Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:41, 26 May 2009

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

• 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.

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• A
• B
• C
• D
• E
• F
• G
• H
• I
• J
• K
• L
• M
• N
• O
• P
• Q
• R
• S
• T
• U
• V
• W
• X
• Y
• Z

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)

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 wikipedia 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)

Fair enough. However the reason why I mentioned free speech was simply to counter the argument that it is "objectionable." I am not saying that it should be included because it is "objectionable." I am saying that removing something because it is "objectionable" to some is invalid, and is a form of censorship. That being said, I have been taking a confrontational approach in this argument. I'd like to apologize for that. However, I am still under the opinion that this is not a BLP violation, and even if it is, it should be ignored for the sake of improving the article. I definitely don't buy that it doesn't improve the article in any way. --Ant80 (talk) 16:38, 21 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)

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)

Well, Ira Hayes is clearly not a living person. Hinckley is still in custody, while England is not. Jayen466 09:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I fail to see how WP:BLP is relevant here. Ivan Frederick and Charles Graner are also alive (and behind bars, but does it matter?). WP:ONEEVENT itself does not differentiate between living and non-living persons. GregorB (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT is part of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. And it matters inasmuch as someone behind bars doesn't have to find a job, etc. I think the images of her with the man forced to masturbate, or the pile of naked prisoners, etc., are not needed in her BLP. Jayen466 15:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither is the picture of people shot by John Hinckley, Jr. really needed in his bio, yet there it is. Ironically, she became famous (notorious?) precisely due to these photos. That's why I thought of Ira Hayes: of course, they were both US soldiers, but also they are both known perhaps more for the photos than for the actual act that these photos captured. As for finding a job and such things, let me put it crudely: it's her problem. (She was not a minor at the time, was not forced, nor her capabilities were somehow diminished.) Misplaced Pages has an encyclopedic purpose: that means no prejudices and no favors. Making someone's life easier (or harder, for that matter) by sanitizing (or spiking) his or her bio does not cut it. GregorB (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we can fulfil the encyclopedic purpose in a less in-your-face way. I think Misplaced Pages would make a better impression if we did, but I see and respect that you view the matter differently. Let's leave it at that. Cheers, Jayen466 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it - and I'm sure we'd agree here - is that there is no merit in being brutal on purpose (applies to both real life and Misplaced Pages). But if Misplaced Pages comes across as brutal while pursuing the five pillars - and if there is no way of not being brutal except by putting that pursuit into question - well, then I'd say so be it. That's it; that's what I wanted to say. I won't interfere with the article itself. GregorB (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Crist and Outrage (documentary)

• Charlie Crist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I am concerned that adding defamatory content about the so-called "outing" of the Florida governor ("Personal life") is contrary to BLP. A wider consensus on this is requested. It relies on an indie film Outrage (documentary) and opinion blogs such as salon.com and huffingtonpost, without any reliable secondary sources. The article Outrage (documentary) has similar concerns.  JGHowes  21:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Note: General discussions about article prose, WP:UNDUE, etc., belong on the article talk page and do not belong here. This noticeboard is to decide whether the defamatory content regarding the alleged "outing" of the Florida governor complies with all Misplaced Pages content policies and guidelines for a well-known public official.  JGHowes  16:43, 21 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)

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)

Not necessarily. This list has the advantage over a category that one can immediately see a brief description of what the person is known for. There's a similar list within Irvine, California#Notable natives and residents (Irvine is part of Orange County) that has proper sources for each entry. Neither the descriptions nor the sources would be possible for a category. But I agree with rd232 that the OC one should be sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 23 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)

As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing should go. Notoriety  != notability. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of cites from the Proquest archive.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 21 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)

Sounds like it needs pruning very badly. A large chunk of the sources are written by the subject himself, which is frowned on. And there is stuff cited to high school yearbooks. It's all really self-promotional. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:25, 20 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)

Not allowing gay people around your children, whether for religious reasons or not, is absolutely "aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality, homosexuals, or individuals perceived as homosexual." In short, it's homophobic. We have a word: we should use it. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the category should be applied. Apart from anything else, the category is far too general. Rd232 15:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you figure, exactly? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Figure what? Rd232 15:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, to be more helpful, how is James Anderton correctly placed in Category:Homophobia? He may (apparently) have suffered from it, but so what? We don't put criminals in the Crime category either. If it's necessary to categorise people in this way in general, there should be a specific subcat. And once there is one, criteria for including people in it will have a chance to become clearer. Rd232 15:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The article reads: "he declared that homosexuality should be illegal, and he referred to homosexuals and those with AIDS as 'swirling in a cesspit of their own making.'" Seems pretty straightforward to me. We put serial killers in the serial killers category too. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, we put serial killers in Category:Serial killers, not in Category:Murder. Rd232 16:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That is... exactly what I said. And we put them there because it's an accurate description of the specific type of murder they engage in. Homophobia is a specific type of discrimination, and there is no denying that this person's comments fit the description. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We put convicted serial murderers in the serial murderer category. We don't put people in that category just because some Misplaced Pages editors, bloggers, or even newspaper columnists think that someone is a serial murderer.

A comparable category is category:anti-semitism, which does contain some individuals who are closely connected to the concept regardless of their individual views. Likewise Fred Phelsp, who is famous as a homophobe, probably belongs in the homophobia category. But someone whose notability is not connected to homophobia should not be added just because they express an opinion in an interview.   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(out)WP works on consensus. It would appear that your position is not that of the consensus here. Iteration does not change consensus. Collect (talk) 01:24, 25 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)

Erm, wouldn't it be better to zap the whole article into smithereens. I don't see why Jews should be the chosen race to be antisemetic, any more than anyone else. Physchim62 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I could see having an article about the concept and criticisms of the concept (perhaps a shorter version of what is there now), but naming names in either the article or the talk page is a BLP violation (along with a violation of at least 5 other acronyms), and Misplaced Pages wouldn't be seriously hurt if the term was left for Wiktionary to cover. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be best to prune the article ruthlessly and incorporate it into Antisemitism, just as internalized homophobia is incorporated into the Homophobia article. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm's comments are way off base - Finlay appears to be a psychology lecturer with a focus on learning disabilities. To pigeonhole as an "apologist for Islam" on the basis of a single article decrying right-wing stereotypes of Muslims seems like faulty and partisan reasoning of a type which is depressingly common on Misplaced Pages, but it is not necessarily a BLP violation. MastCell  19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP concern here

Would removal of BLP info in this edit and my subsequent edit be in order? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Done. Warned. Totally unacceptable - especially given that the user asserts they are not the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. You beat me to the edit. Mishlai (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was a little hot under the collar, and did not want to out of irrationality. Dlohcierekim 20:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

James A. Owen

• James A. Owen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Over the past several days, Evilminion666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 76.113.56.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which may belong to the same user, have repeatedly inserted extensive personal information about the subject, including contentious statements about the quality and success of his publications, his alleged financial problems, and his religion. I'd like to have another user(s) make an independent judgment about the appropriateness of this material. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate in my opinion. I've removed it (again) and semi-protected for 3 months. Kevin (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP concerns at Mohamed ElBaradei

The mediation at Mohamed ElBaradei has experienced some intense turbulence following a discussion about an Israel/ME relation. Some users insist there is not enough coverage to support a unique section or place in the article. I've done my best to provide reliable sources and support them with BLP policy, but the discussion has boiled down to essentially character attacks and accusations of "hindering" consensus. For those experienced-BLP editors/admins, it might take awhile to develop an accurate picture of what is going on. You will likely need to read this Article outline discussion and then the more combative section break.

I've listed over a dozen unique sources that reveal a generally-understand relationship Israel has with the ME. It was said that this was supported by editorials, but the references I provided were all from reliable sources and were not op-eds. BLP-violations have become rampant, which explains why the article has become dependent on propaganda/unacceptable sources such as Tehran Times, Xinhua News Agency, and Press TV. Users who have inserted the references and reverted those who remove them are currently in the mediation process.

I don't see how an effective mediation and reasonable consensus can be obtained until all users accept strict-BLP policy. No user has challenged the reliability of the sources I provided, or the reasoning, or even the policies I cited. They just continually say I am being inflexible, hindering consensus, misrepresenting POV, and misconstrue my POV (which is totally dependent on what reliable information is available) as stubborn and unchanging. Now I've been told to basically be quiet because I am the only one who has noticed the supposed-violations. Remember, this is 1 out of 3 active editors.

Thanks to those who have the time to kill on this issue! Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

While I'm an involved editor in the article... As a regular respondent to this board and editor of BLPs, there is no actual BLP issue on this article talkpage (the article is, and has been, protected). Sometimes hashing out a compromise on issues where there is strong disagreement takes time, sometimes it takes a cycle of RfCs on various specific questions. Facilitating that process isn't the role of this board. Nathan 12:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I cordially disagree and would hope an uninvolved BLP admin/user takes a look. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just pointing out in Nathan's defense that he was uninvolved when previous issues were initially brought here and questioning why his viewpoint would be any less relevant than anyone else's.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Nathan has been involved since the RFC. He has been a regular discussion-editor for over a month and knows what's going on. I'm not disputing his viewpoint. Please get your facts right, this has become a pattern. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who has a pattern of wanting to quote an op-ed which can't get its facts right. And you have been involved more than a month, does that make your opinion irrelevant?--68.248.155.2 (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You should be blocked for gross violation of BLP and mediation rules. Please don't hijack my BLP request. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel this posting or your reply is very appropriate for this noticeboard, so have at it.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I will, thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Johns

• Matthew Johns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the subject (a well known sportsman and TV presenter) has been involved in a sex-related incident heavily publicised on Australian TV and in the press. The subject is clearly notable and so is the incident but some editors want to include terms such as "rape" and link the incident and the article to other supposedly related incidents. I have strong feelings about the subject and his conduct and have made that clear on the talk page so I don't feel I am in a position to make a determination; it may need an outside view. // Mattinbgn\ 08:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Section below moved here from Administrators' notice-board where it was posted

I will tell the author I have doine so and point her to BLP/H. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oksana Grishuk Please help me to correct information about me. Thank you very much in advance.

Oksana Grishuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello my name is Oksana Grishuk I read the information that listed about me on Misplaced Pages and find so much incorrection. Could please help me to correct that. I added some of the important info about me that people would like to know. Please read it and let me know how to delete something that is said wrong about me and add something that is very important and it's not mentioned yet.

Here is the changes: Oksana (Pasha) Grishuk (born March 17, 1972 in Odessa, USSR) is a Russian figure skater. She began training in skating at the age of four. Grishuk moved to Moscow in 1980, and studied at the Sport University of Moscow from 1988 to 1992. She won two Olympic Gold medals, four World Championships and three European championships in ice dancing with Evgeny Platov. The pair won 22 consecutive competitions during this time. Oksana Grishuk with her partner was entered in Guiness book of record in 1998 for becoming the only team in the history of ice dancing to win Olympic Gold twice. Oksana also won Junior World championship with Alexander Chichkov in 1988. Oksana and Evgeny combined speed and difficult elements, and displayed their mastery of numerous styles of dance. Their magical skating technic was incredible and unbeatable for years.

In 1997 Oksana Grishuk was approached by a famous Hollywood film director John Frankenheimer who offered her a role in his movie with Robert De Niro. Due to her amazing dedication to figure skating Oksana had to turn that offer down because it was a conflict with her 1998 Olympic schedule.

In 1994 Boris Eltchin awarded Oksana with a government medal of Friendship for highest achievement in sport. In 1998 Boris Eltchin awarded Oksana with a government medal of Labor also for highest achievement in sport.

In 2000 and 2001 Oksana was in a very close relationship with prince of Monaco Albert Grimaldi.

Oksana Grishuk give birth to a baby girl. Skyler Grace Grishuk was born on august 19th 2002 in Los Angeles California.

In 2006 Oksana Grishuk Won a very popular reality skating show in Russia Moscow Dance on Ice and Oksana was featured on many popular russian magazines covers herself and with her daughter Skyler Grace. In 2007 she won third place of Dance on Ice show in Russia Moscow.

Also in 2006 Oksana and her Olympic skating partner Evgeny got reunited and start skating together again doing pro shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oksanagrishuk (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing that this user is Ms Grishuk, so she will have to follow the process set out at WP:BIOSELF to confirm her identity, then the suggested changes can be implemented. – ukexpat (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Oksana. If there is incorrect information about you in an article, and that information does not have a good, reliable source to back up the claim, then you may delete it. Misplaced Pages's policy on Biographies of Living Persons is very clear on this. If the wrong information comes from a reliable source, then that is another matter.

The information that you wish to add also needs to be sourced - we cannot take your word that it is all correct, because our readers need to be able to check to see where the information came from. For adding material, the best thing to do is add the proposed changes to the article's talk page, and then discuss them with other editors until an agreement is reached about what should or should not be added. That part will often take some time to complete, but bad information that's already in the article can be taken out immediately if it doesn't have a source. I understand that you've already been made aware of the guide at Biographies of living persons/Help. There is a lot of good information there on how this all works. I will be logging off for the weekend soon, but there are other editors watching this page more or less all the time, so feel free to post your questions and concerns here.

It would be helpful to us if you described what information in the article is wrong. Thank you! Mishlai (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Crier

Catherine Crier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm new to BLP guidelines, but this is looks like something we should look at . The article is Catherine Crier, which violates BLP Verifiability. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 5 days, to prevent further instances of vandalism from anonymous editors creeping into the article in the aftermath of this blog post by the Dallas Observer. Thanks for drawing attention to this situation. AGK 20:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's rather odd. I've looked through the history and I cannot find any edits of the kind described in the blog. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I also couldn't find anything when I checked the date in the complaint and the IP's contribution logs. The only thing I can figure is that the diffs were oversighted before we got the public oversight log. BLP issues seem to be resolved by recent sourcing efforts.--chaser (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Simon Baron-Cohen

Simon Baron-Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Baron-Cohen or someone close to him is editing this page. Every time someone negatively critiques his work it is deleted by sb205, (people have said this is baron-cohen's email). The article is very bias in support of his work but others in the field say it is controversial. The controversy is not noted in the article and when I add referenced links making mention of it they're always deleted. Can someone help, this is my first attempt at wiki and it is irritating as Im trying to give a non biased view??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelPettersmithHugh (talk • contribs) 09:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that your edits bear close scruitny also. Please review our policies on WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit sorta speaks for itself really. If you do stuff like that anymore, you will be blocked Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Frank Howard (politician)

Frank Howard (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came accross this article while doing some DAB page work. It's not uncommon to see unferenced BLP articles and I generally tag them as such, however in this case should the material on his childhood be removed completely until reliable sources are found? I would take the entire childhood section out part and parcel, but that would gut 1/3 of the article. ponyo (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gutted. Hipocrite (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In the future, do not hesitate to remove such material on sight. It's a blatant violation of BLP policy. decltype (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Greg Van Zant

Greg Van Zant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I posted this here many months ago and you reverted it. Nice job, (attack removed) I posted it again yesterday, and you deleted it again. I will not humour you (attacks removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.158.0 (talk)

Ah, ok. I have removed some criticism from the article per undue weight in relation to the rest of this bio. --Tom (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP experienced editor needed to look at Cesar Carrillo

There is a lot of edit-warring over potentially controversial material, as well as multiple attacks and personal commentary inserted into the article, apparently by multiple socks. I have no knowledge in baseball related things but it looks like some fans and haters using the article to glorify/defame the subject. I have locked it down for now and restored a version from a month ago but I would appreciate it if someone could look at the article and try to filter through the warring. Regards SoWhy 21:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The people involved all seem to be new to WP so I've welcomed them and pointed them to the talk page. I know nothing about baseball though so anyone who does pitching in with the discussion which will hopefully begin now might be helpful. Rd232 22:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE problem at Lyndon LaRouche

Hi — Some users at Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are rather stubbornly trying to insert the opinion of a redlinked associate of LaRouche in the lede of that article. Could an admin take a look at the situation, please? Thank you for your help! Diffs: User:Coleacanth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 6:35 21:04; User:Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:04; User:68.164.112.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:38  Cs32en  22:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected for now, so the discussion can continue unimpeded. Kevin (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!  Cs32en  20:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

request to move

Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Shirazi to: Mohammad Shirazi Reason: omitting title. Administrative authorithy needed. پوویا (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Brianna Tatiana

Brianna Tatiana Completely vandalized or not real in the first place. Verification or removal needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.174.48 (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It had been vandalised; I have reverted the vandalism. Thanks for letting us know. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mick Cronin (basketball coach)

An editor (using 2 user accounts and 2 IPs) keeps re-adding unsourced trivia about non-notable people to this BLP. I've reverted 3 times within the past 48 hours and I don't want to violate the spirit of WP:3RR, so I've brought the dispute here for review. Cunard (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The entire article was unreferenced and all or almost all a copyvio of . So I've brutally stubbed it. Someone who cares about basketball please keep an eye on it; maybe someone could notify a relevant wikiproject. Rd232 13:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning it up. I've placed the article on my watchlist so that I can catch future vandalism; I've also requested temporary semi-protection of this article at WP:RFPP. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

semi-protected now. Rd232 20:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned up this page and added references. I'll keep an eye on it in the future. Oren0 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus v Turkey (Attila Olgac Testimony of Alledged 1974 War Crimes)

I am not sure that the emphasis on t his particular witness in an article of its own is reasonable. I encountered it when nominated for speedy, which I declined. DGG (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is problematic. Is there even a Cyprus v Turkey lawsuit? I can't find one. In any case Olgac's remarks aren't "testimony" - it's stuff he said on TV, and possibly reports of things he's said elsewhere. Seems the author couldn't find a better place to put Olgac's (retracted, and later disproven by Turkish government) claims of being involved in war crimes in the 1974 invasion. Merge to Attila Olgac if he's notable enough, or AFD as WP:NOTNEWS violation. Rd232 16:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cyprus v Turkey (Attila Olgac Testimony of Alledged 1974 War Crimes) Rd232 22:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Master P

Article declared this individual dead yesterday and has suffered recent questionable and vandalistic edits. If someone familiar with the topic area could root out and remove questionable claims in the article or even better find reliable references to verify the text, it would be appreciated.  Skomorokh  08:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood marriage

This article is kind of strange. It has a short description of the expression and then a long list of movie star couples who did and didn't get divorced. I'm not sure if it exactly violates BLP policy, but it doesn't feel right to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it really violates BLP, but it does violate WP:V since there are no sources for any of the substantive assertions. I suggest nominating it for deletion, either AFD or simply PROD.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

i will try prodding it. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The prod had been removed by User:DGG, suggesting it may need an AFD, so I have AFDed it. Martin451 (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Biographical Page: Cecil Anthony Ince

Cecil Anthony Ince —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs) 00:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Rolly_Tasker

Rolly_Tasker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The last two paragraphs to do not have citations and are not impartial // 63.116.23.136 (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, but that's not really what this noticeboard is for. Our goal here is to ferret out unsourced negative information (libel).--chaser (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Keith Henson

• Keith Henson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors and various rapidly-changing IPs chronically add unsourced information to this article. In addition, the article itself contains many unsourced statements. It'd be appreciated if some previously uninvolved editors could take a look at the article, watchlist it for unsourced additions, and also help to clean it up. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. Knowing nothing of the facts of the matter, I judge the article to be mostly neutrally phrased until the section dealing with Henson's trial. Applying Raul's Law, the article gives the impression of selectively including claims to present the subject in a better light – there is a conspicuous absence of presentations of points of view critical of the subject. The article really needs editors familiar with the topic area and willing to trawl through the sources. If such contributors are not forthcoming and disruptive additions continue, stubbing might be an option.  Skomorokh  05:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly Support stubbing. The majority of the article is wholly unsourced and should be removed anyways, as it is a WP:BLP. Cirt (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Natasha Lyonne

Someone with more knowledge of the subject than I have should probably check the Natasha Lyonne article. It may well be entirely accurate, but it seems to me to be quite undercited, given the nature of some of the statements made there. I wouldn't be surprised if what it needs is just a bunch of citation, but alternatively it may require some removals. - Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved much of the questionable content to the talkpage pending citation.  Skomorokh  14:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Valeriya Novodvorskaya

• Valeriya Novodvorskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PasswordUsername (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kupredu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (now banned as a sockpuppet of Jacob Peters (talk · contribs))

The said users are repeatedly edit-warring to depict the subject as an apartheid supporter, based on their own interpretation of a single ironic remark by her, taken out of context. They are also trying to add the Category:Apartheid to the article. See e.g. Colchicum (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• She herself refuted it postfactum - not as an ironic remark but as a misunderstood statement about something completely different (radio transcript in Russian) scroll to 1/4 page. Who cares, really, the lady is known for eccentricities. NVO (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, thanks, IMO "the lady is known for eccentricities" would summarize everything fairly enough, but several belligerent users feel necessary to go into detail, using their own first-hand impression instead of good secondary sources. Colchicum (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is insertion of defamatory WP:OR in BLP, as has been alredy confirmed by many at talk page of this article. All said users (PU, BFF and O) should be warned about the importance of BLP rules.Biophys (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The new information helps, and the points about your edits and other thnings are all laid out at Talk:Valeriya Novodvorskaya–a discussion in which you declined to participate once I'd given my rebuttal of your completely inaccuarate initial revision (complete source misrepresentation) weeks ago. Among my many suggestions were doing a rewrite, using direct quotes and context for the sources in question, together with any sources refuting or denying it you could provide. As far as the classic bullying demonstrated by the same user here, I suggest Biophys be blocked for block-shopping–of one of his many attempts of belligerently acting against a number of user in only the past one week. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The story is still developing. Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reluctant to stop. Given the composition of his contributions (90% POV reverts, 9% mockeries on talk pages or so, and little else), an unusually cruel administrative action has been long overdue. Colchicum (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Clear case of block shopping. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Perfectly justified block shopping, as you are reluctant to stop even now, aren't you? Colchicum (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Similar spurious BLP violations are here and there in, e.g., Berlusconi, Zhirinovsky, Boris_Gryzlov, Chernomyrdin. Citation "she openly supported apartheid" may be too strong, but the apartheid story definitely deserves to be mentioned. Yes, cathegory "apartheid" is not for this article. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Chris Garrett

Chris Garrett - This seems to be more like advertisement for a business than it does a legitimate entry // — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poormanspantheon (talk • contribs)

Sonia Sotomayor

Article includes the statement that subject is "wrongly" considered a political centrist when editing page of article does not say that, and states that "Her own words have repeatedly shown that she is a far-left judicial activist". The quoted matter has no citation, and is wrong and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.23.189 (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All the current version of the article says about her political philosophy is that she is "onsidered a political centrist by the American Bar Association Journal and others". The quotation you refer to does not appear in the article. Regards,  Skomorokh  15:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Antonia Zerbisias

• Antonia Zerbisias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Two IPs continue to assert that the subject has issued a death threat: "Zerbisias controversially posted on her Twitter site that she wished reknown conservative Michelle Malkin were shot." // J 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed Logg

Contains probably un-sourced and possibly libelous material from someone claiming to be Ed's ex-wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stattenf (talk • contribs) 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed by Onorem; in the future you should feel free to remove obviously problematic content yourself. Joe 18:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I should say that I don't see anything to suggest that we shouldn't indef Connielogg, whose intentions are plainly inconsistent with any encyclopedic purpose, straightaway. Joe 18:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution