Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:48, 19 June 2013

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

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.

Additional notes:

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

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Murder of Barry Pring

Murder of Barry Pring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I’ve removed material identifying someone considered a possible perpetrator from this article per WP:BLPCRIME, which another editor is keen to include. This has been the subject of a book which has been removed from sale following a legal action, and some media articles (mostly in the tabloid Daily Mail from what I can tell), but AFAIK the suspect has not been arrested or charged. Is there any way this could/should be referenced or should it stay out altogether? January (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think it's worth including information about Anna Ziuzina as it is an important part of the information relating to the case. I personally don't care about including the book or not, but it could be said to be relevant information as per - . Thanks, Jay UK Crime Guy (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this even a notable death? Falls under WP:NOTNEWS I would say... GiantSnowman 11:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm questioning whether the suspect's identity should be included, not the book. January (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/Search-truth-Barry-Pring-s-murder/story-18136796-detail/story.html#axzz2VnufEy19

Any more thoughts on this? January (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• For previous articles on the topic, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barry Pring and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Death of Barry Pring. – Fayenatic London 18:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

David Luchins

I am related to David Luchins and do not think he is a public figure who warrants a wiki page. An editor seems to be putting a tremendous amount of time into research on google to find quotes that are dramatic etc...I think the article should be deleted or at least it should be clarified if the editor knows the subject and/or has a bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.160.231 (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

He certainly appears to meet Misplaced Pages's notability requirements, see WP:BIO. If the article runs afoul of WP:BLP that can be fixed. There is relevant discussion at Talk:David Luchins.--ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to those that helped, but teh problem seems to be that whatever changes are made by editors are reversed by the page creator. Requesting non biased help on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.160.231 (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW User:EMESPATROL, and 216.163.160.231 and 72.231.17.126 appear to be single purpose accounts editing from a specific point of view, while User:Sarahj2107 appears to have done some fairly in-depth verification the sources used by User:Ajnem. Obviously, the policies about biographies of living people and assumption of good faith control here. But assumptions can, at some point, be rebutted, and WP:BLP prohibits only unsourced derogatory information. Some derogatory information, even if sourced, might call for an editorial judgment about whether too much of it constitutes undue weight, turning a biography into an attack piece. But I don't think that's the case here. David in DC (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The single purpose accounts, or at least the one claiming to be related to David Luchins, wants to have the article deleted. That's rather unusual. Not knowing Mr. Luchins or anybody related to him, I don't have any idea what his or her reason is, but it certainly can't be for anything negative let alone derogatory about Luchins in the article - for the simple reason that reliable sources have nothing negative to say about him. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, the controversies section on this page seems to be rampant with original research, and the subject of some serious edit warring. I don't know what the agendas of those involved are, but it is leading to some seriously messed up stuff. As such, I think it violates the biographies of living persons, by being poorly sourced and potentially libelous. http://en.wikipedia.org/David_Luchins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.9 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to what you think the problems are? The subject matter on that page is indeed controversial -- but it's hard to know what is actually problematic, and it would help if you can provide some more detail. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed most of the sources. Every section I've edited is backed by reliable tertiary sources. Please review the talk page. You'll see that User:Sarahj2107 did the same thing and found similarly. 149.68.243.9 is asserting original research in edit summaries and blanking sourced paragraphs. You'll also see that I directed 216.163.160.231 to WP:BLP and suggested he use that policy to frame his explanation for the edits he'd like uninvolved editors to make. Because right now his edits seem to be single purpose account WP:POV-pushing by an editor with a declared conflict of interest. Now 149.68.243.9 has picked up where 216.163.160.231 left off. If one or another of these editors would tell us what in the article violates BLP or is "potentially libelous", we can try to reason together. But that's clearly not the course 149.68.243.9 has chosen. There's time to turn back, but, in my view, administrative action will soon be warranted. David in DC (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Pollard paragraph is original research, since it combines sources "while apparently supporting...still he..." It does not belong. The rest of the Pollard story has no relevance to the page, since it is merely a story that Dr. Luchins told, and he is not even a character in the story. It does not belong on his page, except as some sort of attempt to cast him in a certain way based on implications, which smells of agenda and is original research--if research at all. The paragraph regarding the defending the letter written by Soloveitchik is an obscure factoid, that does not seem to show anything at all, and is about as relevant as reporting how many sugars he likes in his morning coffee. It again seems driven by bizarre agendas and perhaps intended to draw implications, if anything. This entire page smells like a bizarre agenda of a disgruntled student who got a C in his class or something. Agendas violate the policies on living people. Re: Potentially libelous. I don't know why, but if he received death threats as a result of this information as reported on the page, it clearly is potentially libelous. Perhaps the same people making the death threats are now edit warring the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.17.126 (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The accusation about my being associated with people who made death threats is odious. And untrue.

The defense of Soleveitchik is notable and sourced.

No, it is sourced, but it does not belong on this page. It says little or nothing about the subject of the page. Consider that there are 5 sentences of introduction before half a sentence of barely relevant material.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.9 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he supports freeing Pollard is in the source. So is the fact that he's criticized some of Pollard's supporters. None of this is original reasearch. I spent considerable time revamping the article yesterday, matching all of the facts with the sources, exhaustively, and trying to make the prose more encyclopedic. Please review this and the newest reversions thereafter. Please also read my explanation on the talk page.
Help! I'm staying away from the article for at least 24 hours, to de-escalate the wheel war. Administrave assistance and intervention is desperately needed.
David in DC (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It is original research because you are the one making the relevant contrast, not the source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.9 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is obvious that users who seem to be familiar with editing WP but prefer to remain anonymous when e.g. deleting whole sections of articles have a personal agenda. Why not just have the article semiprotected so that only registered users can edit it? The rest is IMO a matter of discussion on the talk page of the article, as there is no BLP-issue involved, just some IPs and one single purpose user calling himself User:EMESPATROL – for those who do not know Hebrew or Yiddish – "Emes" means "truth" – who disagree with the opinions voiced by the subject of the article, namely David Luchins. When I created the article, I had no idea that it would attract attention. Now I know better. As it seems, the description the Jewish Daily Forward, not exactly an Orthodox Jewish paper, gave of Luchins is quite accurate: "a liberal – or a 'leftist,' as he prefers – in an Orthodox community that is ever-more conservative tart tongue has often landed him in the center of controversy." Well, everybody is not as open minded as Luchins is portrayed to be in the article and its sources, but as long as they act as IPs and the like, I don't think they have to be taken very seriously. It would be different if the Orthodox Union was protesting and deleting whole sections of the article – that would be something to be taken seriously ... Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me much more obvious that David in DC who claims no interest but spends most of his day digging up obscure and irrelevant facts about someone, and then edit warring over them, has some agenda. Why else is he doing this? Ask yourself that question.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.9 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think David in DC did a great job and commend his efforts and would not have posted this on the notice board if the article that had been written was his. I still feel Ajnem, and perhaps this is just his/her style, used a lot of POV terms (e.g., controversy) and unfairly deleted what others wrote (e.g., US Embassy move, pllard letter, headings), but with David in DC keeping things honest I am leaving the conversation. I also will point out that, despite what is suggested above, have no WIki experience and I followed the instructions and posted it here and even was open about my relationship - impressed that others came to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.160.231 (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The David Luchins page should be protected from IP(-Vandalism), no matter how impressed 216.163.160.231 is. First it was I who was the vilain, now it is User:David in DC. Who is next? Ajnem (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it should be protected from vandalism by obviously interested parties, who seem to mistake an encyclopedia project as a forum for personal vendettas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.9 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. Perhaps if you explained what it was about this particular article out of the 4.2+ million articles that caught your eye, people would know where you are coming from. You seem to be concerned about the Jonathan Pollard section in particular. Are you an interested party when it comes to Pollard for example ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In order to keep this conversation from going on in two places at once, please review the personal attacks on me at the Luchins talk page and my response. I'm frustrated at being treated this way for trying to edit by the rules. David in DC (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No need to be frustrated, David. If we assume good faith, we can explain the statements by this/these anonymous user/s with his/her/their not being familiar with Misplaced Pages, its editors and their motives, in other words, he/she/they just do not understand how Wikipedians tick. Spending time working on an article about a living person one doesn't know and is not personally interested in or connected with is beyond his/her/their understandig. He/she/they wouldn't do it, therefore, he/she/they assume bad faith, i.e. a personal reason for editing the article. That's IMO all there is to it, besides the fact that he/she/they don't seem to like to see Mr. Luchins views and activities presented in Misplaced Pages. Ajnem (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Admins: we need some assistance with this. The creator of the page now concedes that he did it to advance a certain aspect of the subject, and the result is an absurd article which is completely agenda driven and reduces a man with a rich career and huge accomplishments to 3 or 4 out of context snippets on the least relevant things he has done. It is akin to a page about Obama that only mentioned the birth certificate "controversy". It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.61.24 (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please focus on the edits, not the editors. What's in someone's mind is irrelevant. It's what they do here that counts. Ajnem and I have never met and seem to be coming from different angles, but both of us are trying to fill the article with notable, non-derogatory, reliably sourced facts about Mr. Luchins. I do not share the editorial judgment that this article "is akin to a page about Obama that only mentioned the birth certificate 'controversy.'" In my view, there's a lot more to be added, but what's there is appropriate to a BLP. I'm hard-pressed to find ANYTHING in it that's derogatorty.

I AM willing to engage in a discussion about derogatory information that should be deleted because it's unsourced or poorly sourced. I can find none. Literally none. What am I missing.

Please omit references to editors' agendae, or their puroported conflicts of interests. You cannot know an editor's motivations beyond their self-declarations (here I'm thinking of the editor who has claimed to be Luchins' relative) and WP:DUCK. I do not see any WP:DUCK cases here and I think the repeated accusations of hidden agendae and conflict of interest shed far more heat than light. In my own case, they also offend me because they ae untrue and hurtful.

Please, I beseech thee (thee is meant plurally here,) pray tell what information in this article is derogatory? What material is unsourced or insufficiently sourced? Such things do merit deletion but, as I've said (and as other editors have opined here and on the article's talk page) none of the deleters are coming to this page or that and specificly listing problematic info. They're just blanket-reverting with inapropos edit summaries and using this talk page and the BLP/N page to impugn other editors' judgment and reputations.

By all means, please add more sourced info to make this a richer biography. No one seems to be focusing on that important work, other than Ajnem. I've restricted myself, thus far, to issues of improving prose, MOS style editing, reference-checking and insisting that wheel-warring and editorial behavior that border on bullying not go unchecked. I've had my hands full with that. But, I assure you, I'm also reserching and looking for new biographical facts to add. So should others be. David in DC (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. I certainly never "concede that did it to advance a certain aspect of the subject", as IP Nr. 65.96.61.24 claims. I stick to RS, not more, not less. The language of those IPs – it's hard to tell if they are one person or several persons – is interesting, though. First Mr. Luchins was not even "a public figure who warrants a wiki page" (see first post), then he became "a relatively obscure individual" (see David Luchins talk page) and now he is "a man with a rich career and huge accomplishments" (see above) but whatever he is, insignificant, obscure or huge, the IPs all come to the same conclusion: the article has to be deleted, which reminds us of old Cato who used to conclude every speech with the same sentence: Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. As I have suggested to one of the IP on the David Luchins talk page, he/she should take it to WP:AFD. If he/she does so, we can discuss it there, everything else is IMO a waste of time. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

List of cancer victim hoaxes - person with mental illness included on list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have just removed the details concerning a person diagnosed as suffering from mental illness from the List of cancer victim hoaxes article, as a WP:BLP violation. I would be grateful if others would look into this, and let me know if my actions were appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I don't think this excision is appropriate at all. BLP asks us to consider protecting the privacy of ordinary people who, through no choice of their own, nevertheless by accident, become publicly known. I suggest WP:WELLKNOWN applies to people, like Ashley Kirilow, the individual whose privacy AndyTheGrump seems to be suggesting BLP authorized protecting. Kirilow did everything she could to make herself a public figure, so as to make her fraudulent fundraising efforts more successful. Geo Swan (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• That doesn't alter the fact that she was suffering from a mental illness - which makes your assertion that she did it by 'choice' problematic. Do you think she chose to become ill? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• You still haven't quoted the passage from BLP, or any other policy, that would authorize your deletion.

In courts of law, the ruling as to whether an individual had mental health issues serious enough to release them from responsibility for their acts. I have four points to make:

1. The wikipedia is not a court of law.
2. Judges' rulings can generally be counter-intuitive, as for instance Feith v. Rural. Judges' rulings on the responsibility of individuals with mental health issues are often surprising and counter-intuitive.
3. Judges' ruling on this issue are sometimes highly controversial, with respected legal experts suggesting or accusing those judges of lapsing from the judges' equivalent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
4. You are assuming that silence and obfuscation of issues related to mental health, is in the best interests of individuals with mental health issues. I think this meme underlies all your attempts to remove all coverage of WP:WELLKNOWN individual you think have mental health issues, based on claims that coverage of those issues is damaging to them. I don't see you providing any policy basis to support this action.

I drafted an essay You can't say that here! to address this meme. Geo Swan (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Since nobody has suggested that Misplaced Pages is a court of law, the above is irrelevant. And WP:BLP policy isn't a 'meme'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please don't merely continue to claim wikipedia policy imposes a moratorium on any discussion of individual's mental health issues, without quoting the relevant passages from policy. Ashley Kirilow is covered by WP:WELLKNOWN, the coverage of her was relevant, neutrally written, and well documented. I think you have a responsibility to quote those passages from policy that you think authorize your excision.

I cited the example of Betty Ford in my new essay, who was the first public figure to openly acknowledge and describe the difficulty of a long struggle with alcoholism. Her open discussion of her mental health issues had a very positive effect on public health and of all the people who followed her example. If the wikipedia had been functioning then, and you had argued we had to impose a moratorium on coverage of her alcoholism, you would have had a very negative effect on her mental health, that of her family, friends and associates, and the millions of people affected by other alcoholics who followed her example.

You have offered no arguments that your moratorium is actually in the best interests of individuals who may have mental health issues, and you have offered no quotes from policy to show policy suggests of requires a moratorium. Geo Swan (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't give a toss what you say in your essay - it isn't policy, and it never will be. The WMF has made it perfectly clear that we have to take considerations of personal privacy into account: "The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by... Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest." You have provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your repeated claims that such cases are of more than passing interest. The only sources cited regarding the individual concerned date either from when the case first came to light, or from the court proceedings and sentencing. This type of material is exactly what the WMF statement is intended to cover. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• So, the passage you think justifies this excision is:

"The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by... Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest."

This says nothing about imposing a moratorium on information that is (1) written from a neutral point of view; (2) well documented; (3) relevant. In fact, the sentence you chose to replace with ellipses was " Ensuring that projects in all languages that describe living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles; "

Was the information about Kirilow not written from a neutral point of view? I believe it was neutrally written, and you have made precisely zero effort to show it was not.

I don't believe there is any question the information about Kirilow was well documented and verifiable, and you have made precisely zero effort to show it was not.

Was the information about Kirilow relevant? I don't believe there is any question that it was highly relevant. In hoax after hoax comparisons were made between the recent hoax and Kirilow's hoax.

As for your claim that I have provided no evidence that "such cases are of more than passing interest." Can we stick here to the BLP claim you made -- that BLP authorized excision of all coverage of Ashley Kirilow. Yesterday I provided 22 external references, that demonstrated that (1) Kirilow attracted worldwide scrutiny, and that coverage of her case was not of a passing nature.

You write: "This type of material is exactly what the WMF statement is intended to cover." Well, you still haven't provided a link to a policy that confirms your assertion that there is a moratorium on covering individuals who may have mental health issues, or on covering the mental health issues of individuals we do cover. What the policy you cited requires is that all coverage of individuals should be neutrally written and verifiable.

Kirilow was caught about three years ago. The 2012-11-06 article from Discovery magazine below devoted five paragraphs about Kirilow to a discussion of the legality of faking cancer. Regard this as a further refutation of your claim that coverage of Kirilow was (1) from when her case was first reported, or (2) from her sentencing. Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Benjamin Radford (2012-11-06). "Leukemia Hoax: Is It Illegal To Fake Cancer?". Discovery magazine. Retrieved 2013-06-14. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I agree with Geo Swan on this. If something is well known and widely and repeatedly sourced, privacy concerns etc. are moot. WMF says we have to take into account these kind of issues, not that we have to remove everything that vaguely sounds bad about a person. In this case, taking into account this, we can conclude that the amount of coverage of the case is such that we can't talk about privacy anymore. --Cyclopia 19:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note that I've deleted the article in question. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Good call, and I am glad that the relist by a non-administrator was ignored. I would've reverted that if I'd seen it at the time, honestly. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Huerta de Soto WP:OR/Synth

This is being brought here since this is a biography of a living person and not an economics article and this material obviously is WP:OR/WP:Synth. Opinions at Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto#Synthesis_tag welcome.

• At this diff I removed as argumentative for a bio a sentence written by User: SPECIFICO saying that Milton Friedman predicted one of the two things Soto claimed only Austrian economists had predicted; the source does not mention Huerta de Soto.
• Lawrencekhoo reverted it, writing: If a claim is made about economics, it's entirely appropriate to present the mainsteam view.
• Srich reverted it writing: as presented, particularly with "however", it is WP:OPED. Article is a BLP, not economics subject..
• SPECIFICO puts back another version writing: Provide context for Soto stagflation remark, with mainstream view from AEA Pres. Friedman. SPECIFICO writes: “Chicago School economist Milton Friedman, whose positivist methodology was antithetical to the Austrian approach, foretold the 1970s stagflation in his 1967 Presidential Address to the American Economic Association.” Again, no source mentions Huerta de Soto.

It also would be helpful to point out to User:SPECIFICO that ridiculing the subject of the article is against BLP and certainly doesn’t make for collaborative editing.

• At this diff User:SPECIFICO writes: There's no SYNTH there. Poor Soto -- he's being protected from fresh air like a sickly old asthmatic. Soto is strong! He stands tall! He is and able to live and breathe in a sentence next to the immortal Milton Friedman. Here's to both of them.
• At this diff User:SPECIFICO writes: Look at here: Flat Earth Society. "The myth that the earth was flat..." Now, should we say "Soto gave voice to the myth that the Austrians were the only ones to predict the staglation..." Decisions, decisions!

Thanks for any help. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope interested editors will make their comments on the article talk page as the full context of the discussion is there. – S. Rich (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps above is more a WP:ORNissue than a WP:BLPN issue, given lack of interest? Sometimes it's hard to tell which noticeboard to go to if WP:BLPN is involved. Hearing no dissent tomorrow will move above there with note I did so... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP SPECIFICO talk 03:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally, User:Specifico speaks on his edits, in the wrong section (so I moved it up here), to suggest that it's forum shopping to take the WP:OR topic to another forum given that I wasn't sure which was best and since no one except the other editor who also opposes Specifico's edits responded, I wondered if that would be forum shopping. I really don't know.

But obviously User:Specifico doesn't care to share his rationales for his edit with this noticeboard - or much on the talk page where two editors disagree with his edit. It really would be great if people could opine. I feel like no one cares anymore and it's very frustrating. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Other issues

Since User:SPECIFICO often fails to engage in talk page discussions per WP:BRD, also could use an eye on these two issues clearly explained by my talk page sections:

• WP:Undue on Larry J. Sechrest criticism - resolved
• Removing full names/links of primary influences from lead (i.e., leaving those way down in the info box) - think I'll just fix it
• Per this diff keeping primary source info on Huerta de Soto's views which adds to/clarifies another source's perhaps inaccurate description in the preceding sentence made seven years earlier. Discussed here at my talk page. Resolved. Thanks for any help... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Forum shopping

I express no opinion about the substance of this request, but the forum shopping allegation is nonsense so long as proper procedures are followed. WP:FORUMSHOP says: "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question." If there is an OR issue here as well as a BLP issue, there is no reason to not list in both places, provided that you are clear that you are doing so and cross-links are provided. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for outside neutral opinion. Hard to keep it all straight, sometimes! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, OP expressly stated that the reason for the anticipated move was because OP didn't like the way the BLP posting was going. That is forum-shopping. Moreover, as is consistent with such motivation, the stated intent (before my reminder re:policy) was to move, not to dual post or to link, the matter. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

a) If there's no response except process issues, that's not an issue of "how it is going" policy wise. b) Move was a suggestion. If that's not the right thing to do, I won't do it and other alternatives here and elsewhere have been suggested. c) Just because people aren't commenting on it doesn't mean it's not a clear policy violation that needs to be dealt with. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not refactor other editors' remarks. My words above were as indicated in the edit summary, a response to TransporterMan. Thank you. 18:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Mike Gatto

The biography of Mike Gatto, a local politician, seems overly positive of the person's career and accomplishments. Not only that, but the majority of the editing and writing in it, including uploading the picture, has been done by a single user (looking at the history of the page should make it clear which one I am referring to). Edits to this article also constitute the majority of the contributions from that user (and the rest are all about subjects related to Mike Gatto's position and district area). I am not trying to start an accusation or harassment but I am wondering if some sort of higher-level action should be taken besides just editing the article for NPOV. K.Bog 21:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's a promotional bio, and carefully tended by several accounts. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

*Little wonder: it was apparently largely copied from smartvoters.org. I've templated the article for copypaste issues, with a link to the source. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted an image identified on the talk page as a copyright violation, material sourced to a bio supplied by the subject, and material sourced to the subject's then-law firm. This page is well-tended by the subject and/or his supporters. I fully expect to be reverted. Some administrative action may be called for if this pattern keeps up. Looking through the edit history, I think it's gone on for quite long enough without sanction. David in DC (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also started fleshing out the refs to actual reliable sources. At a glance, they do appear to stand for the propositions they're used to source. But a second set of eyes would help.David in DC (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Jon Anderson

JON ANDERSON is the living former lead singer of the band YES. This article is filled with rude words and false statements pertaining to made up names for actual living people who are or were members of YES. Here, JON is shown in photos and is called "Jizzle". Please delete this entire article ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.197.153 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I can´t comment on "false statements", please discuss that on the talkpage you linked to. To my eyes, the article is not filled with rude words, the fotos seems fine and nowhere does it say "Jizzle". It is very unlikely that this article will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but of course it can be changed/improved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Highly likly this person has found the article on Gizoogle's page Jizzle Anderson.--Auric talk 21:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Could someone email WMF about the copyright violation of the WMF logo on that site?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Technically when you run a page through that service you're the one committing a copyright violation :) §FreeRangeFrog 22:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how the site is set up. Having the WMF logo beside a hoax article seems rather illegal to me. I won't email WMF but someone else may wish to.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Amy Kuney

Hi there, I'm working to clean up some information on the internet about Amy. We'd like to pear down the information on this page to be much more general.

We would like to remove some of the information and make it more "general." She is no longer doing solo work and is focusing on a collaborative effort.

How do we go about amending the page?

We'd like to remove: Career & Youtube sections.

and add information on her new musical collaboration: Mypet.

-akpress — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amykuneypress (talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest so please discuss the changes you are requesting by posting on the article's talk page at Talk:Amy Kuney.--ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced critical material added to Nataša Kandić

Nataša Kandić (the woman who got video of the Srebrenica massacres) could use a second pair of eyes. A new (and so far single-purpose) account has been working to insert negative information about her into the lead for the past two weeks or so. The accusation that she "outlandishly focused on Serbs" is obviously non-neutral phrasing, and the fact that George Soros is a contributor to her organization doesn't belong in the very first sentence. I don't want to just edit war there, so a second opinion would be welcome. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If unsourced negative material is added to an article on a living person, it should be removed immediately, per WP:BLP policy - and note that such removals are exempt from WP:3RR rules regarding edit warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Will continue to do so. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Jane Censoria Cajes

• Jane Censoria Cajes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about a young Filipino politician. Just removed some really bad gossip/negative crap from the 'Controversies' section, as usual. Probably needs more trimming due to lack of citations. A few more eyes appreciated. §FreeRangeFrog 23:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Jane e-mailed OTRS last night, and I'm working with her to get this cleaned up, because there is a lot of crap there. The "Controversies" section will probably be refactored once this is all said and done, because there is information on this stuff happening, but it doesn't seem like she did anything wrong based on what is out there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. §FreeRangeFrog 17:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bill Connors

Bill Connors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article consists almost entirely of praise and praising interview quotes, is generally brash and pompous as if the subject of the page had written it himself, and is not at all like a neutral or objective encyclopaedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.49.213 (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

cross-wiki issue (Tā moko and NSFW images)

Tā moko is a tradational tattoo practice among the Maori people of New Zealand which focuses on the face. At the top of the Tā moko article is an invitation to translate the content from the Russian language wikipedia. The Russian article contains a number of images missing from the English article. An image of a seated woman dated 1935 and claimed to be in the public domain, which I believe to be fraudulent (a) the quality of the photography makes me very suspicious of the early date (b) 1935 was during the nadir of the tā moko, a period when school children were beaten for expressing Maori culture in schools; genuine evidence of the practice during this period would be huge cultural news (c) the location and style of the work don't even match the Google translation of the text of the Russian article (which has some issues) and certainly not the English language article nor the sources listed in either. Far more likely that this is an image of a modern person passed as a historical person, and a edited to add the tā moko for titillation. Almost certainly that's an image of a living person, edited and being passed off. The original source may be here. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It is incredibly risky to assert that in 1935 we did not have high-quality photography - as, in fact, we had excellent photography back in those dark ages. I agree the person was living when the photo was taken, but we really can't say much more unless we have substantially better evidence than "photo quality" here. Collect (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the policies of the Russian wikipedia are but it seems to be the evidence is woefully inadequate to assert the photo is from 1935. The source is given as the above link yet there's not way to know the photo is from 1935 from the photo, it doesn't have any text and the numbers in the name could arise from a whole lot of others things. Also why does the file have an English name? This suggests it may have come from somewhere else but where? I didn't find anything from TinEye or a Google Reverse image search. BTW, in the same vein, even in the image is from 1935, are we sure it is PD? The PD template there appears to be something similar to {{PD-Russia}} or {{PD-old-70}}. Given the little details we know, I don't see how we can know that the author either died more than 70 years ago or the photo was published anonymously and I don't believe the anonymously part would even definitely apply since it is unlikely the author of the photo is Russian or it was first published in Russia. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Migdia Chinea Varela

Migdia Chinea Varela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject says she's tired of trying to keep the article in the form she wants, and asks that we delete it entirely. She's been given all sorts of warnings over the years: COI, AUTOBIO, blanking, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please help. Erroneous and hurful information has been placed in the Migdia Chinea page and now this Orange Mike editor threatens to block me and continues. He has bullied me before with protocolafter protocol. Is it any wonder there are few women editing Misplaced Pages -- it's because of bullies like this guy. Please, delete the Migdia Chinea page and be done with it because he's is using this as some sort of personal vendetta against me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migdiachinea (talk • contribs)

We don't have a reliable source for the birth date or exact birth place. We shouldn't be restoring them to the article after they have been challenged. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how to do this. An editor named Orange Mike has been after me for quite some time and I give up. He threatens me with being blocked and uses unfamiliar intimidating protocol after protocol to get his way. I must ask you to, please, get this guy off my back. I have an appointment that I have not kept to take care of this. I have offered to just let him delete my page and not deal with this -- but his goal is humiliation or intimidation by all means possible. Is this the way WIKIPEDIA should be conducting its business? I now realize why women are not editors. Please, I ask you to remove this guy from my back. He's not following procedure -- he's carrying a personal vendetta against me for reason that perhaps only he can understand. I have nothing at all against him, but he's got to be stopped as far as I'm concerned. I'm unememployed and looking for work to pay my mortgage -- I will lose my home if I don 't get a job. I will have no reason to go on. Don't you understand that the bully's objective is to push you to the wall? This is not an objective witch hunting -- if there was ever one. This is a guy who enjoys this sort of abuse and bullying. Please help me and just delete my page. Thank you -- Mig (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest two things:

• Orangemike should step back from the article temporarily and let the noticeboard handle it. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the accusations against him, which I suspect stem from an unfamiliarity with Misplaced Pages procedure and culture more than anything else. It is just a means for letting things cool down so we can separate out the issues from the personalities.
• Ms. Chinea, can you please, either here or through an email, let us know what erroneous information remains so we can remove it immediately from the article? Thank you.

Gamaliel (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick glance - OrangeMike's escalation of the situation on Migdiachinea's talk page was unneccessary. GiantSnowman 15:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read my previous message. I HAVE NO TIME FOR THIS. You don't have my birth date and that is a subject of speculation because my birthdate was estimated by the school I was sent to from Cuba because I had no passport. I was a Cuban refugee child who parents sent out of the country alone (unaccompanied minor) ffor political reasons and lived but was not born on Coral Gables. Why do you insist on putting information here that is false and deleterious? And if you do, then you ought to put all information, not what this guy Orange Mike wishes to have in it. I do not know Orange Mike personally, but this editor has been causing me grief for quite some time. When my first short film went to Cannes, he didn't think that it was worthy of having a page, despite an article on the Bruins and other corroborating evidence -- it went to 36 festivals and it is the first short film produced, directed and written by a Hispanic woman to do so. It's ok, It was deleted. There used to be a section in Misplaced Pages to protect the rights of Hispanic wikipedians or information about Hispanic Americans -- Frankly, given what is going on and the way that I'm being bullied by this Orange Mike with a vendetta, I do not wish to remain here and a page with incorrect information should be deleted. This man Orange Mike should be kept away from women like me. Thank you -- Mig (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ms. Chinea, we have already removed the birth date and birth place from the article and they will not be restored. I've asked Orange Mike to have no further contact with you. Gamaliel (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok -- I had to stop to read other stuff. Now you know the situation. I have had a life that has been complicated by world politics. I think keeping Orange Mike out of this is a good idea. He has issues with me and seems to enjoy bullying me. I have no personal issues here of any sort. I have stayed away from editing Misplaced Pages because I don't enjoy this sort of harangue. I'm also on survival mode trying to pay and keep my home. I'm applying for jobs. Any jobs. I can't be kept away for the pleasure of some. Perhaps Orange Mike is a great editor elsewhere, but he uses this venue as his own personal fiefdom and I'm not for him to push around with protocol and bureaucratic calls to arms. There ought to be a rule. Thank you. Mig (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Peace

Thank youMig (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Headline

I've done some clean-up work on the article. Nothing substantive. But I'm stumped about what to do with a ref. It's a newspaper story whose title misspells the subject's name. I've boldly corrected the spelling in the citation. But now my boldness is failing me. Did I do the right thing? I suppose I could have put in the middle of the headline, instead. But that would look odd. And leaving the typo in wikipedia, just because the Bruin made the mistake seems wrong too. But maybe we're not supposed to correct typos? What say ye? David in DC (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I would apply MOS:QUOTE to newspaper headlines as well: "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment" -- John of Reading (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew it for quotations. It makes sense to be applied across the board. David in DC (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Princess Alia bint Al Hussein

Princess Alia bint Al Hussein

the picture in the article is for Queen Aliaa not Princess Alia ,, thank u

i hope u change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.47.52.128 (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It does look more like Queen Aliaa than Princess Alia. I should email the Ford library to either verify or correct their image description. I added 'citation needed'. I don't know if the monarchy can be contacted but I will see if I can do that as well. The US embassy should have an email though. --Canoe1967 (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Dan Haggerty

The Dan Haggerty article was largely rewritten in this edit by, avowedly, his publicity agency. I was tempted to undo it wholesale, but the original article had its own issues, including a discussion of Haggerty's drug arrest that had no source cited. Suggestions?

DCB4W (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cut it back to a stub maybe.--ukexpat (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that far -- but depuffed a tad. Collect (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Kaisa Sere

Kaisa Sere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't see how this person's bio is any useful to wiki readers. It is a mere personal bio. This person is not an outstanding scientist that warrants significant public attention. It should be best kept at her university web page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.95.52.208 (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Prima facie she meets the requirements of WP:PROF.--ukexpat (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cilia Flores is not Maduro's wife.

Nicolás Maduro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cilia Flores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PLEASE, MAKE THE PROPER CHANGE OF WIKIPEDIA IN GOOGLE, STATING THAT CILIA FLORES IS MARRIED TO MADURO. PLEASE CHANGE THAT BECAUSE SHE IS NOT THE FIRST LADY. SHE IS A CONCUBINE, AND MANY PEOPLE LIKE ME USED TO LOOK FOR WIKIPEDIA AS A SERIOUS SOURCE BUT NOT ANYMORE WITH THIS. THANKS FOR YOUR PROMPT ATTENTION TO MAKE THIS CORRECTION.

Debatable. Most sources say they are married, but mostly just by labeling her "wife", without going into marriage details: BBC, Biography.com; Guardian; New York Times. Reuters explicitly doubts it. Telegraph says no. Foreign Policy isn't sure. El Mundo specifies "life partner", which implies strongly not married. Is it a violation of BLP to say that the media debates whether someone is married? --GRuban (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Far better to call her a 'spouse' or 'partner' Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Stuartyeates. This is probably an English issue but note that a term like concubine should almost never be used to refer to someone living in modern times, and it makes even less sense if the person is the only current or the primary partner. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The term 'concubine' is a common derogatory term in countries like Venezuela and Colombia. We can do 'partner' or 'life partner' or heck, girlfriend. But never, ever 'concubine'. Also note that this person is likely not referring to our article, but to the Google search results on the subject's name (the infobox), over which we have no control anyway. §FreeRangeFrog 16:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

They are not married: "Flores and Maduro are not married nor have children in common, but they share their life since about 20 years (...)"ABC

I agree that "concubine" is totally inadequate, and has a totally different meaning. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the term is wholly inappropriate here. And that it should be used rarely.

However, In case you really think concubinage exists today only as a vulgar term in Latin America, please allow me to disabuse you of that notion, now that I've done a bit of googling.

Please see China Concubines Return Thanks To Increasing Capitalism from HuffPo, China's concubine culture is back from Asian Times, China: The Plight Of Sex Workers – Analysis from Eurasia Review, Concubine culture brings trouble for China's bosses from The Guardian, Tanzania: Children Now Seen in Criminal Underworld from the Tanzania Daily News, The Concubine Revival from The Times of Israel, Kosher concubines from Israel HaYom, Pakistan TV Debate on Concubines and Slavery in Islam from EuropeNews and Concubines and Prostitutes from Christianity Magazine.

I'm horrified, but not exactly surprised. I apologize for the digression, but I thought it important note. David in DC (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat OT, but the usage by the OP and that described by FreeRangeFrog seems to be somewhat distinct from that used in the sources above, most of which seem to be using it in a manner similar to the older usage described in our article namely referring to a 'lesser' wife or somethng akin to that donated by the word 'mistress', and commonly where the man already has a wife; whereas the case here appears to be where the person is basically the spouse, and the only one even if they may not have a piece of paper. While there are probably some people in those countries who similarly refer to an unmarried partner as a concubine in a derogratory fashion, I wonder how common it is. Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Andrei Nekrasov

In the Misplaced Pages article, it says, "In 1990 he married the actress Olga Konskaya (1964–2009)." This is definitely incorrect! Olga Konskaya lived across the street from me durin g the early 1990's, together with her first husband, Igor. She could only have married Mr. Nekrasov at a much later date. Regrettably, I last spoke with Olga around 1996 and then lost track of her, so I don't know myself when she married Mr. Nekrasov, but it was definitely not 1990!

Paul Carlson Frankfurt, Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.193.77 (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We usually don't accept private anecdotes to inform content, but I checked the source and, even if I don't speak Russian, it seems to me that there is no mention of the marriage and especially of the 1990 date. I removed the sentence. --Cyclopia 12:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Melih Abdulhayoğlu

Melih Abdulhayoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is identical to the bio page on the comodo website and is obviously written by an non-objective party. Mark for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techrefresh (talk • contribs) 13:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can point us exactly to the page that it is a copy of, violating copyright, this would help us assess copyright violations (I checked on the COMODO website, and the bio I found looks different to me). As for the rest, neutrality problems are not a reason to delete an article, sorry -if you feel it is biased, fix it. The subject looks notable, with interviews etc. --Cyclopia 14:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Barbara Byrum

Barbara Byrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I happen to agree with her on almost all issues; but this article as written is more like a candidate biography from a campaign website than a proper neutral BLP. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Depuffed a campaign piece. Collect (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Maer Roshan

• Maer Roshan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Puff pastry piece. Is this eligible for speedy deletion as spam? It appears to have been hatched as a fully promotional piece, and has continued in that way for three years. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No, not eligible for speedy deletion, though it certainly needs de-puffing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I figured that was probably too much to hope for. Thanks, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Of Monsters and Men

This page contains opinion not related to biography. Located within first paragraph: "Of Monsters and Men are mainly known for heavily ripping off their entire musical style, riffs and style from Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeroes, who in turn ripped off their style from Arcade Fire. This was demonstrated most notably in the similarities between OMAM song 'Little Talks' and Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeroes song 'Home.'" Please have removed. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.147.28.61 (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. If it's a high profile article with a history of such commentary it would be helpful to have this watchlisted by established accounts. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution