Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive8

[edit] Warren Kinsella Talk:Warren Kinsella (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Warren Kinsella (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) It seems that a couple of editors, one anon 209.217.124.237 (talk · contribs) and one new-ish account Happy Fun Toy (talk · contribs), are keen to promote an attack site critical of the subject of the article. Deleting the offending posts should be sufficient. Bucketsofg 14:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• No activity by those editors since the 6th and 8th of January respectively. — Athænara ✉ 13:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ira Berlin Ira Berlin (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Ira Berlin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Berlin is a historian who writes about slavery and editor Joelrosenblum (talk · contribs) (who has a huge beef with Berlin) has repeatedly posted assertions that Berlin is pro-slavery. He bases this solely on a reading of one of Berlin's books done by students at a high school, citing no scholars who agree with him. I have repeatedly removed the Berlin-is-pro-slavery section (called "Controversial Book Passages") because I think the argument that Berlin is pro-slavery is unbelievably wrong, because I think there is no "controversy" just because one editor and some high school students who obviously don't know much about history say there is, and because calling a historian of slavery who is still alive "pro-slavery" risks libel charges as far as I'm concerned. I'm sick of the edit war and am hoping someone else can weigh in. For now the "Controversial Book Passages" section is in the article (joelrosenblun re-instated it) but I'm arguing that it should be removed entirely because it is absurd and, more importantly, potentially libelous. There is relevant discussion at Talk:Ira Berlin--Bigtimepeace 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• No edits by the user with "a huge beef" since early January. — Athænara ✉ 13:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Pintauro Danny Pintauro (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Danny Pintauro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The following [porn link removed] was added to the Danny Pintauro Wikipedia page by 172.193.116.59 (talk · contribs) on January 7th at 19:28. It was removed by CieloEstrellado (talk · contribs) at 22:19 and reinserted again by 172.193.116.59 on January 8th at 4:41am.

I think the link is inappropriate for both the content the link points to and the link connection to a "for profit" web site. It also violates the Wikipedia living biography policy in my opinion: Articles about living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page:

I have removed it again and advised on talk it has been turned over to Biobraphies of living persons/noticeboard. Philbertgray 14:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• There have been no edits by 172.193.116.59 since early January. — Athænara ✉ 13:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Les Balsiger Les Balsiger (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Les Balsiger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There is a page on a Les Balsiger that is an obvious bio of a non-notable living person and is also an attack on this individual. "140.211.55.195 (talk · contribs) 22:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)",

• Comment - this article is currently being considered on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Balsiger (2nd nomination). I took a look at the article and don't see it as an attack article. --BigDT 05:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the article is about a living individual who is really not notable at all and is only sourced by religous articles from the source claiming to be wronged and a blog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.81.43 (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Self-contradiction - This is the exact opposite of the comment made by 71.111.81.43 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute)[1][2] in the first Les Balsiger AfD while deleting another participant's comment:
    • "I do not agree, he is a well known person in Oregon and think he should remain":--A. B. ^(talk) 19:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Huard Bill Huard (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Bill Huard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - subject of the article edits as Hueys20 (talk · contribs). The article is almost completely unsourced and could use a general cleanup and some assistance, particularly form anyone familiar with hockey, in finding sources. --BigDT 05:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article has been tagged for references. Hueys20 had five edits in January, none since then. — Athænara ✉ 13:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George A. Ricaurte George A. Ricaurte (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• George A. Ricaurte (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This has been a battleground for views on animal testing and the scientific method. Large chunks of unreferenced text with only a peripheral connection to the article subject have been repeatedly added. I have been reverting it to a stub and have said on the talk page that additions require verifiable sources. Could do with someone else having a look to see if you agree with my approach and to help to keep it in shape. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your approach about the retracted article, except that there is need a citation for both the original article and to the actual retraction in this article, rather than relying on the article on "Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA."

But the article lacks balance. He has presumably done other scientific work, and it might be notable. Put it in, possibly as refs to the firtst paragraph.DGG 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Gammell Stephen Gammell (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Stephen Gammell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - this article about an author of children's books stayed vandalized for over a month with some nonsense claiming he was publishing pornography books. Several other editors have added unsourced negative information. Please keep an eye on it. --BigDT 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no problem when I checked. However...I almost hate to bring this up because he sounds like such a nice guy....but the article is completely unsourced and really gives the impression of a puff piece. Steve Dufour 05:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Harmless short bio, not a "puff piece." — Athænara ✉ 13:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yisroel Dovid Weiss Yisroel Dovid Weiss (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Yisroel Dovid Weiss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Edit war, mainly dispute about whether subject is rabbi, per every source, or not per certain editors unsourced opinions. Should be noted that it is debatable whether in the subjects milieu (haredi judaism) there needs to be a formal granting of 'ordination' (semicha) for him to use this title. Although this is a secondary point, as despite claims like 'common knowledge' etc. not a single source has been offered even questioning his claim to the title. There is also the problem that some of these editors wish to introduce rumours about homosexuality, paedophilia, etc. Thanx in advance,  ⇒ bsnowball  16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• No issues with the article now as described in the report. — Athænara ✉ 13:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clay Aiken Clay Aiken (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Clay Aiken (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Edit war pushing POV. This article has been through mediation [3] and arbitration was requested and then withdrawn when a consensus for the topic format was reached. The history is in Archives 10-12. Hoponpop69 (talk · contribs) is now pushing POV edits regarding the sexuality issue and has reverted the page 4 times today. I don't want to get into an edit war and put a warning on his talk page which he ignored. Can someone please step in and help. It appears this user has a history of disruptive edits and has just come off a block. This is the edit that has the consensus [4] Maria202 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hoponpop69 has not edited the article since 13 January. — Athænara ✉ 14:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lu Sheng-yen Lu Sheng-yen (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Also True Buddha School True Buddha School (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Lu Sheng-yen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) & True Buddha School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - unsourced critical information and editorial comments are being inserted into these articles by anons. A Ramachandran 23:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll add them to my watchlist. If the negative opinions of other Buddhist groups can be documented from published sources, I see no reason not to mention them. But if this claim is added to the article without documentation, I agree it should be reverted. Andrew Dalby 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourced Rumors

What is the policy on sourced rumors in general? Also here are a couple of particular instances I have questions about:

• What is Wikipedia's policy on properly sourced but completely unfounded rumors? Rumors which have absolutely no evidence to back them up, but nonetheless are well known rumors such as the insidious Richard Gere gerbilling rumor that people keep re-inserting into his article.

I'd say, if rumours are really widely circulated (in published sources), and are shown to be false (ditto), it is probably appropriate to mention the fact, with references both to a source for the rumour and to a source for its falsity. Andrew Dalby 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• How about completely unfounded rumors which exist but are completely relegated to a small group of people. Such as the little known rumor that Michael Jordan retired in 1993 because he was banned from the NBA for a period of time for gambling? Quadzilla99 22:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If restricted to "a small group of people", that suggests to me that the rumour is not published and is not notable. For both reasons, not appropriate to a Wikipedia article. Andrew Dalby 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy on Biographies of Living Persons

Thanks for the reminder re: this policy.

I am reviewing entries on living persons in the "List of Surnames of European Royalty and Nobiity" to make sure this Wikipedia policy is adhered to.

I am also reviewing the available materials on the Internet to discover any "sensitivity" or "respect" issues (i.e., if an action for libel has been filed by the "offended" personality) have been raised against a "nickname" of a living person which is in this "List".

Notability question I have been doing research on a person for non-WP purposes, and a colleague has pointed out to me that he might be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. To summarize the commonly available information:

• He is a member of British/Irish nobility and a descendant of William the Conqueror
• He is mentioned by name in the existing WP article about his father, specifically with reference to his nobility
• He is a senior corporate executive in a company that is developing an international reputation in its area of specialty (which is admittedly quite narrow)
• He is the inspiration for a song that is on one of the all-time top-selling British albums
• He was recently interviewed and photographed for an article in a major magazine with international circulation.
  • As a side point to this, the magazine is a "men's magazine" and the link to this article is NSFW for many of our readers, so a link to the article would probably not be appropriate.

Before I invest the time to write up this article, I'd appreciate some feedback on whether more experienced editors would feel this person is notable. Feel free to reply to my talk page, and I will also check back here. Risker 11:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

He sounds like he is notable enough by the standards that usually prevail here. Steve Dufour 15:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)"

Well for me the key question is can every fact in your article be REFERENCED by a reliable source (preferabley an on-line source so that others can fact check you). If the person is notable enough to have mentioned in reliable on-line sources I would say he is notable. Otherwise you have an article with no references that can be easily checked and seeing as it's a living person article where standards are so much higher, that's potentially problematic. Vexperiential

[edit] Silver Ravenwolf Silver Ravenwolf (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Article (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A number of people with negative opinions of the subject are adding links to what appear to be their personal websites espousing this negative opinion. These are self-published personal essays by non-notable people. Some sites appear not to be personal sites, but if you check the copyright notice and compare the name to the site registrant, you will see that they own the site. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Be careful about neutrality. Since there is controversy, mentioned in the article but referenced only to a pro-Silver Ravenwolf page, the article is at present slightly unbalanced. It's not a good idea to remove all the opposition. Andrew Dalby 20:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

all of the linked articles are personal sites, and given that 1. they're sites of otherwise published authors (not random geocities people) and 2. they're being linked mainly for analysis and things clearly stated as opinion, not spreading of rumors, this seems to be a good way to add legitimate criticism that deserves an airing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kazimieras Garšva Kazimieras Garšva (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Kazimieras Garšva (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Recently a user has started to remove referenced information that may present this person in negative light (he is a leader of an organization described as 'extremist' among other things). Comments on the talk page appreciated; I am pretty sure WP:LIVE does not mean 'remove all information that does not present the person in positive light'. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The contributor above in particular article began to adding doubtful and poorly sourced information [5]. Among other information, which he added, was doubtful and poorly sourced statement that particular person in question leads and “extremist” organization. Contributor produce only one doubtful and insufficient for such statement source: [6]. Please note that particular source does not talk bout Mr. Kazimieras Garšva at all. The only lead to Mr. Kazimieras Garšva in this source is only one time mentioned word “Vilnija”. As I stated several times in different positions it is not clear if the “Vilnija” mentioned in source actually is the same companionship “Vilnija” which Mr. Kazimieras Garšva leads. Because simple googling yields dozen of words “Vilnija” [7]. I informed that such partial mentioning and use of one doubtful source to label organization lead by person is not enough.[8], agreeably by WP:living I removed doubtful and controversial information [9] , but particular contributor restored it [10], provided “motives” by him on talk [11] is clear violation of WP:living, which states “Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. What this particular contributor demonstrated is conjectural interpretation. Question about ratability of source in this context was raised and by different contributors [12], (as well as [13]) but was once again restored by this particular contributor. WP:Living policy stats that “Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.” Rejecting doubtful source about "extremist" other provided sources on this particular article is not third-party sources. These sources exclusively Polish, note that Mr. Kazimieras Garšva have interests and investigates committed crimes by Poles, as well as Polish support for soviet regime during national awakening. So these Polish sources should be used with care, especially then particular contributor do not hesitate to mislead labeling these sources such as [14] providing information that source is “Lithuanian embassy site“, while in reality it is some sort of tourist site. Please note that in current article still there are badly described sources, which even do not mentioned who is author etc. But problems with this issue is taking place and in different article Vilnija (please note with what inspiration article was created [15] ) And yet again particular contributor Piotrus failed to stick to the policy. He motivates that “For starters, WP:LIVING concenrs itself with people, not organziations.” (speech not corrected), while WP:Living clearly states: “These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles.”. In this article (Vilnija) we already have the same doubtful statements about “extremist”. But this article goes even further. Mr. Garšva works here described as “quasi-academic” (once again WP:OR; WP:NPOV; WP:Living violation) (please note person has Ph.D) and even stated that “the quasi-academic works of its leader, Kazimieras Garšva, have been very negatively received by Polish government[9][10], media [11][12][13], and on occasion criticized by the Lithuanian government as well” while provided source do not concur provided text about Lithuanian government actions at all. Seeing such mislead such statements were corrected [16],[17] , there was asked that sources and text should be checked [18]. But every thing, including and article clarification and added facts, was removed by particular contributor Piotrus.[19]. So particular contributor do not provide any third party sources, but also ignores and Wikipedia policies. Could anybody urgently intervene in this matter?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by M.K (talk • contribs) 04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Sahaja Yoga Sahaja Yoga (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Sahaja Yoga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Bothi (talk · contribs) is adding libelous commentary, first to the talk page, then to the article. A Ramachandran 03:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Bothi has not edited the article since early February. — Athænara ✉ 14:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Moseley (actor) William Moseley (actor) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

William Moseley (actor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Gir29456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -This user has consistently added uncited and unverifiable personal information to William Moseley (actor). They have not responded to messages placed either on their usertalk page or the article talk. It seems to me that a final warning (You will be blocked if you continue this behavior) is called for but need, obviously, administrator input and approval for such a remedy. //Eluchil404 07:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Gir29456 has not edited the article since 23 January. — Athænara ✉ 14:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Rosenblatt Frank Rosenblatt (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Frank Rosenblatt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) It is unclear why the Frank Rosenblatt page links to the biographies of living persons page, as Rosenblatt is not a living person and hasn't been one for some time. Dmargulis (talk · contribs) 16:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• In the WPBio template on the talk page, there's a "living=" information field—corrected it from yes to no. — Athænara ✉ 14:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kelsang Gyatso Kelsang Gyatso (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Kelsang Gyatso (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - nothing specific at the moment, but the primary editor of the article is a critic of the subject. There seem to be few other editors, the article is dense, and I think it could use a few more eyes... A Ramachandran 14:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put it on my watchlist. Andrew Dalby 14:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Middleton Kate Middleton (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Kate Middleton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). I recently added in some information from PEOPLE magazine about Kate Middleton to the article. According to the rules on this site, it was reliable information worth mentioning. I read the article and linked to the website where it can be found. However, there has been some disagreement on that. I have tried to discuss the situation with the other party on the discussion page, stating that right now the only information about Kate Middleton is in magazines and media coverage. I also stated, if that is not allowed to be in the article then there really is no point for there to be an article on Kate Middleton as there are no other sources of information about her but the media and magazines. The other party still has insists on deleting the information from PEOPLE magazine stating their magazine sources are more accurate. I guess my question is, what is the best way to resolve this? What is the best thing to do? If any of the information is incorrect to post on the article, then I would happy to delete it. RosePlantagenet 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• PEOPLE is a magazine that is acknowledged worldwide. What is their source? If it's a tabloid newspaper or similar magazine they can be shown to be inaccurate. Otherwise, can't both sources be used? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point, nothing wrong with both as long as they accurate. I do not know what sources they are using, the editor stated several times they had read numerous reiable sources, however, when I suggested they add them into the article the editor never did. As of right now, two third parties have stated the information can stay in, so that part of the dispute seems to be over. RosePlantagenet 13:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Darby Larry Darby (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Larry Darby (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Larry Darby article is currently the subject of a minor edit war. The subject of the article has been repeatadly blanking the page claiming libel but not naming any particular statements as libelous. I attempted to deleted the unsourced statements but Mr. Darby apears to want the entier thing removed. I have decided to stop editing and mark the current version (an offer to represent anyone who believes they have been slandered in lawsuits against "Wikipedia") as autobiographic. --Selket 00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking from outside at the article, a good deal of it is poorly sourced BLP--just read it. Possibly a NPOV article could be written. DGG 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He appears to be editing it himself now and actually keeping some of the challenges. He did, incedently change the word holocaust to holohoax and then back again. --Selket 05:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Selkat has again caused Wikipedia to post poorly sourced, atrociously written, content designed to disparage the subject. After an exchange of e-mail with general counsel for Wikipedia it was agreed to not re-post the libelous content and leave only the factual statement "Larry Darby was the runner-up candidate for Alabama Attorney-General in the 2006 Democratic Primary. Darby garnered 43% of the vote, carrying 33 of 67 Alabama counties. [1]" For a few days Wikipedia abided by the settlement agreement. Then Selkat comes along and undoes the agreement. Selkat even accused me of being unethical! Obviously Selkat has violated Wikipedia policy and has some personal vendetta against the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryDarby (talk • contribs) 09:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Prue Michael Prue (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Michael Prue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - An anon user, known to be the same person as the Cheri DiNovo violator above, has repeatedly edited both Michael Prue and Robert Hunter to assert that Prue's byelection campaign in 2001 orchestrated a smear campaign against Hunter. The controversy in question did take place, and does need to be discussed in a neutral fashion in both articles, but no verifiable media source has ever found that Prue or his political party were the orchestrators of it. Prue's article has been sprotected; at present, Hunter's has not. Editor continues, however, to respond to any reversions with the same tactic as at DiNovo, alleging that any objection to their material is a partisan attempt by "NDP attack queers" to hide the truth, rather than a straight and neutral application of Wikipedia's BLP and verifiability policies. As at DiNovo, IP numbers vary but always resolve to APNIC. Temporary blocks have been applied, but because the user is on a dynamic IP blocks don't necessarily resolve the issue for any length of time. Bearcat 01:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: Hunter was sprotected on January 24. Bearcat 05:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon Ramsay Gordon Ramsay (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Gordon Ramsay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - It appears from the page on Celebrity Chef Gordon Ramsay that he has died today, January 23rd. However there is no account in the article as of how and when this should have happened, and a google search did not turn up anything about him being dead. Does anybody know if this is true or not? Rudbeck 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There must have been a confusion with the death of David Dempsey, a top-chef of Gordon Ramsay BBC News. JoJan 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Csuri Charles Csuri (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Charles Csuri (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This stub was created recently and there has been debate on whether detailed information about his relatives should be included. A recent diff indicates that there might be two or more of Csrui's relatives adding or modifying this personal information. I would say that this content is inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry. - cgilbert(talk|contribs) 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Swaggart Jimmy Swaggart (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Jimmy Swaggart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Please see Talk:Jimmy_Swaggart#Cleanup.3F_NPOV.3F_How_about_WP:BLP.21 for explanation. CyberAnth 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abdullah II of Jordan Abdullah II of Jordan (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Abdullah II of Jordan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) The text "Mathematically, His mother's pregnancy was considerably less than nine months at the time of his birth, which might confirm the claim that he is an illegitimate son to King Hussein" has been repeatedly replaced on the page. I assert that it's both original research (as indicated by the "might confirm") and a WP:BLP violation unless the assertion of illegitimacy can be supported by references. Other editors disagree with me. Additional opinions and advice would be welcome! --ElKevbo 22:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dare Obasanjo Dare Obasanjo (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Dare Obasanjo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Should TechCrunch blame in the vandalization of wikipedia be reverted into the article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serg3d2 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Savage (commentator)‎ Michael Savage (commentator)‎ (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Michael Savage (commentator) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - User continually makes unsourced allegations that Savage is a fascist. Several warnings have been given to the user both on the article talk page, and the user talk page, but he continues to insert this potetnially slanderous material. No sources have been given to substaniate the claim, and the only link provided says nothing of the sort.

Diffs on the article: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] etc.

Most recent warning on article talk page: [25]

Relevant warning on user talk: [26] --RWR8189 04:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with RWR8189's assessment. EnglishEfternamn continues to be disruptive by inserting unsourced allegations, most specifically with regards to Savage's defense of Marines accused of crimes. He takes a section of text meant to describe Savage's position and adds a final sentence such as "Critics see this as proof that Savage is fascist", adds a fact-tag and moves the entire paragraph to the "Criticism" section, making a description of Savage's believe seem like a criticism. Regarding WP:BLP, Jimbo has already weighed in saying that placing a fact-tag on unsourced info is not acceptable, the unsourced info has to be swiftly deleted. This has been explained to EnglishEfternamn many times, yet he ignores it and continues to be disruptive.--WilliamThweatt 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good day, I would like to take this time to talk in my own defense. The cited content in question carries proper references. It can be hard to find these references at times because the layout of the website is designed in such a manner that makes it constantly changing. Therefore, involuntary redirections have taken place in some instances. I apologise for this and will work to make sure these citations are DIRECT. The citations are correct, nonetheless as long as the server on the website in question does not redirect.

WilliamThweatt on the other hand has been a bigger hinderance to my wish to edit articles. As soon as I begin trying to contribute to the Michael Savage page, this user made false complaints to administrators, one of which sent be threatening e-mails, and I received a few threatening e-mails from WilliamThweatt himself, how he found out what my e-mail is, I don't know, but I was willing to overlook this at the time. He has now resorted to personal attacks once again, and I feel as if my right to contribute to the pages has been subject to strong, un-dying intimidation. I wish to peacefully co-exist with these users and seek a resolve.(EnglishEfternamn 18:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

I will not respond to the above accusations as this is not the correct forum to do so, however this is the source that the user inserts in the article to allege support of fascism. It seems to be a fan site of Savage and is not a reliable source. Regardless, this fan site does not accuse him of fascism, and implication that it does would be original research This uncited implication is potentially slanderous and cannot be tolerated.--RWR8189 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, are you being directed properly? I'm looking right at the references now...(EnglishEfternamn 19:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

The word "fascist" does not appear on the cited page. Implying that the content of the page on this unreliable source proves that Savage is somehow a fascist is original research and not acceptable.--RWR8189 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly will not apologize for attempting to enforce such an important Wikipedia policy in WP:BLP. Thanks.--RWR8189 19:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You've done no such thing. A violation of the rules must take place beforehand for such a situation to occur. Thanks.(EnglishEfternamn 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

And once again, are you viewing the right page, or the redirection page?(EnglishEfternamn 20:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

I'll refer you to this section of WP:BLP and what Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." ^[1]

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." ^[2] --RWR8189 21:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

EnglishEfternamn, I and other editors have gone to great lengths to explain this to you. The allegations of fascism you are inserting are not sourced on the page you are directing the reader to. Until you actually have the proper citation for your allegations, do not insert them, as it would be in violation of WP:BLP. In regards to your edits to the Hamdania paragraph, we have repeatedly explained to you why this can't be included as it is OR. Please think long and hard about your actions. Its good that you are passionate about editing this encyclopedia, but there are rules that you must follow, including WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:CIVIL. (To anyone interested, I and WilliamThweat already had a fight with him over this same material back in december.)--Mbc362 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that various users have sent me threats. This is a violation of a number of rules, and the users here going out of the way to intimidate me are being supported by crooked admins. Gamaliel, if these threats persist, I will have no choice but to report administrator abuse.(EnglishEfternamn 17:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

Please provide a link to these alleged threats and I will investigate them myself. Gamaliel 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And for the 29th time, the references are gennuine, but it can be hard to be directed properly. Try clicking to the link several times, it could be your browser is not up to date. Again, I should mention that earlier in this section, I was willing to take my editing ambitions elsewhere on the grounds that William Thweatt and RWR apologise for unwarrented accusations. We all have much to contribute here and I feel a peaceful resolve is in need here. My offer still stands, and I hope we can stay on good terms.( EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 19:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

• EnglishEfternamn has once again inserted the disputed content which violates WP:BLP. It can be seen here.--RWR8189 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, have you checked the citations, because I am reading them right now, at this very moment.--- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You have cited Savage saying a couple random stupid and offensive things. That's fine. What's wrong with the section is that you have strung them together to push a claim that he advocates fascism and then attributed that claim to unnamed and unsourced (and probably nonexistent) "critics". Gamaliel 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact that such critics in question are indeed both sourced and existent?---- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case then please source them and end this problem. Do not once again reinsert the same unreliable source and claim it says something that it doesn't.--RWR8189 23:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no footnote or other source for this claim that I can see: "For statements such as this, critics state that Michael Savage takes a militaristic approach to solving problems in American society." Gamaliel 23:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what to say as I am looking at the refs right now...I'll have to try to get the link right again, I guess.--- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Clark (journalist)‎ Neil Clark (journalist)‎ (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Neil Clark (journalist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Citylightsgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has complained on the administrator's noticeboard about the editing of the British journalist's article. The user posting here is involved in this dispute, but has done so in order to speed up the resolution of this issue. Philip Cross 20:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of male performers in gay porn films List of male performers in gay porn films (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

List of male performers in gay porn films (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). A disaster waiting to happen. Hoaxes, kids adding people on there, etc. All unverified. Patstuart^talk·edits 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Kelly Ruth Kelly (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Ruth Kelly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - On the Talk page to article Ruth Kelly Dave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) left the following comment about Ruth Kelly: there's plenty of evidence she's a ... (deleted as recommended) ...-cat. [27]. I recommended him to reconsider (aka delete) his comment as it is a derogatory, insulting statement that, even if viewed as an users personal opinion, violates WP:TPG and especially WP:BLP. As User:Dave has no intent to retract[28] his comment, I’m seeking advice about whether the statement in question really violates our policies and must be deleted or not. -- Túrelio 16:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, insulting people violates WP:BLP. I've deleted talk and left a message on the talk page. Tyrenius 19:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. -- Túrelio 19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: I think there are two issues here.

1. I wasn't aware that it was against policy to do that, and for breaking policy I apologise.
2. I don't think that it should be against policy to express an opinion about someone on an article talk page, especially when it is clear that it is an individual user's opinion. How does one go about getting a debate on this policy? Dave 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Har Gobind Khorana Har Gobind Khorana (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Har Gobind Khorana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

72.64.122.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is vandalizing Har Gobind Khorana page with unsourced claims and even changing the name in the narrative. I think this person wants to somehow make him into a Sikh, even though his own Nobel biography does not mention it. I have reversed this vandalism but I suspect he will be at again soon. DaveBorman 18:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Republic Free Republic (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Free Republic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prior to mid-2001, Free Republic was not registered as a non-profit corporation. Under the law, it was a sole proprietorship. Therefore any libelous statements about the period prior to mid-2001 are libelous statements about Free Republic's owner and founder: a living person named Jim Robinson.

Jim Robinson has successfully sued the City of Fresno and won an out-of-court settlement of $60,000 (and cost the city $100,000 or more in legal fees) for a press release describing Free Republic as a "hate group." This proves that they are inclined to litigate. Litigious people must be handled with care.

The Free Republic article here at Wikipedia is being "owned" by a pair of left-wing partisans from a rival website called Democratic Underground. I'm convinced that they don't care whether Wikipedia gets sued. Their only concern is to insert or link, in the Free Republic article, the most derogatory information on the Internet that they can find.

Some time ago, they found a very derogatory article from 1999 (in the pre-2001 period I described) that was purportedly written by TJ Walker. The article cannot be found on TJ Walker's website, although an inaccessible link bearing a title that is similar to the title of the article can be found. This was self-published anyway, and could not be used under WP:BLP guidelines even if it could be found.

It was, however, republished by a partisan left-wing website called AmericanPolitics.com. This website carefully couched its republication in weasel words such as "TJ Walker claims ..." Clearly this would also fail to qualify under WP:BLP guidelines. Nevertheless, it was inserted in the Wikipedia article about Free Republic.

The purported "TJ Walker article" claims that death threats against Bill and Hillary Clinton had been posted at Free Republic and allowed to remain there for several months. This is a lie. Threats of violence have always been removed immediately from Free Republic. Abruptly, and without explanation, AmericanPolitics.com pulled the article and blanked the page a few weeks ago. They did this because it was libelous, and they didn't want to get sued like the City of Fresno got sued.

The partisan Wikipedians from Democratic Underground, undaunted, scoured the Internet and found an archived copy, and it is now linked at the Free Republic article with the "death threat" accusation, in the lead of the article. Anyone who attempts to remove it is immediately targeted with verbal abuse and accusations of sockpuppetry.

Please do something about this before Wikipedia gets sued, the way the City of Fresno got sued. Thank you. Dino 14:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Free Republic was not a sole proprietrship as Dino claims. It was a LLC. From L.A. Times vs. Free Republic [1999] "Unable to present any evidence of transformativeness, Defendants are forced to falsely portray “[t]he [Free Republic] site [as] a not for profit enterprise.” Defendants’ Motion 6:20-21, 7:5 (relying on the Declaration of Howard K. Szabo). In fact, the Free Republic website is a for-profit limited liability company in the business of “Internet discussion and marketing.” Wayland Decl., §§ 9-10, Exhs. H & I (fictitious business name statement for Free Republic). Free Republic is not -- and never has been -- a non-profit entity." LA Times v Free Republic

Also see : "Thanks to section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), which became law in 1996, Wikipedia is most likely safe from legal liability for libel, regardless of how long an inaccurate article stays on the site. That's because it is a service provider as opposed to a publisher such as Salon.com or CNN.com." Is Wiki safe from Libel Liability- Fairness & Accuracy For All 19:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Note : That Admin User:Jossi who is heavily involved with BLP, LIVING, and re-writing RS V to ATT is of the opinion that the source is fine, even as he accepts as fact Dino's unproven claim that the article was 'pulled' for being libelous! Jossi wrote : "Let me understand this. An article was written in the past by a person named TJ Walker, right? That article was later removed by the author from his website, on the basis that it was libelous? [unknown] Is there any official retraction by TJ Walker to that effect? If that is the case, you can cite both the article and the retraction. If there is no retraction, citing the article would appropriate as per WP:V, even if it is from a cached version or an Internet archive". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC) link Why is Dino even persuing this, when Jossi, who is the long time mediator on the Free Republic article, [just now returning to medition] said it was OK? - Fairness & Accuracy For All

Note : Dino writes above : Re: "The purported "TJ Walker article"... Abruptly, and without explanation, American Politics.com pulled the article and blanked the page a few weeks ago. They did this because it was libelous, and they didn't want to get sued like the City of Fresno got sued."

Dino claimed on Jan. 15, 2007, that he contacted TJ Walker personally and that Walker told him that he never wrote the article in question! "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." He contacted AmericanPolitics.com and asked them to remove the article from their website. They complied immediately" here Troubling - Very Troubling. (TJ Walker and APJ have been asked to confirm or deny Dino's very public claims that noted author TJ Walker NRO plagiarized the article attributed him - or had it ghost written - or whatever it is that Dino claims) Fairness & Accuracy For All 21:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of any question of immunity from liability, Wikipedia has strict policies against the posting of libelous information. One admin who is involved in rewriting those policies does not a consensus make. Those policies have been continuously disregarded with regard to this article. Dino 22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Er.... uh... sorry to break the bad news to you Dino, but you're suffering from a total misunderstanding of Wikipedia and its policies. The first words in WP:V say "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." That's why, for instance, articles are allowed on Wiki using claims by Fringers who argue that Saddam did orchestrate, fund and direct the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Cause these nutty claims were published somewhere notable - this making them WP V. The fact that I can cite the US Gov and the words of Bush himself saying Saddam was not involved in 9/11, does not mean that I can get the claims saying he was deleted from Wiki. It behooves you to read some WP, Dino. Seriously. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 22:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein falls under "Significant Public Figures" as described in WP:BLP. Therefore, an article related to him can contain notable accusations. Jim Robinson is not such a public figure.

The accusations made against Saddam Hussein are notable all by themselves. Although most people don't accuse Saddam Hussein of directing 9/11, the number of people who do is a lot more the number of people who accuse Jim Robinson of publishing death threats.

The accusation that Saddam orchestrated 9/11 is (or should be) described as a minority opinion. Even if that justified including the reference, you'd have to say "a small minority of people including TJ Walker believe that Free Republic posted death threats".

Also, if there is significant doubt that TJ Walker actually wrote the article, then it isn't a reliable source even for TJ Walker's opinions. We don't need to *prove*, using an official statement from Walker, that Walker didn't write the article in order to reject it as a source.

I think you're trying to distort WP:BLP. Unproven accusations (even implicit ones) of posting death threats are exactly the thing the policy was meant to prevent. Ken Arromdee 07:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No one is accusing Jim Robinson of making death threats. There are multiple RS V sources documenting (not alleging) death threats posted on Free Republic, as there are other political forums. A new one Dino's 'claims' that TJ Walker's admitted to him that TJ plagarised his own 1999 article entitiled 'Is FreeRepublic.com really Deaththreat.com' (or had it ghost written - or whatever it is that Dino claims - he won't exactly say - except that Dino says TJ 'denied' writing it to him) (then the story changed) are not credible, and his smears against this notable published author CBS News are reprehensible. They will be addressed. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 10:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether the accusation is "making death threats" or "publishing death threats" is irrelevant. And whether TJ actually published the article is only partly relevant. Even if he really published the article, it isn't a notable accusation unless it's been published in a lot of places. And even if it was as notable as the accusations against Saddam Hussein, you'd have to say "a few people accuse Free Republic of posting death threats", just like you must do with Saddam. You can't just write the article as if the posting of death threats was a fact--any more than you could write an article that Saddam being responsible for 9/11 was a fact. Ken Arromdee 17:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If there's no WP:RS, remove -simple. AmericanPolitics.com wasn't an RS in first place. <<-armon->> 12:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Ayers Nick Ayers (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Nick Ayers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

While I thought that the text was legit due to the source (Atlanta Journal-Constitution), it turns out that the referenced articel doesn't exist! I've commented out everything but the 1st sentence for now, but would appreciate some help on it. Also note, I only found out because of a blog picking up on it. 68.39.174.238 18:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion. Or suggested it anyway. He doesn't seem to be that important yet, even if one reporter at the Journal-Constitution is a fan. :-) Steve Dufour 21:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've readded the information you deleted - it's well sourced (and the source is not the Journal Constitution). I also object to your prod so you'll have to take it to AfD. I'm not trying to be contentious but I disagree with you on these issues. --ElKevbo 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm letting the article alone. As I said on the talk page he is a borderline case for notability. I would think that his arrest for DUI wouldn't be proper to mention under WP policy, but I am not an expert on that. Steve Dufour 05:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammed Al Amoudi Mohammed Al Amoudi (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Mohammed Al Amoudi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Black billionaires (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Yom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) repeatedly and persistently cites a blog [29] in articles Mohammed Al Amoudi and black billionaires to make the controverisial claim that Al Amoudi(a dark skinned Arab) is the richest black person in the world contradicting a reliable source which claim Oprah Winfrey is [30] , and also contradicting a reliable source that classifies Al Amoudi as the world’s 8th richest Arab! [31]. I see no evidence that Al Amoudi self-identifies as black and he is actually of predominantly Middle Eastern origin. His father is Yemeni and though his mother is Ethiopian, many studies claim that Ethiopians have substantial caucasoid admixture from the Near East [32]. (User:Yom is notorious for using original research to dismiss such genetic studies in an apparent effort to label everyone black, including Europeans! Talk:Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe#Yom is violating Wikipedia policy ).

As a mixed race person, I find it incredibley offensive and presumptuous of certain editors to simply brand mixed race public figures with racial labels they do not neccecarily accept. I also think it’s incredibley inappropriate to state that someone who is less than half black in ancestry is black because this is a throwback to the racist one drop rule of the segrated South and is inconsistent with how millions of mixed race people self-identify [33]. All of this puts the statement in violation of wikipidea living person policy which states: Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. [2] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. User:Yom ignores such warnings claiming Nazret.com is a reliable source, however he is citing from the Ethio-blog section and WP:RS#Self-published sources as secondary sources clearly prohibits the use of blogs saying Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. Blogs are further condemed by WP:RS#Editorial oversight which states that Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (e.g. Nature). If blogs are not considered acceptable sources in regular articles concerning noncontroversial topics then how in the world can they be considered acceptable sources for discussing topics as controverisial as race in articles as sensitive as those dealing with living persons, where stanadards are supposed to be much higher? Vexperiential

Part of the problem is the word "black" itself. No human is literally black in color; the word "black" is just a label put on certain people with darker skin color shades. In the United States Mr. Amoudi would be considered "black" although he would not be in many other countries. Many African Americans would not be considered "black" in other parts of the world. I think Mr. Amoudi should be mentioned on a "Black Billionaires" page, but with some kind of disclaimer explaining his ancestry. Steve Dufour 20:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)p.s. I just checked out the Black billionaires article. It was quite interesting and a great example of the kind of information WP can provide. p.p.s. Tiger Woods is "black", that is American culture would put the label "black" on him, even if he is not African American.

Oh I agree that anyone with any known degree of sub-Saharan ancestry should be mentioned in the article but I object to someone who is not predominantly black being described as black without a reliable source giving that opinion. And I'm not sure that he would be considered black in America. Many members of the Saudi Royal family look blacker than he is but they're not regarded as black in America. Generally mixed race people are only considered black in America to avoid calling them white, but if there's another ethnic group they fall into such as Arab, Hispanic, or Asian, they are often described by those terms. Vexperiential

We seem to be agreeing. Mention him in the article, along with Tiger Woods, but don't say they are black---just that some people have said they are. Steve Dufour 05:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the source they're using to quote people describing Al Amoudi as black is a blog. As I showed above, wikipedia does not consider blogs to be reliable sources, and when making statements of a controversial nature in a living person biography, wikipedia requires the sourcing be excellent. Technically he's not black. I bet the vast majority of his DNA would come from the middle east which makes him Arab. There are black people in the article who are almost billionaires, so there can be billionaires in the article who are almost black, but I don't think we can quote anyone calling them black unless it's a reliable source which we don't have. Vexperiential

It's not WP's job to give the final answer on these kind of questions. I think the article would be incomplete without mentioning him and saying that some people do count him as black. Steve Dufour 06:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the article does have a chart showing he's the richest billionaire with any known sub-Saharan ancestry, while Oprah's the only billionaire of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry. But what concerns me is that some editors have gone further and quote Nazret.com's Ethioblog describing him as a black billionaire. I prefer to let readers decide for themselves if a billionaire who is only half Ethiopian (and Ethiopians are only about half black) is a black billionaire, rather than quote a source as unreliable as a blog making the incredibley controversial claim that a prominent Arab billionaire is a black. Vexperiential

Again we seem to be in agreement. The article should mention him, but not say for sure that he is "black". Steve Dufour 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in the article. We need more objective outsiders like you to keep an eye on it as so many people try to use to promote political agendas. Did you notice how user:Halaqah tried to change the opening sentence from this article refers to actual or incipient black or part-black billionaires to just this article refers to actual or incipient black billionaires in a POV pushing attempt to brand everyone mentioned in the article as just black even though people like Tiger Woods have publicly stated that it bothers them to be described as black. Editors like that are the reason I hop you and others continue to keep an eye on that article. Vexperiential

Stop mischaracterizing my actions Vexperiential. I never said he was a black billionaire, nor did the article ever say that he was. It simply stated that Nazret.com (see the talk page of the article and of the individual's article for my comment on Vexperiential's charactrization of the page as a blog that anyone can post articles to) considered him as such. It never defined him as a black billionaire outright. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jarosław Kaczyński Jarosław Kaczyński (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Jarosław Kaczyński (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Recently in the article on current prime minister of Poland some users have started using references that seem dubious to claim he is gay. It appears few if any of reliable media has repeated such views. See this discussion. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zalmay Khalilzad Zalmay Khalilzad (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Zalmay Khalilzad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Someone is amusing themselves by indicating that Ambassador Khalilzad is Jewish instead of Muslim. While, as a Jew, I would be very pleased to welcome to the tribe a person with the caliber of Ambassador Khalilzad's outstanding accomplishments, his other biographers seem pretty clear that he professes the Muslim faith. Unfortunately, these kinds of edits targeting a living person reflect poorly on Wikipedia when they remain unaddressed. I hate to see such a great project be attacked by weakminded folks who think they are somehow insulting either Jews or Muslims, or anyone else by such antics68.163.244.46 01:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Article appeared to be okay per above on my check. Removed uncited details about subject's personal life. CyberAnth 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian McLaren Brian McLaren (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Brian McLaren (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) FYI - an anonymous user keeps spamming this article with a link to a blog with inaccurate and libellous information regarding the living person. I have tried to reason with the anon in discussions to no avail, and even recommended the reading of WP:NOT explaining that articles on living persons are not to be used for grandstanding and as a repository of links to critical articles.

I can't spend my time on editing wars, so if someone is willing to take this on and deal with it I would appreciate it. --Virgil Vaduva 14:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Made post to incidents to have anon IP banned for 3RR violation. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Anon IP keeps spamming controversial links into Briann Mclaren and has violated 3RR. CyberAnth 06:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Cult#Misrepresentation of Rick Ross website Talk:Cult#Misrepresentation of Rick Ross website (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Talk:Cult#Misrepresentation of Rick Ross website (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - An editor has used a defamation word to describe cult exit counselor Rick Ross [34]. The definitions of this defamation word are here. The editor was recommended to delete the defamation as a slander-like statement. The editor refused and repeated the defamation, apparently claiming a truth defense based on this reference. The problem is that Mr. Ross was not convicted of the actions that might or might not marginally justify the defamation word. Even if the editor is metaphorically justified in describing Mr. Ross this way, as a public figure under libel/slander law, there is an issue of WP:NPOV, since Mr. Ross was alleged to have committed a crime but was acquitted. (I don't know who's correct, but I feel it's my duty to report my concern of a possible slander/libel legal exposure to Wikimedia Foundation.) // Milomedes (talk · contribs) 03:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audrey Seiler Audrey Seiler (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Audrey Seiler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was recently tagged as a hoax, was missed by the rampant {{blp}} tagging spree, and, to me, just sounds wrong. Would someone else read through this and let me know if this is "just me"? 68.39.174.238 (talk · contribs) 20:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the substantial unreferenced information and information containing insufficient source per WP:BLP. I added fact templates to the remaining text, where needed. The article is about a hoax. The article is not a hoax. -- Jreferee (talk · contribs) 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just adding support to the above actions here. CyberAnth 10:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edith González Edith González (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Edith González (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) The source for the paragraph called Controversy comes from the Spanish article Bebé de Edith González, fruto de inseminación artificial. That article translates as:

It is now being said (by no credited reliable source) that her baby was conceived by articial insemination and that each week the rumor is growing stronger that the baby belongs to a former presidential candidate who is not named in the article.

This is rumor built upon innuendo and should not be in the bio of a living person. While her pregnancy is mentioned in her IMDb article, there is no reference to this there. Morenooso 06:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire "Controversies" section which was entirely unsourced. Nothing of such an uncited nature should be in a BLP. CyberAnth 06:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tariq Ramadan Tariq Ramadan (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Tariq Ramadan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Hi. I don't if this is the right place or not, but this article is attracting a lot of ip vandalism and edits like this. Please check the page history. Is it time for semi-protection? <<-armon->> 12:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd try Wikipedia:Requests for page protection first. MER-C 12:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Page looks quite good from a WP:BLP perspective. CyberAnth 22:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jacqui Abbott Jacqui Abbott (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Jacqui Abbott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Why does this page have a biography of another apparently unrelated musician tacked on? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqui_Abbott If there's a reason I'm missing I apologise for wasting your time! -- 195.112.33.187 (talk · contribs) 18:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a mergeto template to the article. The Jacqui Abbott article has been a stub for exactly one year today. -- Jreferee 20:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)