![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Contaldo80 has repeatedly inserted this edit at Gay bishops which identifies the sexual orientation of a living person, but it is not a self-identification. My understanding is that this is a clear violation of WP:BLP regarding identification of sexual orientation. I would appreciate any assistance. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Editors, volunteers, and friends:
I've attempted to correct many of the factual and timeline errors in the Radio Birdman bio page, and also added material to bring the page reasonably up to date (the last info was about ten years old). I also corrected some of the gaps in the discography, while attempting to remove the entries regarding illegal pirate and bootleg recordings (of which more than 40 exist at my last count). My revisions were rejected by the robot editor. Can anyone help me to fix this page up? I am a founding member of the band, and was there as an eyewitness to all of it.
My revisions can be seen here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio+Birdman&diff=743587325&oldid=740819894
Best regards, Deniz Tek
Deniztek (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Nat. Your help is much appreciated. I'll follow your advice regarding the proper method of dealing with errors in the future. Deniztek (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Deniz
A number of cats have been added to the article over time claiming the subject is gay. I can't find any corroboration for the claim in the article, nor can I read German sources. Assistance appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Jim Gallagher (civil servant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2016/10/the-anti-independence-professor-who-isnt-quite-what-he-seems/
As per the article above, this wikipedia entry is misleading, to the point it is false.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.147.137 (talk • contribs)
WikiLeaks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SUMMARY: BLP issue relates to insertion by some editors and removal of BLP-violating material by me and multiple others. I'm objecting to reverts of those 3 diffs.
DETAILS:
For those wanting an English translation of the latest source that failed verification: [1] Take a look at the edit summaries to see what I and others have said.
--Elvey(t•c) 02:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of WP:SYNTH, this edit is arguably as SYNTH as it gets. An editor (Elvey) encounters a dead link and then infers from that, incorrectly as it turned out, that the article no longer exists on the magazine website and that in turn means that the magazine retracted the article or... something. In any case, the first order of business is to determine whether Wikileaks is a living person. Or is the contention that it's Putin who is being harmed here, in this case by Wikipedia noting reports that Wikileaks is effectively pro-Putin?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
There has been a long-term attempt to associate Angana P. Chatterji with a controversial figure-- possibly toward guilt by association or coatracking? I don't want an undo-see-saw. A more veteran opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igarashi.torren (talk • contribs) 04:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, this reintroduction of BLP-violating content that I had removed with the comment rm BLP violation. Poorly sourced quote - I dispute the quote is about Stein, as she isn't anti-vaccine, and quote is about people who are. Attempt to add context:Special:Diff/745207707 reverted
is sanctionable. The article is under DS : ((2016 US Election AE)) so I am hesitant to re-remove even content that I think is BLP-violating. Some editors keep trying to impute that Stein is anti HVAC come. She is anything but.--Elvey(t•c) 23:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Jill's stated position
|
---|
According to the most recent review of vaccination policies across the globe, mandatory vaccination that doesn't allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of. In most countries, people trust their regulatory agencies and have very high rates of vaccination through voluntary programs. In the US, however, regulatory agencies are routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs. So the foxes are guarding the chicken coop as usual in the US. So who wouldn't be skeptical? I think dropping vaccinations rates can and must be fixed. Get at the vaccination issue: the widespread distrust of the medical-industrial complex. Vaccines in general have made a huge contribution to public health. Reducing or eliminating devastating diseases like small pox and polio. In Canada, where I happen to have some numbers, hundreds of annual death from measles and whooping cough were eliminated after vaccines were introduced. Still, vaccines should be treated like any medical procedure--each one needs to be tested and regulated by parties that do not have a financial interest in them. In an age when industry lobbyists and CEOs are routinely appointed to key regulatory positions through the notorious revolving door, its no wonder many Americans don't trust the FDA to be an unbiased source of sound advice. A Monsanto lobbyists and CEO like Michael Taylor, former high-ranking DEA official, should not decide what food is safe for you to eat. Same goes for vaccines and pharmaceuticals. We need to take the corporate influence out of government so people will trust our health authorities, and the rest of the government for that matter. End the revolving door. Appoint qualified professionals without a financial interest in the product being regulated. source: Jill Stein |
I couldn't agree more, and will be starting an AE thread before the end of the week if no one else does. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Such comments are seen as a the result of a media smear campaign against Jill Stein by RT-America, which pointed out in August 2016 that her "comments about vaccinations and genetically-modified organisms" are "often-misrepresented" and that "Stein, like many people, has concerns about the effects of GMOs and pesticides, whereas Clinton surrounds herself with 'Big Ag' and 'Big Pharma' insiders since her time as first lady." https://www.rt.com/usa/355444-debunking-jill-stein-smears/ According to CounterPunch, John Stauber exposed that this media smear campaign was orchestrated by "paid Democrat progressives" - "shills" including Robert Naiman. CounterPunch provided evidence from Kevin Zeese and quoted him saying that there "was a coordinated campaign" - "It was a planned slander attack.” http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/roaming-charges-prime-time-green/
I'm sure I won't change Guy's mind (any more than I could mak an anti-vaxxer's mind sane, LOL) but please become aware that there was a nefarious, documented, coordinated media campaign to paint Stein as pandering to anti-vaxxers. See http://www.inquisitr.com/3444426/jill-stein-is-not-anti-science ! Not that the article is 100% on the money, but the claims backed with documentary evidence are particularly eye-opening and serious. Clearly the campaign has been quite succssful. :-( --Elvey(t•c) 12:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of racist analogies....
Do our Trump articles say in Wikipedia's voice that Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.? After all, it's true and at the bottom of every HuffPo article on him. I haven't looked, but I bet they don't. --Elvey(t•c) 12:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Someone has twice posted a lie about Brent Budowsky. I've removed the offending paragraph, with some associated reference links, twice.
I believe Brent is in contact with you about this issue, but I wanted to report it here, as well.
Let me know if you need to see the text I removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolynMKay (talk • contribs) 10:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Michael Klaper This reads like an advertisement. It also fails to mention his disciplinary history with the Maryland Medical board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B019:ACBF:0:5E:B0F5:1101 (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am a representative of Mr Badr Jafar. I would like to report a WP:Biography of living persons violation on Badr Jafar and I hope to bring the page to the attention of Wikipedia administrators. The text in question is the claim that Badr Jafar is Shia as purported by User:Mawlidman in edits such as this one: [4]. To clarify that the information is false, Mr Jafar has logged a ticket number with Wikipedia (Ticket number# 2016050310022619) citing the facts and requesting that this misleading information be removed. The ticket was actioned by User:Mdann52 with this edit: here. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide Mawlidman with a link to the ticket as it is a closed system with restricted access. I have asked him to contact the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team to verify the authenticity of the ticket. Also please note that I have not been involved in any way with the recent edit wars on the page. Can I please have an administrator look into the matter for me? OoBJ (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
He is of Iraqi Shia background" with two references. There are two major problems.
the sources do not mention the subject of this article in connection with the claim. That is what it makes the claim OR. People try to add claims like that for the reasons I mentioned all the time. They are routinely removed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
This whole article reads like some sort of commercial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.187.160.94 (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
This is a personal page created by this individual not a public figure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ade_Olufeko — Preceding unsigned comment added by A chercheur dor (talk • contribs) 16:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Are we sure that she went to St. Edmund's College Cambridge? Being 19 it seems odd that they said she went to 'School' there, is it not possible she went to some sort of school in the area? Possibly the St. Edmund's College in Hertfordshire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.240.157 (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Olavi Hangula
Hi , as Olavi Hangula's manager. I am well aware of his sexual status. He is a happy heterosexual gentleman, however, recent editors and bullies have been attempting to tarnish my client's image by posting derogatory terms and accusing him of being a homosexual gentleman.
I am asking that you make my account [username redacted]] the only author and contributor to this article, that way it is protected from bullies who are hard at work to tarnish my client's image. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.77.34 (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at Markus Gabriel, specifically in the Controversy section of the entry? I raised this a few days ago and it looks like it was archived before being addressed. There are allegations from a colleague of Gabriel's that haven't been covered by any independent reliable source; they need to be removed, but I was unsuccessful when discussing this with the editor who added them. The same issue was basically the subject of a previous BLPN thread here a few months ago. Thanks. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to draw community attention and eyes to a number of articles about or relating to living people connected to or mentioned in the Wikileaks dumps of John Podesta's e-mail account. These include John Podesta, Podesta emails, Donna Brazile, Jamil Smith (writer), Philip Munger, Glenn Thrush, etc. There have been numerous efforts to insert material relating to those e-mail leaks into these and other related articles. While some discussion and mention of the e-mails is likely warranted in many of these articles, the efforts have generally come with a significant partisan slant, are often written tendentiously and in a highly-negative fashion, and in many cases are based upon unreliable, notably-biased or otherwise questionable and unacceptable sources (ZeroHedge, Russia Today, Breitbart, etc.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a RS for us questioning the reliability of the material, NorthBySouth? Because I recall you demanding such of me as a condition for reining in the amount of space over at Edward Snowden given over to Snowden's attacks on various US officials. Speaking of which, I also recall you declaring over there that "The actions of Snowden" had exposed James Clapper as a liar hence Snowden was a whistleblower yet here we are again with leaked material, quite possibly being supplied by a Kremlin-connected person, but this time it exposes Democratic Party-connected persons and you're NOW convinced that the material is both highly partisan and quite possibly forged. And it couldn't have been in Snowden's case? The material at issue here with people like Budowsky is in fact a lot milder than calling someone a liar. The difference that jumps out at me is that the Russian propaganda machine has, for once, switched its attack from American security institutions in general to the Democratic Party and NOW we're suddenly so very conscious about whether we are enabling the Kremlin's public opinion agenda. There aren't any "whistleblowers" this time around, NorthBySouth? If you're going to suppress this material, then it ought to be done consistently. Donna Brazile and James Clapper are both living persons.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a claim that this article has a neutrality issue because of the creation of this list of sources, which was used to examine the sources used in the article when there was a claim of POV and reliable source issues. The input came from review of RSN archives and discussion on the talk page. The discussion about the claim and identification of reliable sources is in this archived discussion. Politico and Huffington Post sources were replaced with sources less likely to be biased. Independent and a tabloid source, I think Jezebel, were replaced with better sources. In all four cases, the content was not removed, but was modified based on the content of the mainstream press source.
The key issues seem to be Guardian, which has been discussed to be a reliable, but second-tier source. There is some content that has not been added where Guardian is a source, primarily because it is a claim that Trump raped a 13 year old girl, but only 16% of a universe of mainstream press has reported on it. The universe and discussion are found at The lawsuit didn't receive much coverage / Remove Jane Doe?. The other issues are that Daily Beast and Jezebel haven't been considered reliable sources. As far as I can tell, there only time that content from those sources has been deleted is if there is no mainstream reporting. Otherwise, the sources are improved and the content modified based upon mainstream reporting.
Questions:
Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Questions I now realize are inappropriate
|
---|
|
@Johnuniq and Only in death:,
Regarding reliable sources, I have been able to process your complimentary answers. It would be a huge help if you could look at this in terms of an approach - from the perspective of a BLP in an exceptional circumstance and see if this makes sense. Your first response may be "duh" but if you can hang in with me, it would be really helpful to get your input:
I'm still not sure how to have handled the claims of POV and reliable sources differently. The content that was in the article at that time did have numerous sources, so it was easy to find good reliable sources as replacements. I've not heard one person mention that finding better mainstream sources that were less likely to be biased was wrong.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I am getting that it is not Wikipedia's role to report this until there are major developments - and that you both agree it shouldn't be in the article based on current reporting. But, people may come along and attempt to add content, which can be a difficult process to manage. There is an open RfC and it would be great to get your opinions - or anyone from the BLP project, whatever their opinion may be, about this. The link is RfC: Jane Doe content. There are four options for whether to keep the content in the article or not. Do you mind adding your input on whether or not the content should be in the article?
Regarding, "this should not be covered until there are major developments, like a legal case, etc. - Would the applicable policy(ies) for that include WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:BALASP. Anything else?
Thanks so much for bearing with me. Your help is greatly appreciated. It just took me awhile to get where I needed to be.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Roy Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article about Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court is highly tendentious and laced with liberal opinion, neither relevant to Chief Justice Moore's biography nor helpful for objective people seeking straight information. All opinion and tendentious statements require to be edited out or the article removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.203.148 (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
A history of promotional and conflict of interest edits, the most recent coming from UMasswebteam (talk · contribs), which I've reported for username. I've removed a few overtly promotional phrases, but believe this could use further oversight. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Troy Southgate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I’ve noticed that the Wikipedia page for Troy Southgate has recently undergone some drastic changes, to make a once informative and unbiased article into something resembling a smear campaign.
If you look at the archived page from 22:52 on the 5th of October, it tells a very different story to the new page.
Old: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Troy_Southgate&oldid=742809238 New: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Southgate
The existing page had been as it was for a long time, with only relatively minor changes. It has long been accepted that Southgate is known for his published works, music, and recent activities, rather than his associations with ‘far right’ groups in the 80s and 90s.
Beginning from the opening paragraph of the new article, there are no sources listed to link Southgate with far-right activism, fascism, or his publishing house with neo-Nazism.
The far-right activism section contains very outdated and biased information from questionable sources, as does the New Right section, and ‘Views’.
Compared to the detailed and informative old article from the 5th of October, the new article appears as though it’s page vandalism, and a smear campaign against Southgate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatherd2016 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC) — Goatherd2016 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
References
The 'Packaging Hate' article linked is no longer accessible. I tried searching for it by its title on the website and it can't be found. Not a source.
Southgate is a historian. If he is writing a history book about a particular era it makes it a history book, not a "neo-Nazi" book. Do you go around changing the pages of all historians who have written works about that period of history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatherd2016 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
It's well known that Southgate has a degree in history, and has published other historical works. I can't see anything in "Cultures of Post-War British Fascism" that points to him being a fascist. It's much too vague. There is no reason for the bibliography, discography, and academic coverage to have been removed from the page. You still have no real sources for your statements about him publishing neo-Nazi books and being a fascist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatherd2016 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Why were the bibliography and discography removed in that case? They can easily be verified by looking on Amazon and Discogs.
If someone publishes a book, and it's through an independent publishing company that keeps a Facebook page rather than a website, does this mean that the book actually hasn't been published, according to Wikipedia standards?! Ridiculous. This is biased against small publishers.
Also what is the difference between a blog and another online source? Many websites are hosted on Wordpress or Blogspot, does this classify them as blogs and therefore sources that can't be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatherd2016 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Politically Relevant Biography of living person already been target of subtle vandalism definitely violating neutral POV and probably many other guidelines.
Recommend locking the article (and any other politically charged names dropped in accusations, namely Wikileaks and non-accredited journalists) until some sort of verification can be done for changes though at least after the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7715:E9B0:FDAE:157E:D945:3DA8 (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Carl Hewitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cark Hewitt seems like a nice, intelligent guy but he got himself into trouble editing Wikipedia. There is a heated dispute between Hewitt and another editor about including his WP editing in his article. I came to the article because I noticed a potential legal threat in one of the Noticeboards. Here's the diff that is causing the problem. I suggested including, as a reference, a link to Hewitt's version of his WP editing history. Hewitt liked that idea but another editor didn't like the idea and changed the sentence (see the diff cited above). I don't think the sentence belongs in the article, it just doesn't seem fair or right. There is a short discussion of it on the Talk Page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
It must be frustrating to be the subject of a wikipedia article that contains content you do not agree with. My wish is that the editors there recognize this fact and act with a little more compassion instead of standing behind the rule book. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I've just deleted Michael Cash per G10. No objection to someone creating a referenced article, or another admin running an eye over it and giving a second opinion. ϢereSpielChequers 21:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Lots of WP:BLP issues, mostly unsourced and apparently tended to by the article's subject. 2601:188:1:AEA0:54FE:11E3:7566:4F1F (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, so this article is, to put it lightly, unverifiable. I don't edit here anymore, but someone might want to fix it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to change the visibility of this diff. Harry Let us have speaks 15:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Maithripala Sirisena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is regarding His excellency Maithripala Sirisena president of Sri Lanka.please remove the nepotism paragraph under his name.It harms president's character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalistdmy (talk • contribs) 09:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment Journalistdmy is a new wp:SPA editor and would appear to have a WP:COI per comments left on my talk page I left a coi message on Journalistdmy's talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
An interesting story for whoever wants to sink their teeth in something. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I've done some things at this article but, frankly, the article is verifiable in the main. Debouch (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Brad Allen is a rather short BLP about an NFL referee. I had some doubts about notability and attached a tag to that effect on 19 April of 2015. It was subsequently removed a few days later with an edit summary simply stating that Allen was notable with no further explanation or rational. In any event the article fell off my radar but I recently stumbled back on it and I am still not seeing a strong claim to WP:N. A Google yielded a number of hits but most of the coverage appeared to be of the trivial/run of the mill variety; i.e. announcements that he will be or has refereed a certain game or that he spoke at a dinner etc. Maybe this collectively adds up to WP:N, but I am ambivalent. WP:NSPORT makes no provision for referee or umpires and OUTCOMES doesn't touch on this at all. This pretty much leaves us with WP:BASIC and I'm just not sure Allen rings that particular bell. So here I am asking for some other editors to take a look and let me know what you think. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
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.
On the above-referenced article, one editor who apparently gives credence to a fringe conspiracy theory[5][6] that Barack Obama is the illegitimate son of Frank Marshall Davis, has been edit warring[7][8][9][10] and templating my talk page[11] in their efforts to shoehorn this nonsense into the encyclopedia. The editor has even made[12] a composite graphic[13] to prove the point, and is beginning to add this racially-tinged[14] nonsense to other articles.[15] This goes on the stack of all the other theories about Obama, that he's a secret Muslim, not an American, supports terrorists, could not possibly have written his own book or gotten into Harvard without cheating, etc… and the source's other zinger, that Obama's mother was a porn star. Can we get a read on whether this is truly a BLP issue that can be summarily reverted, or just a regular issue that should go through content inclusion and consensus process? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
This has been quite a contentious issue. It has gone from an argument about one Prussian message to Wellington to one of Wellington's fanboys (Tirailleur) making libellous allegations against myself and others in the Talk section. I have known Hofschroer for many years, albeit know nothing about the recent events, which ended in his imprisonment. I was merely trying to point out the sequence of events and how some fanboys will focus on certain items to cloud an entire subject or author, in an attempt to discredit an entire point of view. I could answer what has been said and point out to Tirailleur that he is engaging in libel, but I think it might be better if Wiki were to remove the entire page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Hofschr%C3%B6er forthwith. DaveHMBA (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)DaveHMBA
Is there a policy, MOS page or the like that allows for lists of living people to be unreferenced? I notice that a lot of pages under Category:Lists of expatriate association football players are either lightly or completely unreferenced. Hack (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The section added to this page under the heading Supporting Progressive Catholicism all relates to a single 4-sentence email that Podesta wrote in 2012, released via Wikileaks recently. The article has been improved since its original posting. It still contains two very slanted "attack quotes" that make assertions in no way supported by the email. The relevant portion of Podesta’s 2012 email in its entirety said: "We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be from the bottom up."
The quote from Eternal Word Television Network anchor Raymond Arroyo claims “It makes it seem like you're creating organizations to change the core beliefs of the church,” he said. “For someone to come and say, 'I have a political organization to change your church to complete my political agenda or advance my agenda', I don't know how anybody could embrace that.” This is not only an unsubstantiated assertion but is at odds with Podesta's email itself, which nowhere mentions changing the "core beliefs of the church" not a" political organization," nor a political agenda. The other quote, from Anne Hendershott, says the email vindicated the position of "orthodox Catholic writers including myself" who oppose the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United, which she called "fake Catholic groups."[43] By this, she seems to mean that they don't adhere to the same view of Catholic doctrine that she does. Catholics for the Common Good was created by Catholics, is run by Catholics, and is made up of Catholics which makes it a Catholic group. See its website, which notes that it was the number 1 quoted Catholic organization during Pope Francis's visit to the US. Judging from Catholics United's Wikipedia page, it too appears to be a genuine Catholic organization, albeit one that disagrees with Professor Hendershott. Neither of these disparaging, unsupported quotes belong in Wikipedia. I deleted them for that reason, but they have been restored, and I received a warning that I was vandalizing Wikipedia and would be denied further editing privileges if I persisted.
This 4-sentence email receives more space than Podesta's 8 years, several of them as Chief of Staff, during the Wm J. Clinton Administration, and his eight years founding and leading the Center for American Progress combined. I defer to more experienced editors to decide whether his email, though seized on by a political campaign to support a claim that the other campaign is anti-Catholic, justifies any space at all in a Wikipedia biography of someone who, whether one likes him or not, has been involved in so many noteworthy events.
One further suggestion: The article currently cites, as its source for information about the email, a Washington Post article that also contained inaccuracies. Like many of the citations that other editors have now wisely deleted from the article, that seems intentional.Why not cite instead directly to the Wikileaks page: https://wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/6293 I would make the change myself, but given the threatening response to my last edit, it seems better to make the change here.
Thanks!Thewholetruthisbest (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
An IP editor seems to have recently gone through the article, changing every instance (even in refs) of the subject's name from "Storm Keating" to "Sharyn Uechtritz". They haven't provided explanation or sourcing. Would it be possible for someone to roll back the changes? Doing it by hand is very difficult because I'm having trouble telling what should be kept and what shouldn't due to the multiple conflicting edits they've made. Thanks. R. A. Simmons Talk 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Intro section of Kyle Schwarber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contains vandalism re: Joe Buck love and marriage
James Heilman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lots of edits by a handful of IPs to this page recently. It being a BLP, I would appreciate additional eyes to make sure none of these edits violate BLP (or any other) policy. I think one of them did (I have since reverted the edit, in which an IP described Heilman as "controversial"). Everymorning (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Joe Teti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
this man was removed from the special forces assoc.. for lying about his past — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billmach (talk • contribs) 22:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
[[17]] [[18]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billmach (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
This article was massively undue[19] and most of it was easy to fix (the usual complaints refs get from fans when their team loses, much of it unsourced).[20] However I would like some advice on this source,[21] which is used to cite Stark has received criticism throughout his career, and was elected as the worst referee of the first half of the 2010–11 Bundesliga by the players.
. Is 'Kicker online' a reliable source? Does the source support the statement? It won't let me open it in google translate, but it seems to be a poll run by the website. Finally and probably most importantly, even if the above is acceptable given that this is a BLP and in particular looking at the WP:BALASP policy, should this still be mentioned in this way? Stark is a top referee (he refereed in the 2010 world cup) and having such strong criticism without balancing it with positives that must exist for someone to reach this level to me seems to violate WP:undue. AIRcorn (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
A person is violating BLPs by using sources such as mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/, allmusic.com, for listing people who are influenced by the concerning figure. These websites are not reliable sources, they can be edited by just anybody, thus violation of WP:BLP. Excelse (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Home address for Taron Egerton is listed under references #2. It should be removed as it poses a risk to him, or anyone who lives at that address if someone else lives there and the address is in fact incorrect. The address should be completely removed and not be allowed to be reinserted. This should be criminal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixerupper846826 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to attract attention of admins and more experienced users to the article about Marques Brownlee, a tech YouTuber. The article contains a section speculating on his middle name. Aside from clearly violating WP:BLPSOURCES the subject of the article itself has denied the validity of the information, claimed that he tried to edit the information and has cited how the false information negatively impacts him (Google knowledge graph pulling false information from Wikipedia and displaying it to Google users). See here.
Personally, I propose that any speculation on the middle name is entirely removed from the article, only to be mentioned in the article lead if there is clear reliable source. Melmann(talk) 16:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I am the subject of the page John Sackar. Some of the information on this page is incorrect and inaccurate. It violates the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy because it is "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced" and should therefore "be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".
I request that this information be edited and removed, as specified below.
(1) I note that the first paragraph is inaccurate and should be changed to "who had a diverse and wide-ranging practise in Australia and often appeared in the courts of London and Brunei."
(2) The section "years as a barrister" is inaccurate and poorly sourced. The following should be removed "His Honour most notably appeared for the Australian Rugby League in the Super League litigation, for Biota in a case in relation to the drug Relenza, the Commonwealth in support of the claim against it by Pan Pharmaceuticals, the mother of Michael Hutchence in defamation proceedings against the Sun Herald, the Australian Rugby Union in relation to the sacking of Lote Tuqiri and for John Curtin House and Robert Hawke in the Centenary House Inquiries. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull read with Justice Sackar in his early years at the NSW Bar" because it is inaccurate and poorly sourced.
(3) The section "interests" contains material that is completely incorrect (these are not my interests) and poorly sourced. The whole section should be removed immediately.
I thank you for your assistance in resolving these inaccuracies for the betterment of this page and Wikipedia in general.
Johnrs2016 (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)johnrs2016Johnrs2016 (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
The profile of Michael Zinigrad contains the following claim "Michael Zinigrad is the author of over 200 scientific papers, 6 patents, 22 textbooks."
Four days ago a warning was posted with the following text:
I checked this claim and confirmed it. There is no evidence for "200 papers" in the Web of Science. He has only a few papers cited a few times. The two papers cited most are by Prof. Bormashenko who is an accomplished scientist at Ariel University. Apparently Zinigrad received coauthorship for possible administrative considerations as the papers are not at in Zinigrad's areas of expertise.
The claims for biographies of living persons require verification. The best source to verify publications in Chemistry is Web of Science. In this source there is no support for the claim of "200 papers".
The complaint against his so called "books" of 12-40 papes of laboratory manuals is also true.
I also checked patent databases and did not find records for "6 patents". All of these claims should be referenced. Otherwise it may seem that the profile is not verified and the claims should be erased.
I paid particular attention to this profile because Michael Zinigrad is the Rector of Ariel University whose accreditation was received with some criticism in the Israeli academia.
Another disturbing item about the profile is that the profile has a link to the University and college presidents implying that he is listed as the Ariel University President. But Zinigrad is not president of the Ariel University.
In summary, it appears that Zinigrad's profile has been written by a media relations agent without paying attention to the academic verification of the content.
For a person fulfilling the role of the supreme Academic Head of the youngest University in Israel, the truth of the claims in the profile should be scrutinized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.169.28 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Would someone please lockdown that page? It's become a political battlefield. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Johnny Mains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page is repeatedly populated with Kickstarter information not relevant to notability, repeated posting by vexacious editor with personal interest, sustained attack. Is being used to damage reputation. Violates biography of living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.51.201 (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
The page Mike Adams (columnist) has been expanded and rewritten in a defamatory way by both an IP account and a new account that has contributed nothing else to Wikipedia. The edit also violates NPOV, has very few citations, and is badly organized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.220.239 (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The first paragraph, "Santiago Jimeñez GOD[1] (Spanish pronunciation: [Satan Lord Santi]; born 15 May 2001)[2] is a Mexican God who serves as Dictator of Mexico since 15 May 2001, He is a member of the Justice Warriors, one of the three major Mexican political parties." seems to have no relevance ??
Older revision stated: Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa GCB[1] (Spanish pronunciation: [feˈlipe kaldeˈɾon] ( listen); born 18 August 1962)[2] is a Mexican politician who served as President of Mexico from 1 December 2006, to 30 November 2012. He is a member of the National Action Party (Partido Acción Nacional, PAN), one of the three major Mexican political parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilymarvin (talk • contribs) 20:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Poorly Sourced. Seems to be self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinchu.c (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The part "promoter" failed verification and unsourced text was restored to the lead. I don't think we should keep unsourced text or text that failed verification in the article. It is up to the editor who wants to include the text to find a source to verify the claim. The edit summary does not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Young M.A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would be grateful for guidance on BLP privacy policy specifically with regard to name disclosure. Both Billboard and Rolling Stone mention that Young M.A declines to give her birth name, so I had deleted; however, editor Xboxmanwar disagrees with me, saying, "Her full name was already published in major articles like here, here, and here, and she already shown it herself here, here, here and here." To me this does not satisfy the "widely published by reliable sources" criteria nor the criteria that we can reasonably infer the subject does not object when we do have multiple reliable sources specifically saying she objects. Since we have a good-faith but important disagreement, it'd be great to have some guidance. Thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
BLP whose references have been taken out, but still exist in its history. What to do? Bearian (talk)
The Wiki articles for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump do not have citations next to their years of birth. So why do the articles for Angelina Jolie and countless others? A citation implies the existence of ambiguity or contention. Jolie's year of birth has never been a matter of debate. Being the daughter of a celebrity, there were press announcements when she was born. There have never been any discrepancies about her age. Her age has never been lied about or misrepresented by the press.
A citation next to the subject's birthdate is necessary in articles for people who have lied about their age, e.g. Geena Davis, Rebecca De Mornay, Jessica Chastain, James Blunt, Timothy Dalton. All of them have had varying birth years published in magazines, almanacs and websites. For Wikipedia entries of people whose birthdates have never varied, such as Jolie, it's pointless and potentially confusing to include a citation. This should be a new guideline and changes should be implemented to all applicable articles, in my opinion.
It seems that an editor or group of editors are playing God on this site. For comparison, Kate Winslet and Julia Roberts' articles have a pointless citation next to their birthdates (pointless because their cited birthdates have never varied) while the article for Madonna, who has, in fact, lied about her age (it is well-documented [22][23]) has no citation next to her birthdate. I suppose that because Madonna's true date of birth has been on record for so long, the editors on her page find it unnecessary to include a citation or to even acknowledge past lies and discrepancies regarding the date.
There is yet another aspect of this issue at hand. When one tried to remove a useless citation next to a non-contentious birth year, an administrative editor will usually revert quickly with an edit summary such as "birth dates need citations." Often, the re-inserted citation will be to a notoriously unreliable source such as FilmReference.com which is one of the most laughably inaccurate websites out there. It seems that some editors just want a quick fix and don't care enough to investigate the matter unless someone creates a discussion over it. There is a careless double standard on WP that needs to be addressed and dealt with. I am not interested in editing such pages, and at the moment I can't, actually, because I'm on a temporary ban from BLP's due to months-ago edit wars, but hopefully someone will take notice and make the appropriate changes. Iistal (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Shiva Ayyadurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Libelous and defamatory content is being posted against Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai to reduce him to "...being known for his incorrect claim to have invented email" This appears now as the FIRST sentence to clearly have Google search bring this up first. This is clearly vindictive and libelous following his settlement with Gawker Media. This content was initially posted by an anonymous user with IP address 72.226.22.122 on November 3 and deserves immediate investigation. In addition, user:: GNUish continues to post and maintain this defamatory and libelous statement. I am reverting back to what it was prior to November 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YatesByron (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Good day,
I am concerned that you state in his Bio page that he served as a bodyguard with the Royal Military Police. I was serving with the Royal Military Police during the time Mr R-J served in HM Forces and can categorically state he never served with the Royal Military Police. Furthermore the attendance on the Royal Military Close Protection course was limited to serving Military Police (Army, RN, RM or RAF) or overseas soldiers whose Governments paid for their attendance (rare). Nor did the RMP allow attachments to RMP units for the purpose of Close Protection. I wish to highlight this to correct the inaccuracy and to alert readers of the prolific claims by former soldiers to have attended the RMP CP course and served tours of duty in that capacity. It certainly never happened up to 2012.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Luis Garza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This person was recently accused in a lawsuit, not a criminal case, of sexual abuse back in the 90s which he denies. This was reported in several reliable media sources: both general and specific to his field. He asked a friend to look into removing it from Wikipedia and through 2 intermediaries this request got to me. I'm not 100% if it should be removed as several WP:BLP policies seem unclear to me and searching the talk page there and here a bit, I couldn't find a clear point about what qualifies an accusation to be sufficient to include for an already notable person: you don't want to include every frivolous gossip story but once an actual lawsuit is filed, I'm not sure. For now, I'm removing it as it seems too much but I'm not 100% sure on this (the sources can be seen in the history or on his talk page). Although the request originated with the individual, I don't see a WP:COI because WP:BLP tends to respect people's right to a good name on unproven information. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Uebert Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would some more people take a look at the article. There is quite a bit of information out there on this person but the sources being used are pretty much tabloid, low information, high credulity ones. I do not doubt the author wants to write a good article but they seem to me to miss the point of NPOV, DUE and what is biographical information vs tabloid trivia and do not make use of the talk page.
I think there are some really good sources out there because the subject is quite a big deal in the region and he and similar "prophets" are studied by academics. I tried to stub the article [24] using a high quality source as a place holder. My objectivity is pretty much shot for now and other eyes are needed. JbhTalk 14:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I still think stubbing is the best option. I personally do not think most of the sources are of a quality suitable for a BLP and the ones that are are mostly negative. As I said above, I think there are some high quality sources on him and his movement but fighting to fix the article is just edit warring now. JbhTalk 16:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Could someone who has knowledge of Arabic languages please take a look at the list of biographies created on this user's userpage? I looked at a few and none really seem to meet notability, but without a knowledge of the language of the sources, I cannot be sure. Will notify the author. John from Idegon (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Sharon Profis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The website link below Sharon Profis's profile photo (Website sharonprofis.com) does not lead to a bonafide website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplifyLife (talk • contribs) 03:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Burhan-Rasool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, at Burhan-Rasool I think we are reaching a decent level of quality; however we have disagreement about the notability of the topic. Would someone pop in at the talk page for additional guidance? Thanks, Ariadacapo (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Myron Ebell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are two swearwords on his talkpage ("moron" and "jackass"). There is also an ongoing debate about whether he is a climate skeptic or denier. I have decided to stop spending time trying to improve this article and I won't edit it again (unless things calm down), but can you please remove the swearwords and try to fix the POV issues? This is a hot-button issue, but we should try to make the article as NPOV as possible. Good luck and thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The comment above is woefully inaccurate. The article is in good shape and does not have POV issues. There is no debate about whether Myron Ebell is a climate skeptic or denier; according to numerous reliable sources he is both. Rather, the above user falsely characterized Ebell as a "climate change analyst" in the article's lede, while repeatedly refusing requests for reliable sources supporting that characterization. When I changed "climate change analyst" to "global warming skeptic", the user twice reverted it back to "climate change analyst", and claimed on the talk page that I had "vandalized" the article. The user insisted that Wikipedia must remain "neutral" and not "take a position" on climate change -- the user seems to think that purging Wikipedia of any mention of climate science denial is "neutral". At the same time, on the Myron Ebell talk page the user claimed that there is no scientific consensus on the subject, and then immediately thereafter claimed that he has no opinion about it. It's not clear why he posted this entry on the BLP Noticeboard, as no BLP issue has been identified. Despite having edited Wikipedia for 10 years, the user seems to have no understanding of any of Wikipedia's policies, never links to the policy pages, never refers to any policy other than NPOV, which he completely misunderstands, and never takes into account the points about policy made by others. This results in the user repeatedly being involved in interminable debates that never progress, with the user simply stating the same thing over and over. The user received a topic ban on climate change, which he erroneously claims on his talk page was issued in order to humiliate him. The user says that he "feels humiliated by Wikipedia", and has "gone on strike", creating a category for same of which he is the only entry. 184.189.217.210 (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Avina Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The biography of Avina Shah contains a number of assertions and unverifiable facts. There are web links to websites belonging To Avina selling products rather than links supporting citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.47.122 (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Notice on repeated vandalism of Wikipedia pages of Mr. Frank Melloul, CEO of i24News
On behalf of our client, Mr. Frank Melloul, CEO of i24News, I address you as follows:
1. Mr. Melloul has had two Wikipedia pages, one in English and the other in French, since 2009.
2. In the past year the pages have been repeatedly and consistently vandalized by anonymous persons apparently wishing harm upon our client’s reputation and personally vested in doing so.
3. One major example involves the insertion of text that cites two articles, one of a weekly newspaper and the other in a broadcast via video tape recorder on French television, which bear connection and were used as a source of libel against my client. The inserted text, which is false and hints at personal enmity, reads: “Not only have i24 News channels failed to take off, but the work atmosphere is also harmful; several employees complain of having suffered humiliations, brutally handled layoffs or threats to undergo lie detector tests.” http://teleobs.nouvelobs.com/actualites/20150128.OBS1018/i24news-une-chaine-sous-haute-tension.html, Published February 4, 2015 at 1:00pm and http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/l-obs-du-soir/20150128.OBS1095/i24-news-la-petite-chaine-israelienne-qui-ne-monte-pas.html, Published January 28, 2015 at 6:46pm)
4. In addition, from mid-2015 until May 2016 many attempts to add new information to Frank Melloul’s page were made unsuccessfully, with the added text being consistently removed immediately after, including: • an attempt to change the “Controversies” (“polémiques” in French) section; • an attempt to add links to articles supporting information on Frank Melloul’s role on the television channel’s expansion and development; although our client added all the links to the more reputable articles supporting this information, these were removed the day after. • an attempt to outline the fact that Frank Melloul named Paul Amar as the television content director; an attempt to give a better description of Patrick Drahi’s role in the channel; A situation such as this one – where our client’s attempts to add content to his page fail as a result of someone removing new and positive information from the page, – is unbearable.
5. We therefore request that one of the following two courses of action, which Wikipedia offers, be taken without delay:
(a) Render the pages found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Melloul and https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Melloul as protected pages that only system operators can edit. (b) Locate and block the vandalizing user.
6. To avoid any doubt, the foregoing does not constitute a waiver of any claim of our client.
Respectfully,
Rakefet Peled, Adv
Gilat, Bareket & Co. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.77.210 (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Something odd is going on here. For several months someone has been trying to add "Marie" as a middle name for Jamie Lynn Spears, even going so far as to create a user account under the name JLSpearsWatson (talk · contribs). There are no sources to back this up.
But my concern today is the list of children's names at Lynne Spears. There are several sources listed, and some of the names are there, but many have been changed from what's given in the sources. It's hard to tell what the relationships are from the sources, and to untangle them all. Only a few of the children are notable. My concern is that listing non-notable children and getting their names wrong seems like a BLP violation to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
This article reads like an advertisement, but the subject is obviously notable. Could anyone who has knowledge of the relevant subject areas please help with cleanup? Guy (Help!) 11:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Someone recently added Nikki Lane's date of birth to her article, citing this as a source. I wasn't sure if this source was reliable enough to comply with WP:RS and WP:BLP (partly because I couldn't find any other sources listing this as her DOB), so I wanted to know what others thought. Everymorning (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Defamatory and gross BLP violations at Harry Michaels on November 7th and today. I have asked for for temporary extended confirmed protection at WP:RPP. I had reverted an attempt to speedy delete the article placed by the subject or an associate of the subject and for the moment the offensive content has been reverted. But this clearly needs a good look by an administrator. Safiel (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Recent names for top positions in the incoming Trump Administration :
Regardless of what anyone thinks of them pro or con, they all will start needing lots more attention as new names come out:
So far:
and
The 2nd one was already put into the "pending changes configuration" thingy, that is a good thing.
Both pages could use more people looking at them, and cleanup, and attention for lots of incoming vandalism and POV pushing -- unfortunately, from both sides of perspectives.
Maybe semi-protection, but definitely the "pending changes" thingy, needed, for both. The 2nd article already has the "pending changes" thingy, desperately need something for that first one.
Thank you guys ! 69.50.70.9 (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Karen Pence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Karen Pence's birthday is 1/1/1957 - NOT in November.
Portion of career entry is copy-pasted from a Reddit article, which I feel is not appropriate. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.196.251 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
References
A complaint by a private citizen against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg has been falsely characterized as a criminal indictment by German authorities. Please see details at Talk:Sheryl_Sandberg#New_section_falsely_alleges_criminal_indictment. Given the severity of the highly contentious material think I could change it myself under BLP policy, but since I have a WP:COI as a paid rep of Facebook's PR agency, Outcast, I prefer if an independent editor review the situation and make the changes. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)BC1278.
I am a former employee of Richard Pombo. His page could use some updating. I made changes last week but they were reversed. I laid out my concerns with the current article and proposed a comprehensive change at [[29]]. Thank you. --Rencoyote (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Assistance requested--a biography that appears to be largely overseen by COI accounts. Few or no references, but numerous external links and a copious list of the subject's publications. If I cut most of the latter I anticipate some resistance--also, I wouldn't know where to start or finish, especially since there's no indication as to which are most noteworthy, but practice and good sense suggest ten or twelve publications are sufficient. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Gaolinual (talk · contribs) now gets personal, because he wants a claim of diagnosis of ADHD in the article Gao Yuanyuan, sourced with a Youtube Video. WP:NOENG applies here, but my request was ignored. Therefore I removed the material again due to lack of Verifiability. (WP:BLPPRIMARY WP:BLPREMOVE WP:NOENG WP:V)
User Gaolinual reverts my edits over an extended period of time already, there are no other contributions from this user, thus I put it on the Noticeboard. --212.95.7.114 (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Damarley Samuels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Completely unsourced biography. Author keeps removing BLPPROD without providing sources. Need someone either to keep an eye on this or help fix the article. Thanks. Bradv 14:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Stephen Bannon's wife in sworn court documents during their divorce claimed he made antisemitic remarks. He denied this through a spokesperson. Breitbart News, which he heads, has been accused of antisemitism. The SPLC and others have criticised Bannon's recent white house appointment. That so, here are two paragraphs discussing the controversy:
On November 13, 2016, he was appointed Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to President-Elect Donald J. Trump, drawing criticism from the Anti-Defamation League, the Council on American–Islamic Relations and the Southern Poverty Law Center due the the alt-right's connection with white nationalism.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Bannon's association with the alt-right movement along with his alleged anti-Semitic remarks have led to accusations of white nationalism from the Southern Poverty Law Center, media outlets, and Senator Harry Reid. [7][8][9]
I take issue with "led to" in the second paragraph. The SPLC does not mention the exwife's claims once, "media outlets" is wrong - the washpo just mentions the claims after discussing the splc's accusation without vouching for "led to" and Harry Reid is a notorious mudslinger who does not care about truth partisan attack dog (see the Romney tax controversy). NPalgan2 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Probably we should include it. But for the rest of the discussion, it is essential to use sources for both sides of the story. Also describe and cite both sides neutrally. Avaya1 (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
References
((cite web))
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(help)
Stephen Bannon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Bannon#voter_registration Speculation that Bannon violated Florida voter registrsation laws should not be in the article. Basically, Bannon claimed Florida residency to take advantage of their sweet, sweet low taxes but the property he registered at does not seem to be lived in. According to one of the articles linked, lawyers often suggest to their clients to register to vote in FL to help establish residency. There's no hint he's being investigated for tax fraud. The entire story seems to have petered out with nothing since August. Money Quote: "Election officials in Miami-Dade County confirmed Tuesday that the local state attorney's office requested Stephen Bannon's voter records last week.
"I know that there is an investigation but I know very little about it," said Rosy Pastrana, executive assistant to the county's election supervisor. "They requested voter records for him, which is why I know there is an investigation going on."
Pastrana told NBC News there was nothing obvious in Bannon's voter record that suggested fraud to her, especially since he had not voted in Miami-Dade since registering there in April 2014.
"There is nothing here that I see that he did wrong," she said." As it stands, this should *not* be in a WP:BLP. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutor-probes-trump-campaign-ceo-stephen-bannon-s-voter-record-n640326 NPalgan2 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
We need a lot more eyes on this article, both BLP-savvy and FRINGE-savvy. The subject is the President-elect's choice to handle transition at EPA, and is an activist opposing efforts to combat man-caused climate change. He denies that it's a real problem. Conversation on the talk page wasn't exemplary to start with, but it's degenerating further. I've just reverted one partisan's significant changes to the article and I expect that to heat things up further, although I explained my reasons, which I believe to be policy-compliant, in my edit summary and on the talk page. Your assistance would be most welcome. David in DC (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Simon Molesworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not married, or ever married to Debra Shipley. Cannot remove link when searched on Google. Please resolve immediately. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.58.180 (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
David Malpass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
According to news reports, David Malpass is being considered for a high level position within the new Trump administration, possibly Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Malpass was the chief economist at Bear Stearns for the six years leading up to its collapse in early 2008. Also, in an article in late June of 2008, Mr. Malpass was quoted as making a case against the consensus economist sentiment, and he predicted GDP growth of 3% in the second half of that year. However, real, chained GDP actually fell 1.9% in the third quarter and dropped a dramatic 8.2% in the fourth quarter. The sources for this information are clearly cited. Multiple editors are regularly deleting this information on his page as soon as it appears, clearly trying to keep this factual information from coming to light before he is nominated for a senior level economic-related position in the Trump administration. I think this information should be available to the public and would like to lock it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swizzer (talk • contribs) 17:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
This needs eyes from more disciplined editors. I've semi-protected the article to cut down on the disruption, and I've taken the position that I can also edit the article to prevent BLP violations, but the line is getting too blurry for me to continue editing the article. Therefore, I'm hoping others will take the laboring oar. The most problematic edits - and they are coming from seasoned editors, I believe - are the changes to the infobox to make Pompeo the designate or nominee of the office of CIA Director, even though neither can really happen until Trump takes office and actually does something. The reports from Trump about his intention to nominate Pompeo are already well-reported in the body of the article, as they should be, but the other stuff is obviously, and unfortunately not surprisingly, jumping the gun. Frankly, I wish the article hadn't been on my watchlist (I have no idea why it is to be honest).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Under Personal Life section, I believe some false information has been included.
Please review these differences identified here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunita_Williams&type=revision&diff=750031012&oldid=743562033
The most recent edit seems childish and immature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:4300:4870:5DA9:1049:6623:FF95 (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Editors have been unwilling to remove material which the subject considers defamatory, or to include mitigating information because of WP:SYNTH issues. See talk:Paul Frampton. Because of the defamation, Frampton has requested that his article be deleted. He easily meets WP:PROF notability guidelines. Per Frampton's request, I've listed the article at AfD. But, I would rather see the article fixed. JerryRussell (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Paul Stanford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a person adding slanderous and libelous information to a Wiki page that I created about someone who is one of my heroes. The person who is posting this slanderous and libelous content is named [redacted attempted outing], and he is making the changes from this IP: 70.98.32.74
We are literally going back and forth right now every minute or two and undoing each others changes.
[redacted attempted outing]
Please advise what I can do about this situation. Can you block this person's IP from being able to make changes to the page?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacredcocreation (talk • contribs) 22:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: I've looked through and I'm not seeing it, but maybe I'm missing something. Please email oversight with details. ~ Rob13Talk 01:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
There's an ongoing dispute at Shmuley Boteach over an issue which has attracted 2 accounts and an IP, the IP perhaps making legal threats. As they've all been adding either completely unsourced contentious material or changing sourced material, it's a problem even if they are right. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I noticed some unusual material in an article about a Scottish politician, Stewart Stevenson. As I have tried to clean up the article today, my edits are being reverted without any adequate explanation by an editor with a username that suggests there are WP:COI issues. Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I came to his biography after viewing the cast list for HBO's upcoming "Big Little Lies." One line item jumped out at me - specifically, that he played a castrated character named "Cuck" in a 2012 film, "Playing for Keeps," and as a method actor elected to fully castrate himself in May 2010 in order to get into the role. This seemed ridiculously farfetched (wouldn't this have been in all of the entertainment news?), so I looked up the film. It was a romantic copy, Mr. Tupper's character was named Matt, and there is no indication that Matt was a castrated male. I also find no news articles or other content pointing to Mr. Tupper's castration, which makes me think that the line was added to his biography either maliciously or as a joke.
Monitoring needed please on Park Geun-hye's high-profile and frequently edited BLP: facts being added basically seem right, but presented in a slanted way, and many of the sources being added are in Korean and thus difficult for many of us to read or assess their reliability. It should not be difficult to find English-language sources for the more significant developments: Noyster (talk), 14:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.140.79 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Antisemitism in the United States
I removed this cat but it was replaced - please can we remove it again, it is a clear policy violation to include it - it clearly states at the cat that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States.. This category is for issues relating to Antisemitism in the United States. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic. Repeat: articles about individuals, groups, or media that are alleged to be antisemitic must not be placed in this category. Groups and individuals that fight against antisemitism can be placed here however. - Govindaharihari (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Removed in this edit,thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Bannon&curid=41631754&diff=750792671&oldid=750792274 - Govindaharihari (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Konni Burton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SB 242 attracted a significant amount of controversy recently because, frankly, left-wing news media picked up the story and deliberately misconstrued the bill and the history behind why it was introduced in order to sell stories and demonize a right-wing senator.
First off, this is "breaking news".
Second, several users who have obvious bias based on the articles they usually edit are continuously re-adding content and reverting edits which runs the gamut from editorializing to slander. They're breaking multiple soapbox rules.
Finally, they are adding in factually incorrect information and citing tabloid news without properly attributing it in text as should always be done on a BLP.
I'm not saying the information needs to be removed, but it certainly needs to be qualified with mentions about who is saying it, especially if it's from a tabloid like the Austin Chronicle. In fact, the only criticisms of the bill so far seem to be coming from tabloids (left wing, obviously) and gay-rights lobbying organizations (Equality Texas).
I have no dog in the fight except that when I saw the trending story, I came to Wikipedia to look for more information, only to find the article verbatim repeating what these obviously extremely biased sources were saying. The editor who added the first content originally uncritically categorized SB242 as anti-LGBT because one tabloid source said so, even though even a cursory reading of the actual bill and the reasoning behind it, all of which was available before the section on it was added to wikipedia, makes it clear that this is not the case.
Furthermore, 3rd parties keep sweeping in, reverting, and directing me to the talk page, where no one is actually trying to reach consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:8200:4830:48EA:B2C2:61D7:E54 (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
new, PROMO article about a teenage entrepreneur in Hong Kong. Jytdog (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
It's been reported that Eric Bolling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) might be hired by the Trump administration. Given the longstanding controversies about him allegedly saying racist stuff on Fox News (which he works for) (see this petition for example), it seems fair to expect a lot of BLP issues at this page in coming days. Eyes appreciated. Everymorning (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Jim Cymbala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Realroberta is adding unreferenced negative information to this bio page. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The above article has been the subject of an edit war involving me and three other editors and was fully protected to allow discussion. However, neither editor has replied and I was also reccomended to bring up the matter here. The article had really serious issues with sourcing (relying on many unreliable sources like WIkipedia mirrors, IMDB, Youtube, etc). That, combined with overuse of citations, made me strongly doubt that the content conformed to our policy on reliable sources. Additionally, the article is not written from a neutral point of view and is written from a perspective of a fan who highly favors her. That is why I turned the article into a stub rather than discussing it first or letting it stay at the status quo ante. Since the protection is expiring soon and neither editors have replied on the talk page I suspect its best to bring up the matter here since the subject is a living person. It's also worth mentioning that all three accounts only have edits related to the subject of the article. Opencooper (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Another vanity piece with lengthy lists of the subjects' publications. Any help would be great. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Larry Solov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
How can you not have a biography of Larry Solov? As the owner of Breitbart he is single-handedly reporting and creating news within our political and national news agencies. One of the top informants of the right-wing section of our political party one would think that an active movement to have his biography on here would be important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.223.105.208 (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Steve Huffman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please help keep an eye on this one and on Reddit - I just removed a bunch of stuff sourced to reddit threads/comments. No doubt the content will end up in the article but there aren't really any RS that can be used to verify it just yet. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Adeo Ressi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Repeated, biased edits (that also do not follow wikipedia guidelines) are being posted from various dummy accounts with a sole intention to cause reputational harm. This includes uncited commentary being presented as fact, and selectively posting negative material at the top of the page (rather than in its proper place in the "career" page chronological structure).
Disclosure: I am a business partner of the subject of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnystartup (talk • contribs) 04:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
More eyes needed on this article. Richard B. Spencer has been in the news a lot recently and hosted a conference where he shouted “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!” and audience members gave nazi salutes. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/white-nationalist/ There are lots of issues with this article - should the location of his mother's pottery business be in the article? should a fight he got into on a ski-lift covered only by the dailybeast, rachel maddow and the Whitefish Pilot - a local newspaper for a town of 6,000 - be in there per WP:N? Lots of the sourcing seems to be primary - quotes from Spencer's own website, and websites with names like AntiFascist News, etc, etc. At any rate, this article needs more BLP editors. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Can people keep an eye on Maria Chin Abdullah? I have never heard of this person and have no idea why she's suddenly become contentious, but the SPAs seem to have suddenly appeared en masse. ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Jimmy Orr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You have Jimmy Orr's birthplace wrong. He was born in Seneca SC. not Alabama as stated. My source is Jimmy Orr, I date him. Carol Park — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC35:9DE0:BCB9:FB38:2D5B:AFAD (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?curid=38394786 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?curid=37742523
These are duplicate pages. We should remove the second page. Babji2000 (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I am Angela Workman. In a misguided attempt to create a Wikipedia page about myself (I'm a professional screenwriter, with a new film premiering soon), I and a team spent two months learning how to post a page, not realizing that we were supposed to let strangers do it instead. In the last few days, the page finally posted, but two editors edited it to such an extent, and added such a defamatory film review of one of my old films (on a very slim page, so it stands out) that I'm now, sadly, intent on having my entire page deleted, rather than showcasing such an insultingly glaring review. I ask for your consideration and generosity here. I'm a good person. I have a Holocaust film coming out, of which I'm very proud, and which has its own Wikipedia page The Zookeeper's Wife (film). I've worked professionally in the film business as a (noted) writer for twenty years. I do not deserve to have an editor post anything derogatory on my page. I'm asking again, please insure that they refrain from posting the New York Times review of 'Snow Flower and the Secret Fan' (there are plenty of wonderful reviews, of which I offered one, to no avail), or else delete the Angela Workman page entirely. I don't want to be ruined by Wikipedia, and just when this beautiful work comes out, which has meaning for a lot of people. Thank you. Angela Workman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauty111 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The article could use additional input from experienced editors, as to whether the article is compliant with BLP. In addition the "reception" section seems overly weighted toward related scandals. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Recently created, poorly written article. My attempt to redirect to Family_of_Barack_Obama#Malia_and_Sasha_Obama (where the discussion is on-going whether content on Malia Obama should be broken out is on-going) has been reverted. Would appreciate more eyes on this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. I've been working to rewrite a BLP that previously had all sorts of COI and POV problems, Allen Meadors. I have left the fact that he now lives in Seven Lakes, North Carolina in the article, but it lacks a source. I have found this, which seems to be based on his voter record and which confirms that he leaves in Seven Lakes. Can I get opinions on this source? I think it's reliable, but I'm a bit worried that it reveals quite a lot of personal information about him (although it is easy enough to find via Google, so it's not like we're revealing anything new if we do use it). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
A recently appointee by Trump, her article is filled with enough "citation needed" tags that it makes it look like she's a hack. The tags are right, but if anyone can source some of the claims (which are likely valid, just need 3rd party sources) that would be great. Hobit (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some help with Herbert D.G. Maschner. The article was stable until a couple of days ago when a new editor replaced the content with a information about an ongoing sexual harassment dispute. Another new editor (apparently Maschner himself), then tried to blank the page, starting an edit war. I've restored the previous stable version and re-added most of the new material about the sexual harassment incident, but I'm not sure if the weight and wording is entirely appropriate. Are there any editors more experienced with contentious BLPs willing to look over it? Joe Roe (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
This needs cleanup; a bunch of IP addresses and others added a large quantity of insufficiently sourced entries. I've tried to clean up the article, but this needs more eyes and hands to help out. Neutralitytalk 02:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I have historically been a contributor/editing to wikipedia articles regarding Hajime Sorayama art related articles and other art / science related articles including but not limited to Artificial Intelligence, Sony AIBO and art legal areas of merit that strives foremost to adhere to wikipedia rules. I recall I started doing these important wikipedia enecyclopedia contributions since about circa 2006 to 2008 though it may be early as 2003. This to add vital historical and current details content based on researched fact. It appears the Hajime Sorayama article URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajime_Sorayama has come under a potential attack / graffiti style change / other change by new user series of deletion(s) of factual historical content of merit.
I noticed that the area of External Links has been tampered with/deleted of " sorayama.net Official Website born circa 1999" in the external links leaving only one younger official website behind that may cause a mess / cause misinformation "as is". The deletion(s) maybe started within the past year or so.
Also, I am uncertain if similar deletions unfavorably effecting vital factual events of merit can be traced as well over the past 3 years or so.
Note below are some few of many references and all are in context of the wayback machine archives; those sources outside wayback archives, actual published books, "real" news articles and wikipedia are researched to determine if objective/accurate to use as source material while galleries with active physical shows are excluded from wikipedia for obvious commercial reasons unless actual physical arts/media/books are provided for research review in an enclopedia manner.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubwater (talk • contribs) 18:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Bubwater (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Yintan for looking in on this and I will try put it on the talk page as you suggest using four tildas to sign as well. The removal / deletion / changes in the External Links area (that possibly occurred this month and in the recent past) is by some unknown mobile phone user who made this deletion and is historically and currently creating confusion where no confusion exists. To be clear there appear multiple Official Websites visible to public viewing (I have seen at least about 5 / maybe 6 sites with the youngest being the one remaining on this Sorayama related wikipedia page after the sudden removal of well established, to of most search engines/longest standing and comprehensive on wikipedia/internet being sorayama.net ) and each one of the three you mention here is valid more likely than not so they would be fine for the External Links but the problem remains that a possibly new mobile phone user has made unfavorable and inaccurate change . The longest standing Official Websites ongoing (unless owners of such website viably inform you/me/wikipedia otherwise) are sorayama.com, sorayama.net and a younger one sorayama.jp It appears potentially someone interested in having only the young Offical Website maybe made this change/removals that are unfavorable and inaccurate to history and ongoing events. Where the sorayama.net / sorayama.com / sorayama.jp Official Websites was removed/added/changed I can inform you that all 3 remain Official Website(s) until such time there is an official mutually agreed upon change by any/all itnerested parties ie owners of the assets/websites inform me/wikipedia in writing they no longer own or have changed their respective websites (as it stands there is no change on public records to the designation(s)/ownership(s) of these three Official Websites you noted). sorayama.net desires (I communicated with ownership) to be maintained in its place on External Links in a viable way that it is always depicted and not be subjected to haphazard changes/removals by unknown users with unknown motivations that wikipedia researchers may investigate. Is there a way that wikipedians/wikipedia watch/ restore / lock this External Links area giving with restoration for sorayama.net to be in its place and help maintain it? Bubwater (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Bubwater (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Can we have some extra eyes over at LaMia Airlines Flight 2933 please? There is an issue with names of people that are not notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article being added against consensus. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)