Misplaced Pages

:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:15, 20 May 2009 view sourceLeaveSleaves (talk | contribs)Rollbackers42,926 edits Fake IPL Player: comment← Previous edit Revision as of 18:00, 20 May 2009 view source Dronkle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers12,793 edits Talk:Self-hating Jew: new sectionNext edit →
Line 523: Line 523:


:I found a bunch of reliable sources (as opposed to the single source now used in the article) -- alas, the heading is too accurate here. ] (]) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC) :I found a bunch of reliable sources (as opposed to the single source now used in the article) -- alas, the heading is too accurate here. ] (]) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

Could someone please delete this libellous attacks on an academic at ]. Contrary to ]'s claims very little of what Finlay has published has anything to do with Islam, let alone with advancing the claimed POV. His publications are listed at should people wish to compare what he has actually published with what Schosha claims.--] (]) 18:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:00, 20 May 2009

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. Shortcuts

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

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


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

    Additional notes:

    Notes for volunteers
    How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed?
    You can use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done.
    More ways to help
    Today's random unreferenced BLP
    Tim Kirkby (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 21 Jan 2025 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)
    Centralized discussion



    Hakan Yalincak article issues

    This was tagged by an anon for speedy deletion as an attack page with the in text comment "subject of article is editing and making changes that make disparaging comments about those allegedly involved in his own legal issues. content violates court ordered agreements." I've blanked and protected all but the lead which was cleaned up by User:DGG. SPA's-- Special:Contributions/Downeyscan, Special:Contributions/64.52.49.34, Special:Contributions/MediaTruthTracker, allegedly the subject-- Special:Contributions/Hakanyalincak. The article was stable till this series of edits-- by Hakanyalincak. Then came the three SPA's.] I'm all for deleting it in it's entirety for the sake of human dignity, but it's a long standing article with sources and he may be notable. What's your pleasure? Dlohcierekim 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

    Is there an event we can merge him to? The "multi-million dollar hedge fund fraud and Ponzi scheme" that the article links him to might be notable in itself. In that case as a BLP1E he should be merged in with that article. Per this source her mother also appears connected with the event. While I don't think either of them should have an article about themselves, their mention in an article about the Ponzi scheme would be appropriate if the scheme itself was notable. ThemFromSpace 23:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    The problem is there seems to have been several different frauds; and the major one (the hedge fund) was relatively low value ($7m). Tricky. We could try moving/merging to Yalincak hedge fund scam or something. Rd232 01:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    I like that idea. The article before Dlohcierekim removed most of it seemed to have lots of sensitive content (about his mental health, hospitalization, etc.), and as far as I can tell the individual is not very notable anyway. Making the article be about the incident instead would satisfy notability concerns and maybe ward off people who would otherwise be putting sensitive BLP stuff in there. rʨanaɢ /contribs 01:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    I was tempted to take this article to AFD, but a quick look shows that there is a whole stack of coverage in reliable sources. So, I think that the BLP route is unlikely to work, although a case could probably be made for BLP1E deletion. Lankiveil 12:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

    The issue is that the article is outdated....it was fine the way it was and it shouldn't have been tampered with aside from inclduing updates. What is notable about the scheme was that it was for, getting the facts right, $43 million bank fraud, 8.9 million wire fraud, $30 million insurance fraud, $2.5 million credit card fraud, and about hundreds of millions of dollars in potential exposure to various banks who provided prime brokerage and lines of credit to the hedge fund. That is what makes it notable....what makes it even more notable is that 2 days after[REDACTED] took this action the Turkish press covered it...that is notable, the fact that Hakan Yalincak was on CNBC with Melissa Lee and she won an emmy for her piece makes him notable. However, there has been no substantive updates to his bio in more than a year, even though he has been released from prison according to the www.bop.gov website. And, the fact that the Yalincaks havent been deported, even though an immigration judge in Hartford, CT ordered them removed, makes him notable (the Second Circuit issued a stay of removal preventing their removal). And, I am a writing a book on Hakan Yalincak as he is the poster child for bank and investor overindulgence in imagination and fancy culminating in the credit crisis. Finally, all of the information that was posted is true, however, it needs to be written in a voice neutral matter. all of the sensitive information is publicly available as are the settlements. I can only think of two people that would engage in vandalism or want to take the site down, and both were defendants in a lawsuit filed by Yalincak and both of whom match the ISP registered by Wiki. To the extent wiki allows them to denigrate a profile that has been useful to everyone from the New York Post to the Turkish press to a book writer like me it would denigrate the priciples wiki stands for: sharing open information. That is a sad tragedy. Mary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marymccully (talkcontribs) 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


    Yalincak hedge fund scam

    Hakan Yalincak was moved to Yalincak hedge fund scam per the BLP concerns. Marymccully restored that to what she claims is the default version, containing BLP violations addressed above. She also undid the redirect,restoring removed contents. I restored the redirect and again removed the BLP content. Needs more eyes and more thought from other users. Dlohcierekim 15:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    I believe the redirect is improper and the BLP discussion is of no value if the input from other participants in the discussion are ignored. This page has been standing for over 2 years and according to the statistics has gotten over a 1000 visits in one month....its a bit odd that two people would delete and redirect an entire page that had as many as 17 links to a page that has one paragraph and is of no educational or other value and lists an article as a reference that later issued a retraction.--Marymccully (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Marymccully


    That article is a disgrace and I have reverted to a BLP compliant version. Additions should be made with clear in-line citations. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've re-restored the redirect at Hakan Yalincak again, and I would support it being sprotected in the interests of our BLP policies should the article there be recreated once more. Lankiveil 12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

    I support protection. Mary claims to be an expert on the man. She apparently knows much about him, but does not understand our WP:BLP requirements here. In the interest of not having this continual reversion and the risks inherent to negative BLP's until she fully understands our policies on WP:RS and so forth, it would be best to protect the article. It has also been a battleground between the man's detractors and supporters, with no regard for our policies and guidelines. Protection will avoid all that. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've indefinitely protected the redirect until the problem passes. I did this before seeing the above discussin because it seemed an obvious precaution. 'Marymccully' is now at Editor assistance requests asking for help and accusing another editor of being a sockpuppet. . Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Proposal to merge yalincak hedge fund scam with List_of_Ponzi_schemes

    It has been suggested that this page be merged into list_of_Ponzi_schemes and Talk:Yalincak_hedge_fund_scam#Merger proposal. (Discuss) Proposed since May 2009.

    Mary does make a worthy point about this article-- it seems that the previous iterations cannot be used again as they wont survive any attempt to reach a neutral consensus on this topic/biography, given the strong disagreement on what is accurate, appropriate, or notable etc. The edit warring crossfire, targeting not random users but even high-level admins, further points to this inevitability. With these conflicts and the time they consume in mind, its should be noted that Yalincak/his story is not something that one would see in a Britannica--his story fails to impart or emobdy a unique idea/concept or a transcendent moment in history that requires strict enyclopedic documentation. Obviously Misplaced Pages tends to be more expansive than traditional encyclopedias, yet yalincak's presence, even within those more flexible guidelines, is still something of a stretch.

    I don't believe Yalincak deserves a dedicated BLP as his biography/life story is certainly not notable in a historic or cultural sense. As stated above, it simply does not provide anything "new" in its content or provide insight to the study of related matters. His crimes, however, do meet some sense of notability in reference to Ponzi/pyramid schemes, and do provide additional reference to those studying such topics. With that in mind, I'd like to propose erasing this BLP and merging what is left of the article with en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Ponzi_schemes-- a list of ponzi schemes throughout history. I think that this the most fitting place, as yalincak's scheme, independent of the man himself, is notable in that he was so young, but not for much else beyond that. After reviewing the list myself, its clear Yalincaks BLP was, from the outset, an aberration, as there are ponzi schemes on the list involving ten+ times the amount of money his did that do not have an accompanying/extensive BLP.

    Any thoughts on this from the peanut gallery? Yulin23 (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    This particular series of crimes is notable in its own right. The redirect to Yalinak hedge fund scam was right, especially because there were two Yalinaks involved. The merge is in my opinion inappropriate. There's BLP, but simultaneously NPOVC, and notable crimes get articles. The reason to merge given by the proposer is "certainly not notable in a historic or cultural sense.", but that is much different from our standard. Notable is less than historic. That this might not be in the EB is also not relevant, what is in the EB is our bare minimum standard in that we cover all they do, and a great deal more also. The merge has unwisely already been done, and it should not have been done without consensus. Since this is BLP, I'm going to wait for additional opinions, but by own position is that I am prepared to revert it. . DGG (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    I think the merge was a bit hasty. I would like to see more discussion of the merits of the Yalincak hedge fund scam article. It may be that the merger is the right way to go, but we do not have a consensus to do so. I also make note that Yulin23 (talk · contribs) has only recently come to edit Misplaced Pages, and has confined his edits to the matter at hand. His merger after < 3 days for discussion was overly precipitate. Reading DGG argue to keep the article causes me considerable doubt about advisability of the merger. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    apologies for any perceived hastiness, I figured the lack of any response relative to the frequency of posts in the prior week indicated a lack of controversy towards my proposal. More discussion is always ideal, but it seems to me this dialogue has been a rather onesided exchange between one person(marymccully) with no interest in changing her stance, and admins offering not much besides insisting on discussion for the purpose of maintaining wikipedia's idealogical premise. Given that neither of these present a situation that would predicate an actual, relevant discourse leading to consensus on the topic, I would call this a stalemate. ultimately, having a yalincak hf scam page does provide some type of value to wikipedia, but not enough to maintain the page through all this madness, which ends up detracting from wiki's overall integrity as a source of well-considered info. -yu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yulin23 (talkcontribs) 16:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    and a quick note: Though my account is fairly new on wiki, I've visted the site and made edits for many years. I chose to create a SN for this particular issue given how much input i've provided :)- not everyone is as button down as you guys!!!!!! Yulin23 (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Gavin Menzies

    This article is about an author of a theory and corresponding book rejected by nearly all professional historians. But that part seems to be covered and sourced okay in the article. More concerning is it relies on primary sources for other claims about the author. One of them (about his involvement in the HMS Rorqual collision) I was able to source to one of the interviews used about the controversy. The other one though, the claim he is a vexatious litigant is not sourced to anything but a UK government site. Of great concern, a third claim that of his birthname/full name, is not sourced at all and unless that is really his full name we could even have the wrong person. I have attempted to find a reliable secondary source for his name and/or being a vexatious litigant but disconcertingly I was unable to partially because of the large number of mirrors etc of an earlier version that was removed . I've removed these claims but given that they've come back before I would appreciate further watchers. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

    I can't find any evidence for the existence of anyone of the name of Rowan Gavin Paton Menzies except for that vexatious litigant case. I've got no reason to think the edit wasn't a GF edit, since Menzies has threatened to sue people and tried to get them fired (he admits this) - . But I agree that unless we can find evidence connecting him to the legal case, that definitely does not belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    Well, unless there are two Rowan Gavin Paton Menzies', this is our Gavin Menzies, I've seen a copy of the Navy List from Spring 1969. the information is also in the personnel records at the Submarine Museum. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    I've replaced his full name, referencing The Navy List, which by the way can be searched for a small yearly fee here . We should have a list of who has access to databases like this, I'm sure someone does. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    As I've said elsewhere, the Navy List is a publically available publication, published originally by HMSO, and now by The Stationery Office, and can be bought from TSO's website (and probably large booksellers as well). Many UK reference libraries will hold it also. The London Gazette also covers details of his naval career, but in his case only seems to list by initials. David Underdown (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    Well I'll let the name thing go but as to the vexatious litigant thing, I still believe that per BLP that has to stay out as I've explained on the article talk page Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Lenora Claire

    See also: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529 § Clint Catalyst, Jessicka, and COI-implicated editors who refuse to abide by WP:RS and WP:BLP; Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529 § Jessicka edits; and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive191 § Admin assist

    There seems to be a dispute at this article between the subject and editors claiming conflict of interest and self-promotion. If experienced editors could get their hands dirty with referencing claims and enforcing NPOV, preferably without rubbing the subject the wrong way, it would be much appreciated. Skomorokh 01:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    • I'd like to note that this is just one of several instances of disputes where article subjects affiliated with buzznet.com are trying to control the content of the articles relating to them by edit warring, recruiting friends and associates to edit on their behalf, and making malicious personal attacks on the editors tryign to keep the articles consistent with Misplaced Pages policies. For other examples, and I've stumbled into several of them, see Jessicka, Skeleteen, Scarling, Clint Catalyst, and Kyle Justin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I can further attest to the Catalyst article. A number of 'new' editors there have taken to reverting attempts to remove information under a claim that everyone opposing them has an undeclared, undescribed "COI". Perhaps the COIN noticeboard would be more appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I signed up after this war started but had previously edited under an IP. Judging by Hullaballoo's Talk page, I'm not the only one who has come to the conclusion that s/he has a serious issue with the subjects of all of these articles mentioned. (Also, I don't know anything about Skeleteen, but what do the others besides Catalyst have to do with Buzznet?) The user follows an ongoing pattern of removing cited information, often under false edit summaries (such as falsely labeling events "open mic", removing show titles and writing credits despite appropriate citation claiming that they are "unconstructive" or denying that they exist in the text of the citation), which has caused the page to be demoted from Jump class back to Start class. Additionally, this user is the only one I have seen making "malicious personal attacks" - claiming that I know Catalyst personally, and also claiming that I am editor Tallulah13. Granny Bebeb (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
        • What demotion? The Catalyst article has been at start-class since the beginning and the insistence of citing YouTube as a source has been a part of the problem. The article is still a spam mess and complete inappropriate in accordance to policies and I'm finding the large number of new individuals all crying the same COI complaints very bizarre. This first comment alone from a new user is really, really strange. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Roger Cohen

    • Roger Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I reverted what I saw as an extreme BLP violation, and- in response- I was threatened with blocking if I didn't take it here. In any case, this seems cut and dry to me. User:Whyzeee added to the article that Cohen has "anti-Israel views, as well as his support for the Iranian nuclear program." He has no such thing, and I reverted it. It seems black and white to me. Things that someone does not advocate is being attributed to him, with words put in his mouth. Then, I was threatened. But I stand by my reverting. Thoughts? // The Squicks (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    Are you indicating the source doesn't say what it's represented as saying, or that it is not reliable in what it says? It would be helpful if you could be specific. IronDuke 03:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    The source is misquoted. It does not, I believe, say what it has been stretched to support. The Squicks (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    Again, if you could lay out for us who said what, and why you think the source, as quoted, does not support the conclusion about the source, it would be helpful. IronDuke 04:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, a gigantic chunk of the article was just deleted by User:Rd232, who went further than I would support.
    The disputed text is=

    "Cohen's portrayal of Jewish life in Iran and his anti-Israel views, as well as his support for the Iranian nuclear program.<ref>{{cite news|publisher='']''|url=http://www.jewishjournal.com/videojew/item/live_video_tonight_a_dialogue_with_roger_cohen_and_the_iranian_jewish_commu/|title=LIVE VIDEO TONIGHT: A Dialogue with Roger Cohen and the Iranian Jewish Community|accessdate=May 11, 2009}}</ref>." The Squicks (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    To quote my edit summary for this paragraph deletion : "delete excessive detail (WP:UNDUE) - these people's views of Cohen's writings aren't important enough for inclusion - cf WP:COATRACK for where we don't want to end up". To clarify: a journalist writing on these foreign policy topics gets many responses to many published views. There must be some selection, otherwise we won't have a biography of a journalist, we will have a WP:COATRACK about the issues he's reporting on. Let's have some perspective here: some guys write to a journalist and he meets them; some other guy criticises him. So what? WP:WEIGHT. Rd232 04:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    I agree. Someone else's views about the subject of a BLP should not be included in the article unless that person is an authority on the LP or his/her views are independently important neither of which is true in this case. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 00:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

    Having just listened to the alleged source for "his anti-Israel views, as well as his support for the Iranian nuclear program" (a long discussion with a live audience), I can report that the source absolutely does not support the edit. Astarabadi (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

    Yes. For an editor to claim that that source supports that kind of addition is very bad. It seems almost like a personal insult to Cohen. The Squicks (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    Here is the relevant quote from Roger Cohen's column where he supports Iran's nuclear program. "I think it’s almost certainly too late to stop Iran achieving virtual nuclear power status — something like Brazil’s or Japan’s mastery of the know-how without a weapon. Iran’s advances of the past eight years cannot be undone. What can be transformed is the context Iran operates in; that in turn will determine how “virtual” Iran remains." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13iht-edcohen.html Also in his more recent column, he expresses support for the Iranian nuclear program http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/opinion/18iht-edcohen.html Whyzeee (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    That is analysis, not support. Astarabadi (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    As for the assertion that he is anti-Israel, here is the source. "Though he touts himself as a supporter of Israel, he says virtually all acts of Israeli self-defense, including the counter-attack to halt missile attacks on its southern towns and construction of a fence to keep out suicide bombers, are “a bad thing.”" http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/an-ominous-turn-in-elite-opinion-15135 and there is also video of this event http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhOkVX_uzuw Whyzeee (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    It would be reasonable to give a properly-cited summary of his views on Israel. It is not reasonable to summarise them using your own interpretation of what they mean, especially not with slogans like "anti-Israel". Anyway the views you cite are opposition to certain Israeli actions, which is only "anti-Israeli" by one pov. Astarabadi (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    Also the guardian says, "The newspaper, and Cohen in particular, has been accused of being too critical of Israel and an apologist for Iran and its leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/29/new-york-times-roger-cohen Whyzeee (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Valerie D'Orazio - Notability?

    A blogger, minor comics editor and writer with not even a handful of credits? Is that really enough for a separate entry?? Slackhurst

    If the reference publications are notable in the comic book world, she's probably notable enough. Other thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

    Heroin

    This seems mostly to be a list of Musicians who have at some time or other used heroin. Most of this is unreferenced, and some not even backed up by the main articles of the Band/person, e.g. Aerosmith, Miles Davis, Metallica . Martin451 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    I completely agree. The list is not helpful given what the article is about. It seems like some silly ad-on. The Squicks (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    Some of that pop culture section could probably rescued but most of it should be deleted. Volunteers? – ukexpat (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    Done? Banaticus (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    the individuals there at the moment seem well-referenced. The list of musicians who have used it/referred it in their work was removed without attempting to source the others, and they probably all could be. Most of them being dead, BLP isn't usually relevant. There is material enough for an article "heroin and popular music" There are at least several entire books about this.
    I agree that there is 'material enough for an article "heroin and popular music"' but the same time a huge list in the article itself seems a bit much... though more than just three musicians could definitely be mentioned.sunja (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    Does it belong in the main article or a sub-article? I think the association between Music / Musicians & Heroin will be of historic interest, is of current academic interest and is therefore of encyclopaedic interest. Suggest it possibly belongs in a sub-article rather than the main. What's the reasoning behind suggesting deletion - references? While not overtly referenced there is inferential referencing for at least some via links to other Misplaced Pages articles. Is this sufficient? Amicaveritas (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • An article that is properly sourced called Use of drugs in popular music could be justified, but that's not at issue here. What is at issue is whether or not this level of detail should be included in the heroin page. I personally don't think so given that it is tangent to the purposes of that article, which medically/chemically describes what it is and where it comes from and so on. The Squicks (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    Marion Barry

    Resolved

    Someone from Baltimore, Maryland is continually adding "convicted drug felon" to describe Marion Barry. He was never convicted of a felony and his title shouldn't be "Mayor Marion Barry, known for fill-in-the-blank-crime". The IP(s) is adding a "controversy" to Barry's article that is pure coatrack. He's not a popular man, especially in my gayborhood (he recently voiced his objection to gay marriage), but he's still a living person. The article doesn't need to mention every Barry spat (there are many), especially one so minor. The IP used blogs as sources (no source was added 2 or 3 times) and inserting large quotes from a copyrighted source. See the edit history of Itta Bena, Mississippi, Tim Page (music critic), Joe Madison, and of course, Marion Barry. The IP has been warned, but is still adding "convited drug felon" with the edit summary "tightening up". APK straight up now tell me 00:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

    Known IPs - 128.125.239.182 (talk · contribs), 209.31.24.235 (talk · contribs), 173.67.63.49 (talk · contribs), 173.75.181.81 (talk · contribs), 96.234.244.119 (talk · contribs) APK straight up now tell me 01:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    Maybe try to get article protected vs. anon IPs? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    I was contacted through e-mail and the issue has been resolved. Thanks for replying, Carol. APK straight up now tell me 22:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

    Gwilym Davies (barista)

    Gwilym Davies (barista) is a new article, the claim to notability seems pretty tenuous, but is made so it's not speediable a I understand it, and the one ref given in the article covers the fact of him winning the World Barista Championship, but none of the other stuff in teh article about his background or political views. What's the best way to proceed? David Underdown (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

    Masoumeh Ebtekar

    I did a preliminary pass for copyediting and removal of clearly judgmental statements. I haven't analyzed the article history, just looked at what was presently there. More checking is needed. DGG (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Matthew Johns

    Due to a recent TV programme, a historic (2002) scandal regarding an incident of group sex has blown up again. The situation is semi in-control and an admin is already monitoring the situation but posting here in to get additional eyes on it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Fake IPL Player

    Fake IPL Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The article lists nickname used by this blogger for various living persons which contains significant defamatory name calling. The nicknames added are taken from the blog itself (i.e. based on primary sourcing) with significance defined as to why this list is important at all. My knowledge of BLP is rudimentary but I feel this is a severe violation of the policy. Could someone else weigh in? Sleaves 14:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    While some of the nicknames used by this blogger in this blog are derogatory, they are definitely not defamatory. One can make a viable argument that one of the reasons for the popularity of the blog (with over 150,000 views during its peak) is the humor factor imparted by the use of the nicknames. In addition, knowledge of to whom these nicknames refer is critical to understand the blog itself. To that effect, I believe that including the nicknames section in this is critical, as it will provide knowledge and a sense of understanding of the humorous nature that made this so popular. By itself, it is not slanderous or harmful. I would greatly appreciate deeper clarification of this matter. --Ant80 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Whether the names are derogatory or defamatory might be arguable (where would you characterize racism and human genitalia?), but they are certainly not verifiable. Sleaves 21:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    First off, where does racism come into play? He has mentioned racism in the blog, but the nicknames Fake IPL Player gives doesn't seem to be racist. Now, I said "doesn't seem to be racist" because don't understand Hindi, so I might have missed the racist nickname, but I went through the entire list just now and didn't find anything overtly racist. Also what is the issue with mentioning human genitalia when[REDACTED] has things like (http://en.wikipedia.org/Urethral_sounding) and other equally explicit stuff? In my opinion, this is simply a matter of freedom of speech, by American law. In any case, going by the simple definitions of the words, it is quite clear that the names themselves are not defamatory (http://en.wikipedia.org/Defamation), but simply derogatory (http://en.wikipedia.org/Derogatory). However it is arguable, depending on the accuracy of the blog, that the blog themselves are defamatory. But then again, we are not talking about entering the incidents themselves in to the blog. --Ant80 (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Regarding verifiability, the stories themselves posted are not verifiable yet, but the nicknames are quite verifiable to the reader that is fairly knowledgeable in cricket. Just because the blogger hasn't confirmed them yet doesn't mean that one can't make use of public domain knowledge of individuals' behavior, team ownership and other corroborative news articles to arrive at the conclusion. For example, everybody and their mother knows that Shah Rukh Khan owns KKR. We know who their coach is, who their skipper is, and also the identity of their ex-skipper whose demotion became front page news all around India. We know that Sreesanth's antics with the team and the incident with Harbajan last year, we know who owns Punjab XI, we know Warne's craziness, we know Ryder's drinking problem, and the list goes on. The names ARE verifiable. The incidents themselves, the ones mentioned in the blog, are not. --Ant80 (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Verifiability does not come simply from interpretation by the readers/followers of the blog but by citing reliable sources which confirm such interpretation. The blogger himself does not subscribe to these interpretation for obvious reasons. The media hasn't accepted those interpretations. Then why should an encyclopedia subscribe to this information? Especially since it is clearly objectionable. And we are talking about biographical stuff, not biology. Sleaves 06:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've said this before, but I'll try to make it clear this time. The interpretation of names is not simply the readers' inference. Certain anecdotes are cited in the blog that correspond closely with knowledge available in public domain such as the itenerary of the players, previously known incidents, other media stories and knowledge of the team status and personnel. To claim that it is not verifiable is akin to George Bush claiming that there is no evidence that shows that global warming is anything but a myth. The doctrines of NPOV and no original research are well met in this article. Regarding the "objectionable" nicknames, this brings the question objectionable to whom? To the person the nickname refers to? And that brings us back to the fact that this is governed by American law, and therefore, by freedom of speech. Just because it contains references to genetelia doesn't mean it should be removed. Clearly, whether this is "objectionable" is immaterial. --Ant80 (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Please see Misplaced Pages:Free speech. See also WP:SYNTH. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Sleaves: I'm inclined to agree with you on verifiability, except for a few names which have credible references in thew news media; in the absence of credible references, I guess it looks more like original research. However, I don't believe this is a BLP vio. Clearly, this is not part of the biography of the person, it is a reference list of names an author uses to refer to some other people and portrayed here in an NPOV, with no information of such names (whether they are demeaning/degrading/well-meaning or otherwise) within the profile of the said people. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    BLP not only concerns biographies but also any biographical information written in any article on Misplaced Pages. And in the absence of explicit sources for these nicknames, this remains a BLP vio. Sleaves 17:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

    Elissa Sursara / Eliska Sursova

    Following the blanking of Elissa Sursara by Stephen's black friend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the editorial comment that this person is "likely to be made up", I was led to another[REDACTED] article for an Eliska Sursova, a page also recently blanked by this user. Both articles have similarities other than their name - child-actress, Brazilian heritage, the same birthdate. I would appreciate some opinion/advice/assistance as to whether these entries are part of a hoax, both here and at imdb (which seems to be a "source" for the articles) or if there is a basis of truth for one or the other entry. Many thanks.  florrie  15:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Daniel S. Peña Sr.

    Article is at AfD, and being edited heavily. Originally, it was a spammy article containing nothing but praise. Now it is turning into an attack piece full of rumor and innuendo, and many many "citation needed" tags. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Susan Boyle

    This is not an appropriate forum to discuss this particular image. It's high time we ensure that this board is used for strictly BLP-related issues. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion irrelevant to this board.

    Is the image currently illustrating Susan Boyle a BLP violation? See discussion at talk page: Dlabtot (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    No, but may or may not be a WP:COPYVIO and probably should be deleted for that reason. I don't see why it would violate our BLP policy, tho... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    Copyright issues are being discussed at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Susan_Boyle.jpg. Hoping to just get input on any possible BLP violation here. (Although I consider the claim of a BLP issue to be rather far-fetched, myself.) Dlabtot (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, if we move this beyond the specific picture and article under discussion, this is something that probably needs a broader community discussion. If we start allowing editor drawn images of people, we probably need something that sets limitations on what is and is not acceptable. For example, what if I paint a picture of Barak Obama in drag ... or Susan Boyle in an clown costume? I think most of us would agree that a faithful representation of the subject (in either a neutral setting or one faithfully representing an actual setting in which the person appeared) does not violate BLP or NOR... I also think everyone would agree that a drawn or painted picture that does not relfect reality (especially one that sets the subject in a derogatory situation) would be be a BLP and NOR violation (it would equate to photo-manipulation). Perhaps it is time to create a more extensive guideline on user created images. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    The policy already prohibits contentious material; I don't think any reasonable person would disagree that " 'a picture of Barak Obama in drag ... or Susan Boyle in an clown costume " would qualify as 'contentious material'. Dlabtot (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    I agree. My point is simply to suggest that it might be time to create a seperate guideline on user-created images, one that would discuss what is and is not acceptable as such images relate to our various policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    The point about an image in a BLP is that it should be that person - not that person in a role, not that person as a wax work (as kept happening on the David Jason article), not how one of our editors have drawn them. Obviously there are common sense qualifications to this - if an image of a person has been drawn by someone famous and has been the subject of much media coverage etc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    I'd just like to point out that U.S. law concerning this issue is itself somewhat up in the air, see Shepard Fairey#Barack Obama and Shepard Fairey#Legal issues with appropriation and fair use. It's not reasonable to expect consensus here about questions that are actively being argued in the courts. Looie496 (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    I don't agree that it is accurate to characterize the law as being "up in the air". AP has put forth what is in my opinion a fairly ridiculous claim. People and corporations file suit all time. That doesn't make the applicable laws "up in the air". Dlabtot (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Fairey is claiming fair use, and that's what this image, as a derivative of the copyrighted video, must also rely upon. This image is currently hosted on Commons, which does not allow fair use. If it were moved to Misplaced Pages, its reliance on fair use would still not be permitted. It would be considered replaceable with a free image under our non-free use policy (a non-free image used merely to show what a living person looks like), in practice no better than a screenshot of the original video. Postdlf (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    Brian Quintana

    There is a current edit war in the Brian Quintana article. This article is also being AfD'd although it seems like the subject is notable. Right now, an editor through his account, michaeledean, and ip address consistently removes any negative content about the subject even though they are cited to sources. My question is how do we treat the celebrity gossip sections of major newspapers (are they reliable sources?) and is his removal appropriate? I suspect the editor is either Brian Quintana himself or someone closely related to him. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Fully protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Also consider warning the participants and bringing up a notice at WP:ANEW for discussion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    As another aside, see WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE. Merely because it is reported somewhere does not mean it is relevent to the article. If an article is filled with verifiable facts, but it cherry-picks only those facts which paint the subject in a negative light, it could still be a BLP vio even if the facts are somehow verifiable. We should strive for a neutral and balanced portrayal. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    It seems like the majority of coverage by reliable sources are negative so it is not an issue of picking and choosing. WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE) only requires that all viewpoints by reliable sources are represented and WP:BLP requires that all controversial assertions be supported by reliable sources. Again, the question is how much reliability do we assign the celebrity gossip sections of mainstream newspapers? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

    Jim Cramer

    It isn't a major problem, but anons and accounts with few edits are repeatedly changing Jim Cramer's ethnicity from Jewish to Irish. Ignoring for the minute that "Cramer" isn't an Irish name, they have not provided sufficient sources to prove the claim. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    I should possibly point out that Eamon de Valera didn't have an Irish name either... or that Bernardo O'Higgins did, but the former is Irish and the latter is not... However, not directly relevent here. That having all been said, Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Eric Limeback

    Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)

    Though I am not involved in this article, it would be helpful if a person who has never run into User:Ratel examines this one -- he has placed material on the talk page which, if in the main article, has been and likely ought to be deleted as violating BLP. He seems to think the National Enquirer is a valid reliable source for what appear to be quite negative statements about Mr. Copperfeld. TMZ.com is also used as a reliable source in this article. Collect (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

    If any user has ever run into Collect, please be aware that this subsection is part of (another) personal attack on me by this individual. The details about Copperfield were widely reported in the press, and the reports in the Enquirer were also reprinted in the media, without challenge from Mr Copperfield. The matters reported are still under investigation by a Grand Jury. No BLP violations have occurred, although User:Collect would love to find an admin who can be persuaded to act against me. ► RATEL ◄ 02:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps, but then it seems that you would love to find an admin who can be persuaded to act against him. The Pot seems to be calling the Kettle black. To address the edit conflict and not the editors: If the negative information is discussed by other, reliable media outlets, then perhaps you should cite those instead of the National Enguirer and TMZ. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    Having taken a look at the article, there are definitely some valid BLP concerns here. Some might be resolved through sourcing to different media, others should probably be removed or re-written. Please take a closer look. Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    • I'd like to ask for more input on this please. A person connected with Copperfield (by his own admission) has repeatedly removed diff the sentence:

    Other women have claimed that Copperfield uses his shows to target attractive women.

    1. "FOXNews.com - Report: Document Shows How Copperfield Roped In Attractive Women". www.foxnews.com. Retrieved 2009-05-18.
    2. "Copperfield's Lawyer: Illusionist A Victim Of Smear Campaign". www.accesshollywood.com. Retrieved 2009-05-18. {{cite web}}: Text "Access Hollywood - Celebrity News, Photos & Videos" ignored (help)
    3. "Revealed: Copperfield's Secret Document On How To Pick Up Chicks". www.huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2009-05-18.
    4. "ShowBUZZ". www.news.com.au. Retrieved 2009-05-18.
    5. "New Charges Swirl Around Copperfield". CBS News. 2007-10-26. Retrieved 2008-09-22. The illusionist reportedly offered a woman accusing him of sexual assault $2 million to drop her allegations, even as other women are apparently claiming Copperfield uses his shows to target pretty women and try to pick them up.
    6. "Copperfield Secret Document -- How to Pick Up Chicks". TMZ.com. 2007-11-05. Retrieved 2008-09-22. TMZ has obtained portions of a secret document from David Copperfield's shows, outlining in extreme detail how the magician's assistants were supposed to rope in the women that David found attractive The document describes how the assistants need to be heads-up for attractive women whom David can meet backstage after the performance.

    There is also the question of the removal of the fact that Copperfield maintains a "secret" family in Las Vegas, as published by Nevada's biggest daily, the Las Vegas Review Journal. That was also deleted by this individual. Text with cites below. Comments? ► RATEL ◄ 02:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    Copperfield was reported to have secretly had two children with a Czech model, Marie Petlickova. Petlickova and the children live in Las Vegas. Petlickova's Las Vegas attorney quoted her as saying: "David is a wonderful, loving and caring father. Please respect our privacy." Petlickova, her mother and the children lived in a $1.5 million home at a local country club since 2006. The National Enquirer reported that property records show the home is owned by Copperfield's company, David Kotkin LLC.

    1. ^ "NORM: Michigan pageant success is in genes - News - ReviewJournal.com". www.lvrj.com. Retrieved 2009-05-14.
    2. "David Copperfield secretly fathered two children with Czech model". www.showbizspy.com. Retrieved 2009-05-14. {{cite web}}: Text "Showbiz Spy - celebrity news, rumors & gossip" ignored (help)


    Request redaction of gratuitous PA above. I happen to fail to see how posting here, as requested by an admin, can conceivably be a PA on my part. Also note that several editors have removed this material as violating BLP, and Ratel does not have any consensus for including this material. If it is, indeed, violative of BLP, ot also should be redacted here. Also note that I have made absolutely no substantive edits to the article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Nothing will be redacted. You phrased the topmost question in this section in a way that I interpret as a clear PA. And you asked this question before any admin told you to come here, so do not say "as requested by an admin". As background to your sudden interest in the page on David Copperfield (illusionist) (where I am a longtime editor), you have a long, long history of confrontation with various editors, me included. You are described by many long-time editors as a trouble-making, tendentious editor who plays games of one-upmanship on[REDACTED] for your own amusement. I ask other editors please to look at my question and not be side-tracked by the red herrings this editor is dragging across the scene. ► RATEL ◄ 03:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Just a FYI to other editors thinking of responding: TMZ.com is owned by Time-Warner and run by a fully qualified lawyer who states that everything they publish is checked for accuracy. This is not a tiddlywink little personal gossip blog. ► RATEL ◄ 04:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Having looked into this, the site (TMZ) quite clearly takes a sensationalist view in order to make sales. Does this make it an unreliable source? In my opinion no, but it does mean that caution should be used regarding WP:BLP. The most reliable source on whether it is a reliable source would seem to say: it is being used as reliable source at least (not quite the same a being a reliable source): New York Times. The Washington Post article with the sub heading "Timely Scoops Push TMZ to Top of the Gossip Heap" is less compelling. There do also seem to be a significant number of actions brought against TMZ - again this would indicate caution with regard to BLP and using it as a single cited source WP:Weight In balance I think TMZ could be considered reliable, but not where it is the only source and the content is contentious. With regard to BLP I am not an inclusionist like Ratel. I believe the appropriate treatment of contentious events is brief, neutral coverage and the let the underlying cited sources go into the detail from both sides of the argument.Amicaveritas (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    I agree to an extent which is why I have replaced/supplemented the source with numerous secondary sources. Once a story is "out there" to that extent, it just cannot be kept off wikipedia. ► RATEL ◄ 08:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    Lynndie England

    I suggest it may be time to remove the most graphic material from this BLP and transfer it to pages dealing with the abuses that occurred. Views? Jayen466 20:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

    Sounds reasonable to me. MastCell  20:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    this is a possible method for dealing with the images on this article. I think removing them entirely might get some pushback from folks with the article on their watchlist, but perhaps placing them in a gallery in the court-martial section might find less resistance? Nathan 21:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    Most of the pictures and their captions seem to be duplicated in Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. I propose we could transfer the one picture that is unique to Lynndie England to Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, and then delete the pictures from her BLP. As for her personal involvement, would a short summary be enough in her BLP? Again, before deleting anything, any sourced detail not included in Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse should be incorporated so we don't lose sourced material. I'll put a link to this discussion on the article's talk page so any editors watching the article can join the discussion. Jayen466 23:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    We could possibly get by with doing that, but it might be a hard sell given that the photos and subsequent scandal are the primary reason for her notability. Nathan 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    Two questions: 1) what would be the reason for removing the pictures from her biography?, 2) why would WP:BLP be relevant here (and I assume it is supposed to be relevant, given the fact we're discussing it here)? GregorB (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    See . Even our page on OJ Simpson does not have a great amount of detail on the case he is most notable for; that detail is in a separate article on the case. I am also aware that the woman is bringing up a child who will soon be at reading age (as will their classmates). Jayen466 16:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    WP:ONEEVENT merely says that even the articles about notable individuals associated with one event will be less detailed than the article about the event itself. This is quite natural, of course. However, it doesn't say that the bio article should purposefully omit information for reasons other than succinctness. Two cases in point: John Hinckley, Jr. (listed as an example by WP:ONEEVENT) features one image of the event (Reagan assassination attempt has four), while Ira Hayes (who is some sort of Lynndie England's antipode) features two images of the event (same as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima). Noone is contemplating about removing these photos. As for England's kid, that's just too bad, because WP:NOTCENSORED. GregorB (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

    Charlie Crist, Outrage (documentary), Palinized major revision and Carole Crist article

    I've compiled and edited in a rewrite of this article, and proposed on the talkpage that it be accepted as a starting point for further development. Comments invited and welcome. Nathan 03:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    The section on Outrage the documentary within the Charlie Crist article is well sourced, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle among others- JGHowes  needs to take a look at it. The article page for the documentary itself should have its own section on this page, like the Carole Crist issue, because they are separate articles.

    Last night the Charlie Crist article underwent a major revision by Nathan.

    The two conservative state supreme court judges Crist appointed were left in the article, however two of the moderate state supreme court judges were removed along with the references.

    Over fifty different other footnotes were deleted, purged.

    There are sections of the article now that have paragraphs beginning mid sentence with no capital letter at the beginning of the sentence, many misspellings,grammatical errors and it looks very crude--not a good way to represent content for WP image.

    This article looks like it is getting Palinized--there is an attempt to only highlight Crist's conservative actions and remove content that details his moderate actions. It also mischaracterizes Crist's relationship to environmental groups.

    I would appreciate someone higher up the chain to take a look at what has been done to the Charlie Crist article and the Carole Crist article- how they appeared prior to major purges of information made by Nathan and Hurmata (talk) and to advise on what content should be part of the article and what should not be purged.--4rousseau (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    The article on Crist's wife Carole Crist has also had content purged without a good reason: the fact that she has two daughters and the name of her ex husband removed from the article even though this information is well sourced and widely seen in print publications. Details on her divorce date were also removed. And her participation in an expensive and unpopular overseas economic trade trip were also purged from her article. Also, her appearances on the Real Housewives of New York was purged.--4rousseau (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Frankly, many of the grammatical and other copyediting errors were present before my revision. I've fixed some of them, and plan to do more polishing, but I think a comparison of the revisions shows that the current version is superior in a number of ways. The article on Crist's wife is something I don't know anything about, although I suspect that we have an article at all is probably inappropriate. Some footnotes were removed, that is true - a chunk of content that chronicled political developments in Florida but weren't relevant to a biography was condensed, and in the process approximately a quarter of the 200 or so references became unnecessary. I wouldn't object to reincorporating some of that content into the article, if it can be done without returning to the former disorganized and disjointed format. Nathan 16:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    due respect, but , Nathan, your response simply is not true. many of the grammatical errors were not present prior to your revision. License plates were not referred to as License place-- broken links to Partial Birth Abortion etc were not broken links prior to your edit.

    you also did not address the removal of info on the moderate judge appointments. i simply can't continue to believe that you are operating in good faith if you can't acknowledge that, in your haste to post a new version of the article, you made a lot of errors that make the article read like an elementary school paper rather than a high quality live page in WP- please at least be honest about the facts of what can clearly be seen in the history even if you can't be about the quality of your edits.--4rousseau (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    I understand that you might be irritated at significant changes to an article that you've been expanding for about a year, but I submit that it would be more constructive to fix problems you identify rather than complain about them on a noticeboard. Copyediting is being done; some errors were made, some already existed. At any rate, issues about the article unrelated to the BLP policy should be discussed on the article talkpage rather than both there and here. Nathan 17:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    what would have been most constructive would have been for you to operate with some collegial respect and to have reviewed your major revisions prior to posting, perhaps if you would have made the effort to correct at least the grammatical and form errors prior to posting- which you now want others to fix for you but not talk about-- perhaps the major revision would have been received better.

    the intentional omissions and, in my view, attempts at obfuscation remain a problem however, and I believe others on this noticeboard need to be aware of what is happening to this article. --4rousseau (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sorry if you found my edit not collegial; I've made an effort to be collegial, which is why I have been ignoring your accusations of bias, whitewashing, etc. You are, of course, free to not correct any typographical or other errors you see in the article but I'm not sure why you would choose to do that. In the mean time, I've corrected the errors you noted and replaced mention of the moderate judges Crist appointed to the Florida Supreme Court. Nathan 18:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    all details and resources on the Lawton Chiles Fund and the Chiles family potential lawsuit against Crist was removed, as well as Crist's response. instead the article makes statements like "the health insurance reform efforts have been well received - standing next to former football star Dan Marino,"--4rousseau (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    all balanced references that detail pros and cons on Crist's environmental policy have been removed, instead it now states "lauded by environmental groups for his opposition to coastal oil drilling and his efforts to restore the Everglades using land purchased with public funds"--4rousseau (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Er, thats in the introduction. The Lawton Chiles Fund thing was removed, yes. It seemed extraneous and not really relevant to a biography as opposed to a chronicle of political events. At any rate, it might at some point be good to consider moving your objections (which are not BLP related) to the talkpage... Nathan 21:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Errol Sawyer

    Verifiably, Errol Sawyer (recently inactive User:Efsawyer) is a photographer of some renown. It's the degree of that renown that's one matter of dispute. Although his article was deleted as the result of an AfD and the current article is similar to the deleted one without such tiresome red tape as a DRV, I am in no hurry to push for redeletion. Indeed, what very little (via little jpegs) I've seen of Sawyer's work makes me hope that more RS for him can be shown.

    Sawyer's bio has been created by User:Mathilde Fischer aka User:1027 aka User:1027E; and the contributions of User:Mdeloos are remarkably similar. For background (notably the relationship of biographer and biographee), see this, as a small part of which you'll see DGG's polite but unambiguous advice you cannot scan copyright material and place it on WP, and will need to find some other way of linking. This had no effect; see this discussion of uploading of scans of copyright material. That in turn seems to have had little or no effect; see this latest upload.

    Aside from questions of the eligibility of an article deleted via AfD to reappear without DRV, and of sourcing and notability, the history of this article suggests that its primary author regards it has her preserve. COI, OWN: the alphabet soup thickens. And the talk page has a history of tampering, from euphemistic rephrasing to wholesale deletion.

    User:DGG has already devoted more of his time attention to this than I think he should. I have too. DGG has been unfailingly polite; I have tried but am finding it hard to remain so. I invite a previously uninvolved administrator or three to take over and decide what should best be done about this article, and to explain this most persuasively to its main proponent/creator. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    I cannot talk about the editor involved without violating privacy; as Hoary says, there has been too much communication. I have deliberately kept away from editing the article after some initial efforts. In articles on borderline notable artists, there is a difficulty in finding independent sources because, until they become actually famous, the literature about them tends to be connected with them or their gallery. There is therefore the convenient rule, that one way of showing notability is "The person's work ... is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums," The current article shows it, though the evidence is not as strong as would be desirable. As a practical matter, the unreasonable behavior of an editor can cast a unfavorable light on the article. It can cause, for example, undue skepticism about published print articles. DGG (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with DGG's comment, except for one point, his very first. Perhaps unwisely, the editor divulged this information herself. She may later have regretted having done so; the thought of that would prevent me from advertising it unnecessarily, but here I think it may be helpful, as I hope others would agree. ¶ One clarification. I carelessly wrote that DGG has already devoted more of his time attention to this than I think he should: by this I did not mean that DGG had done anything wrong; quite the reverse, I meant that DGG has provided more help, and done so more patiently, than anyone could reasonably expect of him. -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    I think DGG is overlooking two important points. First, WP:CREATIVE is part of Wiki's "Additional criteria", and as that section says, meeting one of them does not guarantee a subject should have an article. Second, and more important, the "Basic criteria" section of the same page says Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject, and the assertion of notability per presence of work in museums is supported solely through primary sources. This is still clearly a case of non-notability, especially since Sawyer has no published photo books, famous photographs, awards, or anything else that would legitimately earn a photographer a Wiki article.  Mbinebri  14:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    Your understanding of "primary source" differs from mine. But let's not quibble about terminology; instead, let's consider the credibility of museums. If an obscure museum suddenly claims to possess a painting by Rembrandt we should be sceptical. If any museum suddenly claims to have a Vermeer or to be the best or most popular museum in the city, we should indeed be sceptical. If on the other hand a reputable museum claims to have work by Sawyer in its collection, I see no particular reason not to believe it. Although yes, I'd like to see more evidence of critical attention than we get here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    It is a question of time and therefore patience. I'm doing my very best to provide more references but the collector Eric Franck is hard to get in touch with. Hopefully Errol Sawyer's first book is published before the end of this year. For Sawyer's pupils and students it is very important that he is present in Misplaced Pages. Their respect is a validation of all the sacrifices Sawyer made as an artist with integrity. 1027E (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    Until you can provide references for factual assertions, those assertions should not be in the article. (See Misplaced Pages:No original research, etc.) If an assertion is removed for this reason, it may of course be readded later if sourcing has been found for it in the meantime. -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    Eric Franck just responded and he wants to help to keep Errol in Wiki. If he can put Errol on his website it will be sufficient, I think. This will take maybe 1-2 weeks.

    Delivered-To: X
    From: Eric Franck
    Subject: Errol's Misplaced Pages page
    Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:34:50 +0100

    Dear X,
    I received your voicemail's left on Saturday and am sorry there was no one available to answer your call, but the office is not open on Saturdays. I am more than happy to be listed on Errol's Misplaced Pages page, but I am not quite clear on what it is exactly that you need from me. Is it jpegs of the works? Or proof that I own the works? Do let me know and I will see to getting you the appropriate information.
    Best wishes,
    Eric
     


    Eric Franck Fine Art
    Norman Parkinson Archive
    61 Willow Walk
    1st floor, unit 8010
    London SE1 5SF

    tel: +4420 7394 9743
    fax: +4420 7394 1956

    Mbineri continues to take away the Zero Zone Magazine reference which is very important critical photography magazine and Errol is mentioned as a documentary photographer and you can see 5 of his pictures. Can you correct him, Hoary? I am filing a complaint against him for sabotizing the improvement of the article. 1027E (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Zone Zero Los Angeles, California. "From analog to digital photography." Spanish and English. Social/political documentary photography with a focus (but not entirely) on Latin America. "Exhibitions" feature images and text from more than sixty photographers, including Joel-Peter Witkin, Lucien Clergue, and many highly talented but unknown artists. First class site.





    1027E (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Musee de la Photographie, Bievre just found proof of the exhibition and found 6 pictures in their archives. We will work on their digital reference now.

    Delivered-To: X
    Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:31:55 +0200
    From: "Marie PALLEAU"
    To: X
    Subject: Rép. : Past Exhibition

      • Proprietary **

    Cher X,
    J'espère que vous lisez aussi bien le français que vous ne le parlez. Sinon, dites-le moi, j'essaierai de m'exprimer en anglais.
    J'ai retrouvé la trace de l'exposition à laquelle vous avez participé en 1991 au musée français de la Photographie. Il s'agit de l'exposition "Visages d'enfants. Visages des rues. Les années 1970" (3 juillet - 31 août 1991). Vous nous aviez donné à l'époque 6 tirages noir et blanc format 30x40cm dont je n'ai malheureusement pas de titre associé. Ces tirages ont été enregistrés dans nos collections sous le n°92.8386.

    J'espère avoir répondu à vos interrogations.
    Cordialement,

    Marie Palleau
    Assistante qualifiée de conservation du patrimoine
    Régisseuse de la collection Images
    Musée français de la Photographie
    78, rue de Paris
    91570 Bièvres
    01.60.79.99.90
    www.museedelaphoto.fr

    It will take some time to retrace this digitally.1027E (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    I have added Zone Zero Magazine again and made a link to Pedro Meyer, the founder.1027E (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Jason Dolley article issues

    information regarding his middle name and birthday is continually removed, even though it appears in the internet movie database. His birthdate is in his official website. A persistent person continues to remove this information. Can someone please have a look at this case. Just look into history.

    Fighting for Justice (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    The IMDB is not a reliable source, and the person removing this stuff can claim to be just following WP:BLP. I have re-added his birth date citing his web site. Martin451 (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    All right Thank you. What about facebook? is facebook considered a reliable source? Because I did find this: This would allow the inclusion of his middle name, don't you agree? Fighting for Justice (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    I found a TV Guide that references his middle name as "Scott". take a look if you'd like. Fighting for Justice (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    Repeated changes to the Alexei Yagudin page that are untrue

    I have noticed that an individual who does not have a user name but once an IP address of 67.142.162.35 an once an IP address of 76.211.65.19 I am pretty sure I know who is inserting this both false information about Alexei Yagudin, and libelous information about another I know. I have edited it out several times, but they keep putting it in.Please do something about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrieharris (talkcontribs) 19:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've edited out several unsourced sections. Please be careful when editing pages, you broke a table by deleting it's opening structure syntax. If the problem is serious, please report to WP:RFPP. Exxolon (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    Excessively partisan edits to the Frank Guinta page

    In preparation for recently announced campaign for Congress, someone has begun excessively partisan editing on this page, citing polling data in the most favorable light, quoting the National Republican Congressional Committee, referring to mayoral "successes" without references, and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.150.159 (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

    The slant is bad enough that it's drawn NH media notice from state papers like the Union Leader and Concord Monitor. Presumably the same user has also removed factual information about Guinta's controversial proposals while in office and demonstrated on the Talk page a clear misconception of Misplaced Pages's guidelines about neutrality, verifiability, and disputed claims. Vote (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    Commons Speaker Michael Martin (Biog): Badly sourced material replaced after removal and explanation

    • Michael_Martin_(politician) article has badly sourced content about a living person who is currently the subject of controversy. I deleted the specific content and explained my action, but it was replaced. Hence my report.
    • Content in question: "On 17 May 2009, it was revealed that the Queen was "deeply troubled" with the issue, leading to calls from Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg demanding that Michael Martin stand down..."
    • Issues:
      • The Daily Mail article does not say the Queen was deeply troubled with the issue but that she was "'deeply troubled' by the scandal and had made it clear that she feared it could inflict 'long-lasting damage' to the Commons"
      • The Guardian article does reference "the Queen", far less that the Queen's "deep trouble" had led to Nick Clegg calling for Michael Martin to stand down.
      • The Daily Mail article would not - in any case - not an appropriate source for this kind of information, because the confidence of verifiability of a private conversation between Queen and PM is extremely low, and the requirement of verifiability in Biographies of living persons is extremely high.
    • Badly sourced material was replaced almost immediately.

    Tsuchan (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    List of Bilderberg attendees

    This is a list of people who are alledged by Alex Jones and his ilk to be in a succesful conspiracy to dominate the world. People are regularly added to the list with no or poor sources. I try to do what I can to keep the list from defaming random people, but it's a disaster of an article, with huge numbers of IP revert warriors. Help, at this point, to prevent a youtube video purported to show someone saying something from being used as a source for possibly defamatory info about a living person would be nice. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    Ugh, that list has come up before. What a cesspool. Good sourcing must be demanded. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    I just deleted almost 50 external links that I felt were not just far too many, but failed WP:EL. I've put it on my watch list. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    I also deleted a section suggesting that attendees were breaking the law. On the talk page, an IP is saying I shouldn't have done that. . I disagree. This list is in danger of becoming an attack page aimed at attendees. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, that's in the Bilderberg Group article. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    List of people from Orange County, California needs more sourcing

    List of people from Orange County, California needs more sourcing WhisperToMe (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    Isn't this what categories are for? Rd232 09:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Neil Horan and talk:Neil Horan

    Neil Horan is an (allegedly former) priest who has an (undoubted) track record of doing eccentric (and in some cases criminal) things in public. He's in the news this week due to his appearance on a TV talent show (and so, if nothing else, I'd appreciate it if a few more people could add the article to their watchlists (just today people have claimed he's been detained for making terrorist threats, and is a rapist, neither with any evidence). But the article (and regrettably its talk page) makes a lot of unsourced claims about the subject, many of are derogatory (and to my mind entirely violate the WP:BLP policy). I'd either tag as {{fact}} or just delete them (per said policy) but there's so much I'd probably just be blindly reverted. Other than the recent talent show section, the article is essentially unsourced. The article claims he was a priest, claims he was fired (and "defrocked"), and claims his employers recommended he seek mental help - but no source. The grand prix section says he's a convicted criminal - but no source. The Derby section further says he was arrested - but no source. The marathon section (woo, one source) makes more criminal claims, and has quotes claimed to be from other living people - but no sources. Unfortunately the talk page is just as bad, with established Wikipedians (who evidently should know better) speculating about the subject's alleged mental health issues and personality defects. 87.115.168.96 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    Article semi-protected for a week. I'm also watching the page. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    I'm glad you're watching the article, but by protecting it you've preserved the unsourced material, and seem to be thwarting 86.45.207.249 (talk · contribs), who seems to be working toward fixing the problems. 87.115.168.96 (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    (oh, given the proximity of our IPs, I should stress I'm not affiliated with 86.45.207.249) 87.115.168.96 (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Well, fair enough, I've reconsidered and unprotected for now...but I will reprotect for the same duration if there are any further issues. Generally semi-protection is a standard response to this activity but I'll see how it goes. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    Michael Flood

    This article was recently nominated for deletion by the author on account of ongoing and consistent BLP problems, and kept on the basis that he was notable enough for an article but the issues needed resolving.

    He's a notable academic with scholarship in a wide variety of areas, but as the article stands, the entire article has been written by men's rights activists about their disputes with him. There's a massive undue weight here - it warrants about one section at best, yet it currently takes up about 90% of the article. Anyone willing to take a crack at this? Rebecca (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Corrine Brown

    User Lsudude2032 keeps on adding content to this US Policitian's article, and reverting my reverts that is claiming original research and wp:blp guidelines. My concern is that this user describes a speech by the politician as being "widely criticized due to her surprisingly poor use of grammar, and dramatic mispronunciation of several words including "congratulate," as well as the names of Percy Harvin and Coach Urban Meyer." User includes a link to a video of this speech but there is still no reliable source to back up the content.

    Do not want to violate the three-revert rule here.

    Thank You --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Joseph E. Duncan III needs more refs

    The article for Joseph E. Duncan III needs more refs. He's a convicted murderer, but until he is executed he's still a BLP. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Robert C. Michelson

    I am reviewing GAN Robert C. Michelson and it is becoming clear that the (virtually sole) editor of this article, user:Firewall, is either Dr. Michelson himself or a person very close to him. (e.g., because in reply to my comments he in no time provided very intimate details and pictures of the person). Besides, most activity of this user is directed at this article. Advice needed.NIMSoffice (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Joe the Plumber

    Currently has "Wurzelbacher sat down for a lengthy interview with Christianity Today magazine to discuss his views on Christianity, politics and same-sex marriage. Wurzelbacher, speaking of same-sex mariage, said that it was "wrong. People don't understand the dictionary—it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that." He further stated that he's "had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children" sourced to pinknews.co.uk and to 365gay.com which I consider unlikely to be reliable sources, nor sources proper to a BLP. The quotes (albeit elided) are properly sourced to Christianity Today, but the other two sources just do not seem to ring true for asserting that the article belongs in the category "homophobia." (CT quote is "At a state level, it's up to them. I don't want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it's wrong. People don't understand the dictionary—it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we're supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing.") Collect (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    No comment on the sourcing issue, but I'm extremely uncomfortable with applying Category:Homophobia to a living person here. It may be appropriate for people convicted of hate crimes, or for people widely regarded as particularly notorious bigots (e.g. Fred Phelps), but this particular application seems to violate Misplaced Pages:Categorization of people#Biographies of living people. If he's homophobic, then that will be apparent from his public pronouncements as reported in reliable sources. Categories are not nuanced enough to capture even the smallest gray areas, and this is, after all, a WP:BLP. MastCell  18:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    I guess the question is whether "I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children" is apparent enough, as it is a public pronouncement of his in a reliable source. Nobody is disputing that he actually said that, right? --Minderbinder (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    I wouldn't, myself, add the category based on a single public comment. There is no particular urgency to categorizing people in this way; categories are meant to be navigation aids, not scarlet letters. Nathan 19:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    I tend to agree with MastCell. In this case applying that category doesn't seem to fit with the careful nature we're required to deal with BLP's.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    (Outdent)I spoke of this on the article's talk page, but here goes:

    • That he does not allow homosexuals around his children does not imply that he has "is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality, homosexuals, or individuals perceived as homosexual" - from the Homophobia WP article. In fact, according to the pink.com article given by the editor wanting to include the category, Joe went on to say "God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do - what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we're supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins." Certainly he can have a religious or moral objection to something without being fearful (and certainly not necessarily irrationally so).
    • Even if even a mild fear or aversion were applicable, the Homophobia Category (unsure how to link to category pages) page precludes the category from being applied because "it is not intended for groups or individuals who have made homophobic remarks and related actions but are not considered widely known for their homophobic stances." To label this article under this category gives undue weight to his views on homosexuality, as he is not considered "widely known for (his) homophobic stance). Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    John Ashcroft

    Yesterday I proposed a series of changes on the Talk page for the article about John Ashcroft. I believe these suggestions are fairly straightforward and should be uncontroversial, especially as some of them seek to fix apparent BLP issues. Because Mr. Ashcroft is a client of my employer, I have refrained from making these edits directly, and instead placed a template on the page asking for a requested edit. It's been a little more than 24 hours now, and with no response one way or the other, I figured I would raise the issue here. All the details are on that Talk page, and I'm available to discuss these issues here or there. If there is agreement that it's permissible for me to make these changes directly, I am happy to do so. NMS Bill (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks to those who weighed in and helped clean up the article. Much appreciated. NMS Bill (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Siegfried Haag

    Siegfried Haag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Can someone take a look at this and make sure it accurately portrays the subject? A ==Terrorism== header seems a bit inflammatory.... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    I found a bunch of reliable sources (as opposed to the single source now used in the article) -- alas, the heading is too accurate here. Collect (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

    Talk:Self-hating Jew

    Could someone please delete this libellous attacks on an academic at Talk:Self-hating_Jew#The_problem_with_Finlay. Contrary to User:Malcolm Schosha's claims very little of what Finlay has published has anything to do with Islam, let alone with advancing the claimed POV. His publications are listed at should people wish to compare what he has actually published with what Schosha claims.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

    1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1183468/The-Queen-tells-Gordon-Brown-deeply-troubled-MPs-expenses.html
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic