to be by an expert on the subject, so it may be used as well. Having said that, and not being familiar with the topic at all, I would say that you need to address these issues with other editors in talk, and if no common ground found about the use of these sources, proceed with dispute resolution by means of an RfC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Also note that William M. Connolley is a respected and experienced editor of Wikipedia, so you may try and look at his concerns in that light. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Are respected, experience editors allowed to link to their own unpublished materials? ATren 21:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You should address that question to him. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I did (see his talk). He seems to think it's fine. I am also an experienced editor here and I think it is not, especially on a BLP. That's why I'm here - because we disagree. ATren 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have given you my opinion based on my experience with BLPs. Best course of action will be to pursue dispute resolution, and do away with rhetoric and accusations of bad faith, POV pushing, and the like. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Until you got involved, this has been a polite conversation. ATren 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

ec With regard to this, from the BLP page: " If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources" - how can a personal blog and RealClimate.org be considered "reliable third-party published sources"? It's not a third party, and it's not published. BLP policy is clear on this. These sources may be usable in a non-BLP article, but they are clearly inappropriate according to BLP policy. ATren 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that the BLP policy was designed to avoid criticism of a person's work by people from the same community (in this case scientists). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That should be reflected in the policy then. BLP does not list such exceptions, and if there are exceptions in cases like this then they should be documented. ATren 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you re-read the lead of the policy page, in which the spirit of the policy is summarized. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read it, and reread it. It very clearly states that unsourced or poorly sourced material is to be removed on sight. It later elaborates on "poorly sourced" to include unpublished materials. If there is some hidden meaning, I am missing it, and if I am missing it, others will too - therefore it should be modified to reflect actual practice. I suggest the inclusion of a qualifier: "In some cases, unpublished material is acceptable if the author is considered an expert in the field." ATren 22:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP is an extension of WP:V, in which that caveat is included. See WP:V#Sources, and specifically WP:SPS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The section you linked to contains the following text: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources." - this seems pretty unambiguous. ATren 22:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that if the material in question is related to a person's work in a field, BLP does not apply. If the material is contentious, e.g. casting aspersions on the person, that is where BLP applies. You may want to ask for other opinions via an WP:RFC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You are the BLP expert, so I trust your judgement, but the policy clearly does not reflect this. Would you object if I boldly updated the policy pages (BLP and V?) ATren 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You can propose a change in the policy talk page 02:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs)

The current policy seems clear; it applies to all material in BLPs, not just "aspersions," and the material here is negative in either case. I think BLP should demand removal of the personal blog at least. Cool Hand Luke 07:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is listed as having died on October 16th, 2007, which was the death date of the next-to-last survivor of the sinking. Can someone fact-check this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjern (talk • contribs) 07:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been corrected already. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Relata refero (talk · contribs) has been continually deleting criticism of a biased magazine report vilifying this public figure. Revert 1, Rv 2, Rv 3. The user had the audacity in his third revert to tell me to "duscuss on talk" without doing it himself, and when I had already discussed my additions an hour before. The removal of counterresponses violates BLP, especially the problem that the criticism serves to "overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics".Bakaman 18:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was about to come here to ask for more eyes on this. I urge people to read exchanges on the talk page; non-notable and irrelevant criticism of a widely publicized magazine report, when the individual in question has chosen to not make a response, does not, in my opinion, cause the article to side with the critics; we would otherwise have an infinite set of responses and counter-responses. The above user also has problems with civility as well as talk page usage, it appears, and has just called me a lawyer for terrorists or some such thing. (I strongly object to being called a lawyer.) Relata refero 05:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The user above is the new avatar of Hornplease (talk · contribs), not a new user claiming to find "problems of civility" and "talk page usage" (especially rich because I discussed on talk first). As for the politically mischievous misinterpretations of policy and misrepresentation of thought processes (i.e. referring to Tehelka as "lawyers of terrorists", though narcissism may obfuscate this), those are obvious. The article should be written in a conservative manner so that the subject is not attacked by the use of dubious statements utilized by politically influenced "reports". If a source of more veracity criticzes a source of less veracity, it should obviously be noted per WP:RS.Bakaman 01:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I urge all those concerned to go to the talkpage and read the supposed "discussion." I see no RSes indicating that the subject was 'attacked'; I see no RSes of "more veracity" criticising those of less veracity. Utter nonsense. Will someone else please go to the talkpage and straighten this out.

The continual speculation over my previous identities is frankly a trifle boring. Relata refero 21:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply, a user running away from their previous avatar is coming to make a ruckus on the same articles the previous avatar edited, using identical complaints and writing style. This user "fails to see" quite a lot of things, especially RS's cited on the page, which were (as noted in the diffs) removed under dubious grounds. What is obvious is that the "news report" is itself controversial and noting its accusations as gospel is a wild and dangerous violation of WP:BLP. The user above does not mind violating BLP, because they "fail to see" the use of any policy that hinders their political agenda.Bakaman 03:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The news report was widely discussed, but needs to be de-emphasised on the page. It doesn't deserve a giant section, for example. But it does not need so-called RSes - a random tiny minority of op-eds - that discuss the news organisation in general, unless the validity of the specific allegations have been called into question. That has not been done by any RS. (We do not preface every reference to a Tory politician in the Guardian by noting that the Guardian has been attacked for being leftwing.) Given that, I - er - fail to see what the problem is. Some additional input would be helpful.

The continual speculation over my previous identities is getting even more boring. Relata refero 07:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The validity of allegations has been called into question, sources note that Modi did not make an appearance at a certain place that Tehelka claims he did. Tehelka is not like the Guardian, it is a shock paper, not really a paper that it in the mainstream. If Tehelka does not merit its own section, why did you place it in there? Tehelka is extremely controversial, and the 40-50% that vote for the BJP or are antithetical to the Congress are not just a minority, they may or well be a majority criticizing a minority secular view. The fact is that BLP is violated each time you remove criticism of the report, leaving libellous allegations to stand as gospel truth.

Your charades in your previous identity are essentially identical to your current charades, so I find it the correct thing to note that you are not some concerned prodigy, but a battle-hardened veteran.Bakaman 01:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Charades" is generally not used in plural except to refer to the game, I believe. Please note that any further discussion of my identity, which gets more boring with each reference, is best taken of this and other boards.

If you claim that Tehelka is a 'shock paper' - which I have no opinion on, merely noting that it appears to meet every other requirement for a reliable source, and has as its editor the former editor of India's second largest newsmagazine - please do note that that is not germane to the issue as long as the specific quotes picked up and disseminated in innumerable irreproachable sources do not choose to discuss the fact that those particular quotes are dubious. The whole business is notable enough for a line or two in a bio, but not notable enough for an entire section dissecting exactly what was said and how much some members the CIA paid them to say it. I'm not I see the relevance of the disquisition on Indian politics, either. We are concerned here merely with what notable, reliable sources say about a living individual. Nothing in BLP says that even those allegations which have been widely accepted, and indeed not denied by the living person in question, need to have further discussions about their possible motive, the funding of the original (and not quoted) source, and such like. Relata refero 18:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

• Molestaion allegations against michael Jackson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Full of unsourced and negative info. I'm thinking deletion for this one mainly because Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper, but I don't particularly feel like nominating it. MER-C 08:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Another somewhat suspect and generally unreferenced BLP. Probably notable enough to save it from the axe. I've already corrected the title from "Raquel Reyes (Transsexual)". MER-C 08:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• - It says he was expelled from his school, and that he worked illegally in Europe. // h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed these uncited, and trivial, points. Steve Dufour 02:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael E. J. Witzel was protected on Oct 11 due to edit warring over the inclusion of a few sentences that say Witzel is biased against Hindus, e.g. [6] [7]. Obviously, charges of religious bias need to be strongly substantiated; the sourcing in this particular case is an op-ed piece and a quote in a news article. Discussion on the talkpage hasn't led to consensus, and outside input is needed, especially since the protection is set to expire on Nov. 12. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside input is desparately needed here, because the talk page is discussion mostly involves two people who have already edited the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, let me plead for some outside input here. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed some sourced contentious and libellous material as per Suggested procedure. I left message in talk page for around 2 days and then removed as per above procedure. I substantiated my removal with various wiki rules. User:Idleguy is reverting those contents again and again without following steps mentioned in above procedure. He keeps telling consensus has reached before. I was involved in those discussions as a newcomer and discussions focussed mainly about whether it is sourced or not. Discussions never centered about WP:UNDUE or Wikipedia:Avoiding harm. I have also provided my views as per Inclusion test. Please suggest him to offer his views on inclusion test and then add contentious material after Third opinion on whether it is WP:UNDUE or not. In past 2 years he has added lot of unsourced contentious allegations in this article like this about her sexual orientation/her marriages etc.[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. I have added POV tag and cited criticism section of WP:BLP as reason. He is removing POV tag without any reason. I request protection for this article till few issues are resolved--Indianstar 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The above editor is blatantly twisting my edits ignoring conveniently that I was merely reverting a spree of edits during which lines and paras were both removed and added without noting that the contentious additions were added by someone else and not by me! Whatever I have edited and added presently is fully cited and previous consensus in the same noticeboard here reached a consensus that it was both fully cited and from reliable sources. As this edit reveals, he has indulged in deleting sources just because he seems to be a fan of Ms Jayalalithaa.

Further the information on Jayalalitha being a mistress/concubine etc. is fully known in Tamil Nadu and sometimes - as the sources reveal - around the world. I have also backed it up with completely reliable sources like The Economic Times, New York Times, Asiaweek etc. which he claims as merely "websites, some blogs, some wikipedia mirror sites". Thus is satisfies the first criteria, the second too because it is well cited and sensitive terms like "mistress" uses specific citations that mention that word and only one line or two in the entire article talks about this crucial information, so no undue weightage is given. Idleguy 16:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not convinced that avoiding harm means avoiding facts. Some of the diffs offered by Indianstar are troubling but date to August. The diff offered by Idleguy was sourced. There could be some concern about WP:UNDUE but that is more easily corrected. If you have sources from the credible news outlets you mention, bring them in. Stick with a brief sentence or two and let's be done. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 17:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Economic times citation leads to Page cannot be displayed message. Newyork times citation is the personal page by Shashi tharoor hosted by Newyork times. I am not disputing whether it is sourced or not. I am only saying out of 300 thousand references about her, there are hardly 5+ references says the word "Mistress" or something relevant. From Google search results, if you filter blogs, Wiki mirror sites you will end up with few references quoted by Idleguy. I need to be away for a day. I will argue my case after a day.My edit history of diff offered by Idleguy shows, I have removed as per WP:SPS which is a valid reason. How it can be bad faith?--Indianstar 17:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hardly 5 is misreading numbers; atleast 9 fully credible and reliable sources independently state the same. If Economic Times link doesn't work, then take a look at the print archives, since the exact date is clearly provided. And as JodyB says it has been kept to just a single line without giving undue importance. Idleguy 17:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have now added another 3 books with pp as sources for the specific word of "mistress". This is such a well known and much written fact that it is found across journals, magazines, newspapers and even books and all this is just in English. I have several Tamil and even Telugu magazines which have spoken about this but being an English language encyclopedia, this load of well cited info should suffice I believe for such an important fact which is only stated in 1 line. Idleguy 18:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to JodyB's message. Please see my logic for why it is Undue with references. My self assessment of Harm test is given. If we decide this as due weightage, it may encourage others to google search favourite leaders name with some bad words, find insignificant sites and defame them. Let us remain as encyclopedia. Concerns about Biographies being flooded with insignificant personal life details were raised by several wikipedians like this. --Indianstar 12:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Pl. do not dismiss Times of India, The Economic Times, Asiaweek, and journals and books by authors (including a feminist) as "insignificant". It seeks to throw cold water on editors who have only chosen the most reliable sources for backing up such contentious claims. Idleguy 02:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Brian Flemming (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Horribleperson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Per here and here. Needs watchlisting/intervention. Relata refero 22:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So because he's alive he can't possibly be anti Christian? 22:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle

Users are insisting on wording that draws conclusions about motivations, rather than simply describing the subject's actions in neutral terms. This is, I feel, unnecessary. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You feel? 22:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)22:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of a substantive reply, rather than one appearing to pick up only on an immaterial turn of phrase? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It also appears likely that Horribleperson and Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle are serial identities of the same person. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I toned down the language a bit. It is not bad now, I feel. BTW Mr Flemming is unusual because he is speaking out against Jesus and Bill Gates both. :-) Steve Dufour 08:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Gordon Todd Skinner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - looks like somebody's got an agenda here. Orange Mike 00:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Pat Miletich (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Miletich Fighting Systems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Both of these Wikipedia links contain false or unconfirmed biographical information about a living individual and his company. Repeated attempts to correct the information on these links have been deleted. Mr Miletich does not endorse these links and respectfully requests that they be removed or locked for his personal editing privileges only.

Questions about the incorrect information on these links may be directed to <e-mail address removed to protect privacy>

Mnbusinesslawyers 13:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

First, please register a different account. Role accounts are generally not allowed, i.e. accounts named after an organization, per the Wikipedia:Username policy. Once you create a new account, please provide a specific list of objections to help us do a thorough job of fixing these articles. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

See also [16] (!!!). Quatloo 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• 2nd II None (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I asked an editor to cite reliable sources about some information. It's obvious the user is a new comer and do not know how to cite source, but that's not a problem, I'll cite it properly later.
  

The problem is that I do not know if this source is reliable: KnownGangs.com.
Thanks in advance.--Tasc0 23:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an extremely commmercial site advertising an ex-cop's supposed expertise and services as a consultant. I'm inclined to say no (Jefferson, WI isn't exactly a hotbed of gang activity). --Orange Mike 23:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your opinion. I'm going to have to wait to others editors opinion, yet I'd have yours in mind.

Noting how many times that source is cited in the Crips article.--Tasc0 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a reliable source IMO, for same reasons as stated by OrangeMike. There must be other sources available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the source and the now unsourced information; linking this disccusion in the edit summary.--Tasc0 22:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher James Mitchell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The user proposing deletion is making allegations about the producer Christopher James Mitchell, using reliable sources which describe a person with some similar characteristics, but who is not clearly the same person. I'm not sure if this is a BLP policy violation, or how the policy applies in practice to deletion discussions, but I thought it was worth raising here. EALacey 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

I have made some amendments to this article as it created a much too positive portrayal of Tina Brown who has aroused a lot of contreversy in her journalistic career. There were some negative reviews of her latest biography, The Diana Chronicles, and I mentioned one with an appropriate reference but this was deleted. I have now re-added some additional material which has been appropriately sourced. I would request that this page be watched for any future vandalism i.e. removing anything negative about Tina Brown herself. Ivankinsman 08:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Gladly. I welcome any negative material about that bi....err, person (so long as we source it, of course). Watchlisted. Jeffpw 09:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just reverted every edit, and there were quite a lot of them, in the Mike Brown (football team owner) article since October 28. The article was full of BLP violations and outright vandalism. Keep an eye on it, ok? Corvus cornix 00:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I just removed a lot. Most of it was blaming him for the team's record. BTW shouldn't it be "American football team owner"? Steve Dufour 03:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Would others please weigh in? The massive personal attacks are being reverted by multiple editors. Corvus cornix 22:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

An official biography can and will be used. 'Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself.Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
   * the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

- The controversy articles are completely fact with no opinions except from Mike Brown himself. Mr. Brown's organization is relevant to the subject's notability. If it was not relevant the title would not be Mike Brown (Football Team Owner).

If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

- Stadium Deal: I have cited legal documents and have provided no opinion (except of the court). I provided the official complaint and court findings for this important event. This clears up any rumor on the true nature and finding from the Stadium Deal Controversy.

- Official National Football League statistics (Ownership Time line) were provided because they are relevant to the Subject's notability. As the General Manager(GM), President, Owner of a professional sports organization, Mr. Brown has an effect on the statistics produced by the team on the field, as does Marvin Lewis and the GM or Owner of any team. No Opinion is in the statistics.

- The Loyalty Clause: Much has been written concerning this clause in the contracts. So much that Mr. Brown felt it necessary to write a guest editorial piece to explain why he invented the clause and how he came to the point. I included the article to explain the Subject's point of view to help explain this controversial issue in a logical manner. It may appear to be a bias for Mr. Brown, but his logical explanation of the loyalty clause is cause for inclusion in the Subject's page not censorship.

- The players legal troubles is relevant to the Mr. Brown's, Roger Goodell's, Marvin Lewis's, and Gene Upshaw's notability, as represented on their pages. Sports media wrote on the subject and is a notable event in his time as owner, GM, and President. The way he dealt with each situation is listed next to player. No opinion was presented. I presented the facts about the event as it has and will continue to unfold as each judgment is made in court.

- The Family Run Team article should be excluded until it is further developed and provides an explanation of the issue.

Everything related to his management of the team has an effect on his notability. If being an owner, GM, and president had no relevance the hall of fame would not exist or remember owners and GMs.

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution.

NO Original Research Verifiability Neutral point of view

You are making accusations of bias but you do not argue why you believe there is bias and where it is. You are not editing this article you are censoring the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minerva717 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the Barry Bonds article. No matter how you try to present the facts a controversial issue or event is just that controversial. His steroids controversy is on his page. It is something that has been notable and should be included not censored from his article. Also look at the Bill Clinton page. His numerous controversies have not been censored. The controversial topics listed have been reviewed and if they need to be edited further they should. You need to edit them and actually add the the article rather than censoring the article. You have provided nothing to the article. Don't be an editor if you are not willing to do research and provide substance to the articles on Wikipedia.--Minerva717 01:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Minerva has spammed this diatribe all over Wikipedia. I have reverted her latest edits. Please weigh in. Corvus cornix 18:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is basically a rant about how all the problems of the team are the fault of the owner. That's cool. I live near Oakland so I know all about Al Davis, the owner of the Raiders, although he is much more interesting than Mr. Brown seems to be. Maybe there should be a policy: "WP is not a sports talk show" Steve Dufour 02:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

Note this article continues to have serious BLP problems. It is too much for the couple of us editors who are trying to help. Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Historical pederastic couples went through some heated, multi-editor, multi-admin turmoil last month. At the end of the 20th and 21st centuries section, look: There are now several unsourced claims of pederastic relationships with children whose first and last names and sometimes their picture is given. These children are almost certain to still be alive. Why does User:Haiduc insist on including such BLP violations?

I'm not touching it because I saw what happened last time. I hope someone with more BLP experience will please trim the contemporary listings. 209.17.131.233 15:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody provide diffs to identify what's wrong? - Jehochman ^Talk 15:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's all of the entries in Historical pederastic couples#20th and 21st centuries where the identified child might still be alive, of which I would say there are several. Biochem67 13:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And in general, there are huge amounts of unsourced allegations in there. (And the issue of classifying non-sexual friendships as 'pederasty') Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Kelsey Grammer bio is in serious need of attention. In my opinion, it is poorly written, and too heavily weighted with negative and unsourced information.130.239.63.178 17:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I took out a lot of that. It looks like he is an object of interest because he mentioned that he might run for Congress. Steve Dufour 08:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

REQUEST The article names his 2 children and had mentioned that they were born by a surrogate mother. I took out this last fact as being not important to Mr. Grammer's notability, besides being in bad taste to mention and potentially hurtful to the kids involved. I could be wrong about how WP standards apply to this kind of thing however. It is now being debated on the article's talk page. Could someone else join in the discussion, pro or con? Thanks. Steve Dufour 21:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am the subject of this article, and would like it deleted. Although whomever it was who wrote the article seems to have a rather high opinion of me, it is not one that I share. I do not feel that my contributions or accomplishments warrant 'notability', and, frankly, I also feel somewhat exposed by this entry.

Pedro has denied my request for speedy deletion twice, but I believe his intentions are misuided. The spelling idiosyncracies in his entries suggest he is European, and, therefore, would not even have a point of reference for who I am.

In any event, I would appreciate some attention to this matter. --69.177.176.129 14:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Formica also refers. If someone can cite a policy that we must delete on a subjects request I'll gladly do it, but I can't find anything that hints at this. Pedro :  Chat  16:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• You want Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards - that does not call for a speedy deletion, but does ask us to take the subjects wishes into account on borderline cases. I weighed in on the deletion debate. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Marking as resolved (not played around in BLPN a lot so someone else can archive). The AFD will sort the issue out. Thanks AnonEMouse. I saw the policy prior to a lot of this, but of course it doesn't answer the particular problem at hand of the subject requesting deletion, hence no action at that time. Cheers for your input here and at the AFD to get this sorted. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

NOT RESOLVED---it hasn't been deleted.

This thread is resolved, as the article is at AfD and that is the correct place to work through the process. Pedro :  Chat  08:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I was doing some edits on this page and I noticed that there were quoted obsenities from Robert Chambers comments inserted randomly, some using the 'N' and 'B' words. I don't quite know what your policy on that is. I was just doing simple editing, and I was going to italicize one piece of text I had found previously inserted into the article, then found I had accidentally bolded it so I removed that! It was then I noticed the language used in the comment. I do feel the page should be looked at by someone more experienced in these matters than I am. I'll keep off the page until I hear a reply on this matter.--MurderWatcher1 16:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you find things that are obscene and not justified by the context of the article, simply remove them. Flag it up if any user resists.--Doc^g 02:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the sentences referenced above was a coypright violation. Since it did not add anything substantial to the article, I removed rather than rewording it. (That is to say, not only was the quote taken verbatim, which is okay, but the rest of the sentence was, too--and that's not.) The entire article needs better inline sourcing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reinserted the quote, as it is sourced. It is perhaps unfortunate for Mr. Chambers that he was heard screaming such racist vulgarities in the street, but it is not up to us to gloss over his manifold character defects; nor is it a BLP violation. -- Jeffpw (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is, however, as I indicated above, a copyright violation. The entire sentence is lifted from the source--not just the quote, but the material surrounding it. In order for the material to be incorporated, it has to be reworded. The sentence reads "As the police drove away, Chambers tore up the summons and yelled (quote)." The source reads "As they drove away, Chambers tore up the summons and yelled". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Then someone reinserted the sentence after you deleted it. I only reinserted the actual quote. I didn't realize I readded copyright vio material. I thought I had only readded the quote. I'll rework that sentence to remove the potential copyright problem, although I don't see many ways to say somebody tore up a summons. In any event, I think we can agree this is not a BLP issue. -- Jeffpw (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with you that it's not a BLP issue. I also agree that rewording brief text to avoid copyright problems is problematic sometimes—like reaching around your back to touch your elbow. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Xavier Romeu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The article is about a public figure in Puerto Rico currently under investigation, who has been accused in the past. The article was part of an edit war in and around October 20 between different users, including many potential socks trying to add inflammatory content about the accusers to discredit them. I stopped it all by fully protecting the page (see my comments about the protection). I also reported a checkuser report, citing at least 6 users, (now 7) who were adding the exact same information and references, but was found to be inconclusive due to confusing CU evidence. I have not blocked anyone myself. One user provided, in my view, adequate sources, asking me to include the content, which I did (diff). I admit my edits weren't perfect, and in retrospect I don't know if they were enough/too much. It appears that the edit war has now continued, and I've reverted a couple of times since the content added was the same of the previous edit war, leading me to believe that this new user is part of the old puppets. The current version is as edited by the user in question, since I'm now handing this issue to other admins because I'm afraid my efforts to add sourced content has affected my independence on the matter, and would like an outside party to take the appropriate action, whichever that may be. // Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The article did not have any references. I have removed all unsourced material for now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The version I had edited, (diff), did have references. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 10:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am working on arranging the Biographies of Choral Directors at Georgia Tech, and I have a few questions to ask.

• Can I use a person's Curriculum Vitae, Oeuvre, and personally written, although not published autobiography by the subject.
• Can someone clarify exactly how exactly fair use works, as I find it to be quite fuzzy and vague.

IF you can help, please add your knowledge to my discussion page.

Thanks. Centrisian 08:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

John Anthony Walker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) I ran across this article completely by accident today, but immediately became concerned about a number of issues. It is an article about a person who is a former Naval officer, who was a spy for Russia during the Cold War, and is currently in jail (according to the article). The article had a total of 2 references, one of which is someone's Master's thesis, titled "Analysis of the Systemic Security Weaknesses of the U.S. Navy Fleet Broadcasting System, 1967-1974, as Exploited by CWO John Walker", and the other is a 404 - page not found error, which I removed. Here are just a few of the quite serious issues in this article, with regards to both neutrality, and WP:BLP (I removed bolded items): Passages such as: "However, before long, the marriage became very troubled due to the couple's long separations. Walker was a flamboyant, hard-drinking womanizer and there were reports that he neglected his wife and children.", are POV, and in addition, not cited with sources. One reference for such a topic (a spy) is insufficient. There needs to be sources for statements like: "Walker was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Coming from a broken home, he had various problems with the law as a teenager. A high school dropout, Walker committed a string of petty thefts and was arrested for one of them in the summer of 1955. John's older brother Arthur Walker (already serving in the Navy) talked the judge into letting John join the Navy instead of going to prison.", that is unacceptable to have in an article without verification. Additionally, the article uses many words to avoid, such as "allegedly": "Initially, Walker maintained a defiant attitude, allegedly telling his interrogators "If I had access, consider it gone!" " It also has original research in it, such as: "Some researchers believe Walker's nearly two decades of spying contributed strongly to the unprecedented accession of then-KGB director Yuri Andropov (whose agents had overseen Walker's activities) to become head of the Soviet Union after the November 1982 death of Leonid Brezhnev." I've placed a note on the article's talk page, as well as placing {{refimprove}} and {{NPOV}} tags, but I request that someone with more familiarity with history/Cold War take a look, and address these issues. Thank you for your time, Ariel♥Gold 09:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on cold war, but I'll take a look at it and see how I can help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Scoured and sourced. (Hey! Anagrams!) I'm tagging this one resolved, but please remove the tag if you disagree or would like additional scrutiny. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The information that "On Saturday, November 10, 2007, at 8:30 PM PST Kanye West's mother, Dr. Donda West, was pronounced dead due to complications from cosmetic surgery involving a tummy tuck and breast reduction procedure, which were completed at Centinela Hospital in Marina del Rey, Los Angeles" is obviously wrong. The surgery on Dr. West did not take place at the named hospital, as numerous press reports and a press statement from both the hospital and the performing surgeon have since made clear. You may want to correct that inaccurate information before it brings you the libel suit you're trying to avoid by locking the page from independent edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.123.189 (talk • contribs)

Please be extremely careful to not make or imply any legal threats, per our policies at WP:LEGAL. Anyone is free to edit the article, but due to recent vandalism and abuse, non-logged in users and accounts newer than 3 days old cannot edit. I've removed the name of that hospital, as it isn't in the listed source. Anyone may add the name of the correct medical facility with appropriate sourcing. • Lawrence Cohen 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've handled an OTRS ticket related to this bio complaining of libelous vandalism and requesting that the article be perm-protected. While obviously we can't do that, we can do a much better job keeping it cleaned up - therefore it would be great if we could get some more eyeballs/watchlists on it. Thanks. FCYTravis (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Users Eleland and Bless sins keep inserting into Bat Ye'or (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) her supposed real and maiden names. Since there are no reliable sources in the article for either of those names, such edits constitute a violation of WP:BLP. Beit Or 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No discussion on the talkpage, and it appears cited to the International Journal of Middle East Studies. Could you expand on your concerns a bit? Relata refero 10:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't catch this until just now, but actually the "BLP" dispute is broader. Bat Ye'or is a highly controversial non-academic self-taught historian who promulgates theories about Islam and Arabs which are at the very least incendiary, and have been described as tendentious, polemical, and even akin to anti-Semitism. Even favorable profiles acknowledge that through most of her academic career, she was universally dismissed or ignored; she's only started to "come in from the cold" since 9/11 made Muslim-bashing a more acceptable pastime, but her work is still far from accepted.

Nonetheless, some editors seem to be saying that mention of Ye'or's dubious reputation must be confined to a "Criticisms" "Views" section, where it can be "balanced" with "blurb" quotes off the back of her book jackets, and praise from the likes of Daniel Pipes. Is this required by WP:BLP? <eleland/talkedits> 20:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added the cite right at the name to address this, even though it's also at the end of the sentence. Are there any other BLP concerns? —Ashley Y 01:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed this article thoroughly and find it repulsive as to content and balance. Liberal sources are not cited as such but used as supposedly impartial news organizations. Burns trouble is well documented. He was known to be rather loose with his talk. To review every event becomes overkill, particularly the Kazakhstan event and others. To say that Time or some other obscure left-leaning group says he was one of the 5 worst Senators of his time is pure subjective speculation. When I injected that he worked and sponsored legislation for telecommunications issues in rural Montana especially, it was promptly removed and replaced with all the same overkilling trash. Everyone knows that Conrad had his troubles and was linked to Jack Abramoff. To mention that is fine, because it probably cost him the election. But last I heard Burns was free and of his own charge. Mention a few of the major scandals, inject a few of the constructive issues he dealt with as a Senator and get over it. He is no longer in power.

This kind of trash will ultimately ruin Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.91.245 (talk • contribs) 16 November 2007

The IP's right that there's far too much non-notable criticism. I've removed a couple of sections. Relata refero (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

The second paragraph in the article of Atapattu is lifted directly from the first paragraph in Atapattu's player profile in Cricinfo. Cricketmania (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Relata refero (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

Could someone take a look at this page? It's mostly fine, but there are a few entries that I think are troublesome. Marcial Maciel, for example, whose own article is fine, but whose listing on the scandal page is not. Some of the ones at the bottom seem to be trouble, too. Thanks! MookieZ (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOVed entry about Maciel, and removed unsourced material from another entry as per WP:BLP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, that was full of POV and BLP violations - I've ripped out half the article until rebuilt with, you know, those things called sources. Please watchlist.--Doc^g 02:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion was a quite excellent solution here.--Doc^g 15:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

An informal mediation case has been requested for Werner Erhard. Since there is an ongoing OTRS legal complaint re: Werner Erhard, at ticket #2007051510011812, we need an OTRS volunteer either to mediate or to assist with the mediation. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for general information, and feel free to send me e-mail for any specific questions. — Sebastian 04:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See here. Cheers, Daniel 07:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Coco Fusco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article was most certainly written by Fusco herself, and has no sourcing whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19 November 2007 (talk • contribs) 72.13.149.34

The "Discussion" session seems to have gotten carried away with two folks exchanging various opinions that have gotten to the edge of personal attacks between two individuals. Does not appear to really fit into a Wikipedia page as much as it would a BLOG on MySpace or another fansite dedicated to Ms. Russell. Would like to get a call from this group as to whether all the "Identity" topic currently in the "Discussions" area should be removed. The article itself is fine and Ms. Russell herself has posted updates to it on occasion. The only area of concern is the current discussion discussing her background and the exchange of opinions. Thanks in advance. UnitedNut —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedNut (talk • contribs) 19 November 2007

Resolved.

• The Melissa and Joseph Hawach Story (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Minor news story, but full of borderline-libelous and POV language. // Calton | Talk 05:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure this belongs anywhere on Wikipedia; but on the chance that it stays, I changed to the more encyclopedic Melissa Hawach. --Orange Mike 05:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have a run through that. Whether it's notable enough to be kept or not, it can't hang on in its current form. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it doesn't look much like it did. It is thoroughly sourced now and, I believe, neutrally written. On second thought, I did remove the notability tags, because while I can see that it might be regarded as a 1 event biography, that tag suggests adding 3rd party references, of which there are now plenty. Plus, I think that it moves beyond the 1 event issue. At least one Canadian MP has evidently used it as a platform to address the need to secure more international cooperation with Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Note that I did not put anything into the article about Angelina Jolie wanting to play this woman in a movie, but I did include an EL that references this. This is substantiated, but, in my opinion, trivial until it happens. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems more than OK to me now. Marking as resolved. Thanks for the good work. Relata refero (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)