Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive102

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

There is someone named MatthewVanitas (talk | contribs) who is vandalizing with the Shaikh's Article. He is deleting major portion of the Article arbitrarily without consultations. I provided following references

References 1. ^ American Management Association, International, Europe Chapter 2. ^ British Institute of Management, London 3. ^ Instt.of Chartered Sec.& Administrators, London 4. ^ Association of Business Executives, London 5. ^ CIF FOUNDATION 6. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter page 1 7. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter page 2 8. ^ Qassim Deedat letter 9. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter thanking Shaikh Quadri 10. ^ Tafsee-e-Quran in English by Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri

External Links • Correct Islamic Faith International Association • Correctislamicfaith.com • CIFIAGLOBAL

Administrators please help and restrict this vandal. Guide99 (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)--Guide99 (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri is a world known figure and respected Shaikh (Head) of Correct Islamic Faith International Association (CIFIA)whose membership of Islamic Institutions is over 330. The Associates of CIFIA are very very well known Muslim scholars of the world. Their biographies are available on Wikipedia and on Association's website.

He is the Head of an NGO "CIF Foundation" registered at Hyderabad, India and there are many Institutions run by this NGO. Details are available on this location of his Website.

http://www.correctislamicfaith.com/cifnetworkinstitutions.htm.

There are 22 books published by Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri available in the market, these books are listed on his Wikipedia page and on various sites on Internet.

Therefore, kindly remove the tag you have put on top of his page. Thanks--Guide99 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the template again: "This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources" The website you give is not a "reliable third-party publication". If Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri is a "world known figure" I'm sure it won't be hard to find this, but until you do, it seems that the tag is entirely justified, in line with Wikipedia policy. Sorry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There is someone named MatthewVanitas (talk | contribs) who is vandalizing with the Shaikh's Article. He is deleting major portion of the Article arbitrarily without consultations. He can put the tag, but deleting arbitrarily and repeatedly is crude type of vandalism.

I provided following references

References 1. ^ American Management Association, International, Europe Chapter 2. ^ British Institute of Management, London 3. ^ Instt.of Chartered Sec.& Administrators, London 4. ^ Association of Business Executives, London 5. ^ CIF FOUNDATION 6. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter page 1 7. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter page 2 8. ^ Qassim Deedat letter 9. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter thanking Shaikh Quadri 10. ^ Tafsee-e-Quran in English by Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri

External Links • Correct Islamic Faith International Association • Correctislamicfaith.com • CIFIAGLOBAL

The above references are more than sufficient. More references will be added to the Article as a routine, as is done in other people's cases. Please, restrict this vandal from this arbitrary deletion.

Guide99 (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)--Guide99 (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what we require. We are not asking for 'references' for an individual. We are asking for verifiable third-party sources for the statements made in the article (see WP:RS, and in particular WP:BLP). And please desist from referring to people who act in good faith to maintain this encyclopaedia to the required standard as 'vandals'. Unsourced statements may be removed from articles at any time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The references Guide99 is providing are all, all 10 of them, from websites of the organisation run by the title subject. I have searched gBooks, gScholar, and regular Google for both the name of the subject (under several spelling variants), and even for his organisation, and I'm finding no notable 3rd-party mention despite claims his org represents 350 million people (like 20% of the world's Muslims?). I have repeatedly given Guide99 links to WP policies on Sources and on BLPs, explained in detail how third party, neutral refs are needed, and his only response has been to post the above and call me a vandal. I really feel I've put out the effort to give him benefit of the doubt, but he's refusing to acknowledge reading any of the above policies. He has repeatedly re-created said article, so if he should, yet again, fail to provide any neutral sources, would it be possible to "salt the earth" on the title and variants to prevent this article being created time after time? I'm 100% cool with the article if sources can be found, but I can't find any despite a good faith serach, and Guide99 is not providing any. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Jon Baker (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biog of living person Jon Baker (producer) not verifiable, not a neutral point of view, is a person who is relatively unknown and is mainly self aggrandizing and not factual with research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiapas1966 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific about your objections. There are a lot of sources in the article, although I haven't verified them. However, he doesn't strike me as unknown. Three things bother me. First, the tone of the piece is too promotional and not encyclopedia enough. Second, the editor who created the article in June of this year stated in the edit summary: "I created this page in partnership with Jon Baker. This would be his official page.)" Third, the Gee Street Records article seems to be as much about Baker as it is about the record label. And the record label article has virtually no sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a person of questionable notability to me. Although there are lots of cites, most of them (well those I am able to check) are either not RS or don't actually contain the name "Jon Baker". He appears to have had a nice career for himself mainly working for record labels, but I don't think that in itself constitutes notability. The main things that appear to be actually derived from RS material are that he produced an album for The Jolly Boys and is now a hotelier - there are a number of sources for this last bit, but I'm not sure if we normally carry articles about hoteliers.

At the least, the article should be severely trimmed and restricted to reliable sources. --FormerIP (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down at left a note on the talkpage for the subject. --FormerIP (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

David A. Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe this article to be an exercise in promotion or self-promotion. Four references are cited, but none of them are actually about David A. Solomon; they are about an associate, Alex Ionescu. No statements about Mr. Solomon himself are substantiated by references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.156.57.222 (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul West requests that the header to his BLP be changed to Paul West (novelist), instead of Paul West (poet) which is inaccurate.

Paul wrote very little poetry, most of it 50 years ago. He's been a career novelist, publishing 24 novels. I've been able to make corrections to his main entry, but not to the header. Can this please be fixed? Thank you for your work.

-Liz, Paul's assistant — Preceding unsigned comment added by LizWombat (talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to the more generic Paul West (writer). – ukexpat (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And I warned Liz about conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Manning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe this page is heavily biased. It could use more sources that provide more sources outside of "[expletive deleted] outsider gone mad"

---Unsigned comment of 76.78.33.95 signed byAnythingyouwant (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted an expletive used above by IP76. Although it was in quotes, I don't see that it was used at the article talk page or in any edit summary for that article.

Also, note that this article has been subject to "Pending Changes".

I surmise that IP76 is especially dissatisfied with the sourcing for the following sentence in the article: "Manning felt isolated in the army, attributed by his friends to the difficulties of being homosexual under the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy." The sourcing for that sentence seems adequate to me (see this cited article from the NYT). If IP76 thinks that this Wikipedia article is somehow distorting what happened to Manning, then it's the NYT that he should argue with, not us. IP76 is free to point us to sources that take a different view toward Manning.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Posted purely to stir up trouble: please explain why it is OK to include a reference to Bradley Manning's homosexuality, while it is verboten to mention the arrest of Sharyn O'Halloran's husband or Charles Rackoff's jeremiad about feminists (two other recent, reliably sourced matters posted here, ending in deletion). If our goal, as wiser and more experienced editors have been telling me, is to protect the living (except for the Wildly and Purposely Famous, like actors), then why not respect Manning's privacy? He did not set out to be a celebrity but was trying to stay off everyone's radar. Or is there an exception that we can pile on to people who have been arrested? Yours in honest perplexity, Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because Manning is notable for his having allegedly broken lots of important rules, so discussing why is relevant. Or because the NYT is not a tabloid, but the Daily Mail is a tabloid. Which do you think it is? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathon - drive by report without specification as to the actual issue, - resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much to add beyond my initial comment, except I disagree with Jonathan's comment that "He did not set out to be a celebrity but was trying to stay off everyone's radar." Actually, the cited NYT article says he had an "ambition to do something that would get attention." He's definitely a public figure, and this article is not just about leaking but about his life in general.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Demiurge: Daily Mail? Say what? Dr. O'Halloran spouse arrest story can be sourced to the ABC News website. Dr. Rackoff's foot-in-mouth moment story was sourced to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation website. Here is my question: "Under what circumstances does WP:NPF require the deletion of accurate, reliably sourced information about a living person?" I've been asking this a few days now, and the main answer which is emerging is "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". Yours in confusion, Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And we've been replying, "when it isn't relevant to their primary cause for notability and they are essentially private persons." Neither case applies to Manning - he is a very public prisoner whose friends and family are speaking at length to reporters on his behalf and the subject of much prominent public commentary, and the information goes directly to his motivations for the actions that made him notable. Ray^Talk 23:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ray--that would explain the deletion of the material re Dr. O'Halloran but not Dr. Rackoff. Suggest we let further discussion await my posting of a query re WP:NPF in a new section, as this becomes decreasingly relevant to Bradley Manning. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(restart indents) We would have a lot more public figures if you became one by having an "ambition to do something that would get attention." I think WP:NPF should apply to this bio. betsythedevine (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

True, but a lot of reliable sources report that he not only had the ambition, but allegedly followed through on it. If convicted, would you say he's a public figure then? I'd say so. The closer issue is whether an allegation can make the accused person a public figure, prior to conviction. Again, I'd say so, even though it may be unfair. Charles Manson, for example, was a public figure prior to conviction, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Hi,

I hope someone can offer me suggestion for how to best handle this situation,

In the section "2001-2003: Narc Beacon", towards the end an incident is described including the company "Koblo". I was one of the founders of the company and have a very different view of what happened.

What's the best way to proceed?

If I start editing the section I feel this could get very contentions. Is it better to just delete the paragraphs?

Thanks in advance, Emil Tin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiltin (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed a small amount of material from that section of the article. Extraordinary claims about living people, require extraordinarily good sourcing, and a single offline foreign-language source is not quite good enough. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, and the statement "Goodiepal's childhood friend Emil Tin and his brother Max Grønlund formed a company in the mid-nineties called Koblo responsible for the legendary software synthesizers Vibra 9000, Stella 9000 and Gamma 9000." is supported by a reference saying nothing other than "See the synthesizers on Vintage Synth" and a link to a website that says that the Vibra 9000 was made by a then-new company called Koblo, but doesn't mention Goodiepal, Emil Tin, Max, childhood friendships, or legendary status. I'm pleased to have encountered a legend, Mr Tin, but I think you are right - the remains of this paragraph really don't have much to do with the subject of the article. You were right to bring this issue to this noticeboard, and you may also wish to review WP:COI (which says, to summarise wildly, that you should discuss concerns on the talk page for the article, rather than editing it directly yourself, usually.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been advised to keep things simple here, so will try; for a somewhat fuller exegesis of the problem please see here and also a similar section on Talk:Christy Clark. There are news stories and facts being broken, by legitimate sources such as court documents etc, which the major media in this province, and nationally, are avoiding covering, or only covering once the heat from blogspace gets to the point it can't be ignored. I am arguing for exceptions, or rule interpretations, concerning blogs which are known and credited as verifiable/reliable and respected sources, in teh absence of reliable/NPOV coverage from the mainstream media, who are allied to the governing party (also as a known fact). Is the People's Daily the only "verifiable source" for events in China? Of course not. So why should the Vancouver Sun and the Globe and Mail be considered more verifiable/reliable when it's known - as a demonstrable fact - that they're not? If the major media avoid a story, does that make it "not a story", even if it's widely reported in "independent media" and "citizen reporters", which in BC have become the mainstay of real information, rather than heavily-laundered/distorted information?? I'm looking for some clarification here; these are not hobby blogs I'm talking about, they're factual-news blogs filling a void that the mainstream media have refused to acknowledge and have in fact sought to discredit, even though they're also forced to cite them on various occasions. That's about as brief as I can keep it without explaining the full political context in greater detail; I'm wary of seeing Wikipedia's rules enforced in such a way as to keep out the facts that the major media won't report.....the Big Media here are far more POV, and often unsubstantiated, than the couple of dozen bloggers who've been seeking to keep facts in front of the public, instead of swept under the rug....Skookum1 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it "Big Media" in the whole of Canada that are, allegedly, owned by the governing party of a particular Canadian province? If not, talk to the media in other parts of Canada. But if so, then it's a helluva big story, so talk to foreign media that cover international stories. Don't try convincing us that Canadian media are as neutral as Chinese media - if true, it applies to a province or two only, I'm sure. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion, actually, that the Canadian Big Media are every bit as propagandistic and distorted as Chinese media, they just fly the banner of a free press without actually allowing their reporters to write without poliitical oversight/controls; many have left their fold, which is one reason the blogging community has grown so strong. And it's BC I'm talking about, and it's not that the governing party owns the media, more like the other way around and also many of the same people are involved on both sides, namely that of the currently-ruling BC Liberal Party (which isn't the same as the federal Liberal Party and is a pro-business, anti-NDP coalition of Tories, Reformers, and a smattering of "genuine" big-L Liberals = who are few in BC, actually, at least nowadays). The CBC, nationally, is seen increasingly as a government/military mouthpiece even though it's ostensibly neutral and the right-wing pundits deride it as "leftist"; but in BC, it's a whole different world, where the line between politician and journalist has been blurred since the first newspapers were founded in 1858...the national media keep BC in kind of a quarantine of misinformation, as the polity and political culture is very volatile and very, well, un-Canadian in its stridency and confrontational nature....I lived recently for three years in Halifax NS and was shocked at times at the re-baked coverage of BC politics that appeared in Nova Scotia papers, and in the national dailies and magazines....that being said, often enough it was in the Globe and Mail that some BC stories, originating usually in blogspace, were first broken in teh "big media"....and never ever reported in BC's "major newspapers".Skookum1 (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And yes, it's a big story with international overtones and, due to the increasing role of US-backed companies in financing the ruling party, shoudl be of interest to the SEC and congressional committees....as may one day come to pass, due to the frustrations of a politically-controlled court system and the failure of Canadian authorities to act impartially (more often to act VERY impartially, including the replacement - without precedent - of a sitting judge ont he case who was acting a little too much in the public interest. The case would have gone international, for sure, had a certain trial gone forward instead of being kiboshed by a secret deal on a guilty plea before twoo many cabinet ministers and railway/bank CEOs and party insiders - including the Premier's alleged girlfriend and personal assitant/deputy chief of staff - were called to teh stand to face grilling by the defence. More facts are coming out now due to the unsealing of sweeping (and unprecdented, theoretically illegal) court publication bans, and also unsealing and un-'redacting" of until-now-sealed warrants....all of those can be used for citations, of course; the precise issue on the table is "if a fact is revealed by a blog's publication of a real memo a fact or NOT?" (the Tsukumis memo between Basi and Bornmann - read the links); at present the BC political bios are little more than poli-spam, likewise the campaign article. So long as only the major media are approved sources, it will be impossible to do much more, save mention the candidates' appearance in the facts in now-unsealed warrants and other court documents, and also things like the exclusive that Tsukumis' blog has published (and which the BC major media are doing their best to ignore, as it implicates their "pet candidate")Skookum1 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, see here for related matters; the blogs please note often cite actual court documents etc in the course of their investigations; and one in particular has been present throughout court proceedings when the major media were not involved/avoiding the courtroom/coverage; oftne the mainstream papers would report something from the court when they actually hadn't been in the room, and stonewalled aforementioned "citizen reporter" from "court accreditation" so he could carry a recorder for accuracy; the council in charge of that accreditation is controlled by governing-party-allied reporters/publishers, and there is no precedent in CAnada for "court accreditation' of this kind. Is the guy who reported daily from the courtroom the reliable source, or the "real reporters" who weren't even there?Skookum1 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a good example of a puff piece masquerading as news, from today's Vancouver Sun, who are pushing Ms Clark; no mention in this or other articles of her connections (manifold) to the BC Rail case or the disposal of the Fast Ferries to a company for whom her brother was a consultant, no mention that her campaign managers are the same as for Campbell (all candidates are trying to distance themselves from Campbell), no mention of her name surfacing in the unsealed warrants etc etc etc - and you won't find them in the other articles pushing her, either, ditto her very pronounced federal-Liberal connections (which in BC can be political anathema). The poll for this article was commissioned by the same people who own the paper, and who own/are allied to the radio station she's been a host on since her political retirement, and this paper is one of the main contributors to her campaign, and to the party. So when is an advertorial poll a "reliable source" when blogs covering the news stories Big Media won't touch are "unreliable"?Skookum1 (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"I've been advised to keep things simple here". Perhaps you could try harder? It isn't really clear what you are asking for. A change of Wikipedia policy regarding the general acceptance of blogs as WP:RS? An exception to this rule in regard to British Columbia? Or an agreement that the BC political scene stinks? Unless you are asking for something concrete, writing long commentaries like this isn't going to achieve very much, not least because few are likely to read them. Sorry, but that's the way it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Neal King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was created by user AntiochLA (currently blocked), a promotional account for the university that employs Neal King. It's like Neal King started the article himself—an article about Neal King. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.57.24 (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Title linked for convenience. Exxolon (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This article lacks any reliable sources - all sources are self published or primary for starters. Exxolon (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hafizabad District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure what's going on with this one, but I removed two pieces of obvious smear. Someone more familiar with the area should review this for more subtle BLP problems. Gigs (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Charges against Julian Assange

Could some editors more familiar with BLPs comment at Talk:Julian_Assange#Too much detail in sex crime reports? Up until now, it has been uncertain what he was accused of but now there are sources explaining. I'm not sure whether they should be included or not. (Any advice/help with the article in general is more than welcome). Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not WikiLeaks. We don't have to help leak all the titillating details. Just summarize and provide a link in the footnotes. See WP:Tabloid.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not WikiLeaks." NSS. I'm here to ask whether or not it is appropriate to include details in this article, that we probably wouldn't normally include in BLPs. I don't think WP:TABLOID is too relevant, since the sources are based on legal accusations. SmartSE (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding weight, and the accusations being extremely accusatory, unsupported by anyone, I would support keeping any accusations to an absolute minimum. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It currently violates WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. The negative material dominates and is the single largest sect of the entire article's present contents. It needs to be significantly trimmed down. -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit of a vomit pit. All cited of course, wiki seems to struggle to balance such issues in times of viral interest to its articles. I could write that massive section and include the actual specifics worth reporting in a single paragraph, involved and opinionated users seem to just add anything and they never stop to consider that through their additions creating a bloated section actually makes it less readable. Anyone fancy doing some work and getting reverted, dive in. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, do so. -- Cirt (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent>I don't mind being compared to Sherlock Holmes, thanks.  :-) Assange is in jail in Britain, and his British lawyer says "the substance of the allegations [was] revealed to the press through unauthorized disclosures...." So there was leaking, and publishing all the leaked details would be more like something WikiLinks would do than we would do. Anyway, the section on this in the article is now very bloated, contrary to WP:Recentism if not WP:Tabloid.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

While I'm sure it can be trimmed, our policy on undue weight states that the article should be weighted relative to the amount of coverage. No one can deny that these charges make up the majority of secondary source coverage of Assange at this point. They should have a prominent role in his article, and to trim them too much gives undue weight to the rest of the article. Gigs (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just had to remove the (dubiously sourced) alleged victim's names from the article (as inserted for the second time here), as a breach of WP:BLP. can people keep an eye on this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That has continued, with better sources, but it still doesn't seem right to include it. It's currently been removed but I've a feeling it will continue. SmartSE (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Article seriously violates WP:BLP

The Julian Assange article and its talk page are serious violations of WP:BLP in my humble opinion. From everything I've read the charges against him are regarding condom use and that everything else was consensual according to the victim's lawyer. The article mentions the "R" word repeatedly and the talk page comments go even farther (which I won't repeat here).

I don't feel qualified to walk the fine line of WP:BLP on this article in order to fix it, but I do think somebody — preferably a BLP expert — should look in to this. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, this has been a failure of WP:RECENTISM from the start. The problem is that the article has troops of POV warriors adding as much positive and negative material as they can find. Any reasonable editing or attempts to reduce the section to something of more due weight and clarity is immediately pounced on by one side or other (often with various bits of abuse hurled as well). I quit editing the article because there is simply no way to stamp on the article properly till it dies down. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I would feel much more comfortable if the article was changed from semi-protected to fully protected and only edited by admins for the next month, specifically because it is a serious WP:BLP issue in my opinion. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You what?! Sorry, I totally agree that there it isn't fully BLP compliant, but suggesting it can only be edited by admins is a big mistake in my opinion. More eyes on the case should hopefully improve matters, but stopping most people editing it wouldn't help. Regarding RECENTISM, this is kind of inevitable, given the massive spike in interest in him. As far as I'm aware, all the details from older sources are already included. Errant, please have another go at editing the section, I'm sure that a better balance can be achieved, I for one would support attempts to do so. SmartSE (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; semi protection seems fine for now. There is still a lot of content to go in. Smartse; if we could get a group of neutral BLP editors together to rework and propose the section on the talk page I would be willing to help, but the accusations being thrown by the more extreme editors were getting annoying, so I went back to my usual stalking grounds --Errant ^(chat!) 11:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As a classic example; I see the article still has the long, extremely partisan and dubiously sourced quote from Greenwald that mostly just attacks the motivations of a New York Times' article about Assange (without addressing any of the actual article content). But, you know, that's crucial information... --Errant ^(chat!) 11:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's been taken care of now. I'm not sure who you had problems with before, but the main contributor to the article before has recently gone on a wikibreak, if that makes any difference. SmartSE (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this relates to consensual sex, according to both Assange and the women involved, with friendly relations both before and after sex, and that the only thing that brings it within the purview of Swedish rape law is the question of condom use does need to be made absolutely clear. --JN466 16:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Consider that the Swedish authorities may base the charges on the consent ending when the condom is removed, or breaks, or is not used, and the intercourse then continues over the female's objections. "Consent" is not an irrevocable license for the male to do whatever he p[leases over the other person's objections, and "Stop" means stop just as "No" means no, in many countries, not just Sweden. Edison (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

RESOLVED - My issue with the article is resolved as it has been rewritten from a more nuetral point of view. Thanks very much for fixing the issues. I appreciate everybody's efforts. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for everyone's help. SmartSE (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange sex charges and trial

Assange sex charges and trial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has just been created from the BLP, suggestions, does it, should it warrant its own article? Seems a bit excessive imo. Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And further to that, given the clear linkage being drawn by many sources between these allegations and Assange's other activities, a separate article is going to make things difficult from a practical point of view.

Also, as far as I'm aware, Assange hasn't actually bee charged with any specific offence yet, and there certainly hasn't been a trial, so the article title is incorrect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems OTT to me. If it turns out to be a 'storm in a teacup', a separate article might be high on speculation, and low on significance. These matters may appear weighty now, but look very small fry in a couple of years time. I think it is way too premature to hive this article off the existing one. Plus AndyTheGrump (above) is quite correct about the title. Any trial (if it comes to that) could be months, even years away. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The section has become very large on the Assange page. There has been significant discussion as to whether the backgrounds of the two women should be discussed. Two points around that issue have been, confidentiality of "victims" and "relevance." The second issue is resolved by having a stand alone page for the trials. It also seems reasonable from the stand point of formatting to have two pages. The issue sexual charges are only becoming more relevant as their own stand alone topic. If and when Assange is transferred to Sweden will add a significant amount of information to the subject. Possible future sections for a page devoted to the charges and trial would be:

Background of Mrs. A and W.

Possible political motives. Political backgrounds of the prosecutors.

Controversy regarding the definition of rape in Sweden.

These issues are quite significant and cannot be fully addressed within the article on Assange. Tim.thelion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

For a start, the 'Background of Mrs. A and W' is a dubious subject to include, given BLP policy on non-notable persons. Any comments on political motives will need proper sourcing - most of this speculation is going on blogs, and in other non WP-RS sources. I'm not sure there actually is a controversy regarding Swedish law. There seems to be a great deal of speculation based on third-hand report of the issue, but this isn't the same thing. Any article focusing on these issues runs the risk of becoming a POV-fork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are currently not naming miss A and miss W in any location, so that is not a good reason to move. He hasn't even clearly been charged yet, I think we need to avoid a complete article full of opinions and claims and so on. I suggest deletion as it will serve to further increase the size of content related to the issue when we have actually been trying to keep it slimmed down. Off2riorob (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Redirected. There is no trial. The fork is unjustified per WP:UNDUE, and since when did we have BLP with surname only?--Scott Mac 16:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support the redirect at this time. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. Guettarda (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Major problems with the name of the article, as Andy The Grump has pointed out - there has been no trial and, apparently, no formal charges. Beyond that, it strikes me as excessive at this point in time. Creating a properly balanced article would require reproducing a large part of the Assange article and the cable leaks article. The article is also sure to turn into a nightmare - as Tim.thelion wrote There has been significant discussion as to whether the backgrounds of the two women should be discussed. For example, the complainants have been named, and it's very likely that someone will argue for the inclusion of their names in this daughter article. The main Assange article probably has enough people watching it that issues like this can be dealt with by editors who are conversant with policy. The pool of watchers of a daughter article is likely to be that much smaller. While concerns of that nature should not be arguments for keeping articles out of Wikipedia, they certainly are worth considering when creating daughter articles.

As it currently stands, the article is inappropriate (per its name, etc.) And in a more general context, I think a properly-titled daughter article would be premature and the curatorial problems it would create would probably outweigh the benefits. Maybe later. Guettarda (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I still hold that we should have a sepperate article, and am somewhat surprised by the imediate negative responce to the idea. There ARE non blog sources about the subject. There is no shortage of legitimate reporting on the subject. While I agree that most of what has been said, even by supposedly legitimate news papers is simple speculation, there are also a lot of facts going around. I don't see why we should limit the depth of wikipedia. Off2riorob stated it will serve to further increase the size of content related to the issue when we have actually been trying to keep it slimmed down. To what purpose are we reducing the ammount of information availible on Wikipedia??? Tim.thelion (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC) PS. I concede in the issue of the name.

I think in the future there should probably be an article on it, but at this point almost all sources, even normally reputable newspapers, are based on speculation. There is very little unbiased information from original sources. With all the edit wars going on with anti-Assange and pro-Assange writers this article would probably turn in to a mess very soon. It's better to stick to the basic information that is known at this point, and wait with the fuller article until we have a better grasp about what is actually happening. 85.225.222.10 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I call WP:IGNORE for a little bit here? I have a good reason to want a separate article on the subject. I think that there is enough notable information to make that subheading take up 70 or 80% of the Assange page. Obviously that notable information cannot be added until the case has it’s own page to contain the extra formatting required.

I have a possible compromise for now. We leave the Assange page as it is, and edit in parallel a page on sex related charges against Julian Assange?

One more note. To get any issues of NPOV out of the way. I do NOT have NPOV with regards to wikileaks. I am a strong supporter of the project. HOWEVER, I DO have NPOV with regards to Assange. He is just a person. Wikileaks is an ideology. I am not trying to do this to remove sexual allegations from the Assange page... Tim.thelion (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that if you are a 'strong supporter' of WikiLeaks, you possibly aren't in the best position to write about Assange with the level of neutrality required. In any case, the issues you remarked on earlier as being 'significant' seem to me to be of dubious merit, regardless of where they are discussed. Perhaps you should make clear (without using the alleged victims names please), what it is you wish to see discussed in further detail? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that almost everyone who follows the subject of wikileaks closely is bound to have an oppinion. Admitting that I have one only serves to strengthen my ability to take that into account when writting NPOV... The section is currently not long enough to fully cover it's own contents. For example "A lawyer however accused Assange of having unprotected sex with a woman who was asleep" does not say "which lawyer." The current section doesn't say anything about the media responce to the charges. Which is interesting for the reasons of translation issues, AKA translating various swedish words to "rape." And also the media's "personality assasination" of one of the two women involved. Maybe even a note about supposed names of the women being circulated in the media despite victim confidenciality laws in the case of sex crimes. I also read here http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/6871-wikileaks-sex-charges-backfire.html that one of the woman has publicly stated things in Sweedish tabloids, though I'm not sure of the honesty of the source nor the tabloids in question(I can't read Sweedish and cannot confirm the link in the source.)

My most serious complaint here though. Is probably the lack of formatting in the section. It makes more sense to have an article on it, because the section "wants" to be expanded into a larger formatted document. Right now, it is a roughly chronological set of paragraphs, with an insuficiency of facts and quotes...

While this case is intimitly related to Assange, the amount of information availible about the case is greater than the information availible on Assange himself. I guess he's pretty secretive about his familly ect. It doesn't make sence NOT to cover relevant information on the case. But it also doesn't make sense to fill half the page on Assange with information on the sexual accusations against him.

I think this atleast furthers my own case for the "parallel editing." I believe that after a week of parallel editing the sexual accusations page would grow SIGNIFICANTLY, and it would then be clear to you all that it should have it's own page. Tim.thelion (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose this and similar forks, and even its inclusion in Wikipedia at all. If this material is growing too long on Assange's article, it should (must) be shortened there. Turning the Swedish women into fodder for speculation is best left to bloggers and tabloids. Abductive (reasoning) 11:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No one has argued that the current content is turning the Swedish women into fodder for speculation. The only argument I see here is that "in the future that page would become." It's an odd slippery slope argument, because we have yet to even see that trend. As it stands, the section is not too long, but rather, not long enough. The situation is very complicated. And the current content does not suffice to explain the situation properly. However, it is impossible, to even add one more paragraph to the current content, because it is too long for it's current location already. Tim.thelion (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I just read the Assange article, and it is in dire need of editing down. All the legal mumbo-gumbo could be boiled down to what secondary sources say about the charges, not exhaustive primary descriptions. And all that quoting! A pure sign of lack of editorial oversight. Abductive (reasoning) 11:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see my Wikipedia:Splitting resolution idea for resolving this issue. Tim.thelion (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think one needs to read the discussion page in its entirety to get a clear view. Have any criminal charges been laid against Assange yet? WP:BLP policy is being swarmed over in an "Anna Nicole Smith Custody Battle" kind of way. Ideally, the allegations should not be mentioned at all, just the fact that he's wanted for questioning about 2 one night stands. But if the allegations about the Subject are spewed out, then so should the allegations about the Accusers.

I'm saying that in order to be adhering to BLP amd NPOV policy in relation to the sex allegations we have 2 choices;

• 1. We go with what Tim suggests and bring in the "whole story" to include much more of the RS info about the Accusers(see Tim's edit in the "tagging" section) , or else
• 2. Trim it right down to 1 sentence:e.g. "In December, Assange was arrested, detained, and appeared in a British court in relation to allegations (about his sexual behaviour)made by two women,aged 26 and 31." I prefer the 1 sentence approach but Tim's suggestion is ok also; either way we would be much closer to reasonable NPOV/BLP compliance.

• There is also,I think, an article control issue by a few Editors, especiallyOff2riorob. When there are so many experienced Editors editing, there is especially no positive effect of that. Last weekend Off2riorob and AndyTheGrump did not edit the BLP and there was not so much bickering. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• That's absurd, and ad hominem comments about editors is simply not going to help... --Errant ^(chat!) 14:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am discussing their edits, not their persons. Obviously there would be noWikipedia:Ownership of articles policy if it could never be brought up. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! Someone delete it as "attack" page under BLP concerns. THis presupposes charges and a trial... neither of which has happened yet! --Errant ^(chat!)

Ok, this just didn't sit well with me at all. So I nominated the redirect for deletion. But if a friendly admin wants to speedy it that works for me too :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Good, I don't like the fork approach either. But this deletion move is deflecting attention from what is actually being read in the BLP right now. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Julian Assange - Names of the victims (include them or not?)

[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And on and on and on and on …

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive219#Attempts to out alleged victims of Julian Assange
• Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Anna Ardin
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Ardin
• User talk:JamesBWatson#Anna Ardin
• User talk:Elvey#Anna Ardin
• Sofia Wilén (RFD discussion)
• Sofia Wilėn (RFD discussion)

Hashim Thaçi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes need to help sort out multiple, credible (though as yet untried) allegations of criminal activity currently stated as straightforward fact of criminality.--Misarxist 10:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Mostly sourced to the BBC. Here is a recent NY Times piece which reports the allegations re trafficking in the organs of Serb prisoners: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/world/europe/15briefs-Kosovo.html Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Bob Etheridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This statement seems rather flimsily supported for my tastes. The article source asserts this happened in an aside but provides no verifiable details such as names or dates. Given the scarcity of details, I also have concerns about WP:UNDUE. User:Cresix is willing to edit war over it so I figured it's worth getting a second opinion. Is the sourcing adequate or should we look for something better to support this (contentious?) allegation. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am on the other side of this issue. First let me say that I will accept any clear consensus on this matter. I also thank Ronnotel for bringing this issue to this discussion rather than following a pattern in the history of the article in which this information was repeatedly reverted because one or two editors didn't like what the source said. But let me also call Ronnotel out for his false accusation that I am willing to edit war. I have never edit warred on this matter, and I have never threatened to edit war. I have simply said that I would take this to a higher level of review if necessary (just as Ronnotel did here), not that I would edit war. Look at the edit history of the article over the past few months, including Ronnotel's edits. I consider that a personal attack in the absence of any evidence of edit warring or threatening to edit war. And I challenge Ronnotel to give the diffs in which I have indicated that I would edit war, and if he can't do so to remove that false accusation per WP:NPA. That being said, I think information from a source as reliable as the New York Times should be accepted as accurate unless contradictory information from another reliable source is provided, or unless the credibility of the New York Times writer can be reasonably brought into question. If not, I think we create a problem that every statement in every article that is sourced by the NYT (or a source with similar reputation) can be challenged because one or two editors think it might not be true. I would never do this, of course, but it would be easy to go on a rampage removing everything I disagree with that is sourced by the NYT. I'm simply asking for the evidence for what Ronnotel is claiming: that the information in the NYT has questionable reliability. So far the only evidence I've seen is the "tastes" of Ronnotel and another editor. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Per User:Cresix's request, I found four "full revert"'s by this user on this issue over the period of a month: 1, 2, 3, 4, as well as one other instance (1), which can probably be excused as removal of contentious material from a BLP. Is that edit warring? No full reverts would be better. Ronnotel (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ronnotel, the second link you provide above is not a full revert; it did not make a substantive change to the content, only adding a mention of the source (which you and I later agreed to remove). And you're right, the last link you provide was a BLP removal not even in the section in question. Now here are your two full reverts during the same time period: [2] [3], as well as one partial revert: [4]. No edit warring by either of us, especially since 3RR is for a 24 hour period, not a month (and I am aware that 3RR vio is not necessary to edit war, a caveat that applies to you as well). Now, I truly would appreciate an apology (or at least striking your comment above) for your false accusation that "Cresix is willing to edit war". Either way, however, I hope we can move on past the personal conflicts and wait for further discussion here. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm defining a 'full revert' as a complete undo of the immediately preceding edit - i.e. edit warring. I don't believe I made any full revert per this definition. And yes, the second diff I provided above is indeed a full revert of the immediately preceding edit. I'm sorry if you are taking any of this personally - it certainly isn't intended that way and I don't perceive this as a "personal conflict". Any, btw, I find it odd that you are demandingpolitely asking for an apology after you started this thread on my talk page, which was followed by your direct threat (or was it a promise?) to stalk me and then bring me up on charges before WP:ANI. Ronnotel (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, I have not "demanded" an apology; you are yet again making a false accusation. I asked for an apology, telling you that I would appreciate it; there's a big difference. Now, regardless of how you define reverts, you have made just about as many reverts that substantively changed the information in question as I have; and that's the point I'm trying to make subsequent to your accusation of edit warring. But I don't care to quibble about the percentage of a revert that took place. I am simply defending myself against your false accusation. As for taking things personally, I almost never do that. I tend to operate by principle, and I don't like to see any editor, myself included, falsely accused. But as I have said repeatedly, I hope we can put these other issues aside and see what others have to say about the content of the article. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Nassim Nicholas Taleb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Over at Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a self-identified relative of Taleb, IbnAmioun (talk · contribs) has been editing the article extensively. The overall effect is to glorify Taleb.

Taleb is an author and hedge-fund manager. His track record as a hedge fund manager isn't that great (see Empirica Capital), and this has been established from reliable sources. His supporters try to play down and obfuscate his actual financial results. The article could use a few more neutral editors. A knowledge of finance helps here. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I left a note at the article talk page pointing to this BLPN discussion, and also overhauled the lead to bring it into conformity with WP:Lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That helped a bit. Thanks. The "three distinct careers" line is probably inappropriate; he's still running funds, so his careers aren't "distinct". His books are mostly about running money. His academic job is about financial risk management. Effectively, he's a trader who also writes books on financial subjects. (Many of the better financial managers have done that; Peter Lynch, who ran Fidelity Magellan, is probably the most notable.) So that part of the lede might be reworded a bit. Note that Talib is into heavy self-promotion[5][6]. So there's hype that needs to be toned down. --John Nagle (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the three careers aren't completely distinct, but it's not inaccurate enough that I would make a huge fuss about it. If you want to either delete the word "distinct" or insert something else instead (or maybe clarify with an adverb like "somewhat"), then you could try doing it directly, or bring it up at the article talk page. Maybe "overlapping" instead of "distinct"? Or "distinguishable" instead of "distinct"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Some severe inaccuracies. 1) Ibn Amioun does not initiate posts, does not GLORIFY Nassim, just here to REMOVE edits that are inaccurate or matters that invade privacy, particularly when either undocumented or quoting detractors from such web sources as blogs without giving subsequent resolution (as accepted by Wiki). 2) Nagle (who has a record here of stating his dislike of Taleb) is intent on treating Taleb the way he wants to sees him "a finance guy who also writes books" which does not match the record or writes "heavy into self promotion" (a pure LIE) when Nassim rarely speaks to the media, and, having 4 million readers is bound to have admirers enthusiastic about his ideas. IbnAmioun (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The quickest way to make dramas and confrontations go away at Wikipedia is to find some common ground and move on. This can be done without even assuming good faith, although AGF is preferred (I personally suspect that all parties in this dispute are behaving in good faith). Anyway, can we fix the word "distinct"? This is a small matter, but is the only specific article-content issue before us. Larger issues like WP:COI are important, but why bother if we can agree on a quick fix to the article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing "distinct" is OK Anythingyouwant but I don't really care (and not involved) in these very minor points, rather the larger issues of harassment (and his intent of putting shoddy claims like "he blew up many funds"). As per his track record here Nagle will come back with something strange unless some drastic action is taken. IbnAmioun (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding harassment, if there is a user with whom you have arguments, see dispute resolution as the usual first step. It's always important to keep calm (I know from personal experience!). It makes it easier to identify the problem you are having if there are some specific diffs. I haven't closely examined the dispute, so I have no opinion about it, other than what I already said about AGF. Anyway, I hope John Nagle will now feel free to fix "distinct".Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I will fix distinct. It is actually better, stylistically. Please keep Nagle away. IbnAmioun (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Blocks and bans aren't my department. Try WP:DR, and certainly don't try to effectively block a user from an article yourself. Only admins can do that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent>There's now a discussion at ANI.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to the archived ANI discussion. The article has now been overhauled.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More than 90% of the Article related to Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri was deleted without any notice. The persons who deleted asked for outside references, other than Shaikh's Websites.

I provided 4 scan copies of letters Shaikh Deedat ( a very reputable Islamic Scholar) wrote about the works of Shaikh, praising and appreciating his books and works.

In addition, I provided about 19 references from various sources of Registered Islamic Institutions and their Websites.

I provided authentic information that the Shaikh is the Head of "Correct Islamic Faith International Association" (CIFIA) a joint effort of 330 Islamic Institutions and literally all Sunni Scholars of the world.

They are demanding that I should provide newspaper publications or third party books.

In the presence of the above references, their demands are unreasonable. Therefore, I request your intervention to restore Shaikh's Article as soon as possible. Thank you for your assistance.

115.184.12.173 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)--115.184.12.173 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with the other editors who have commented on the talkpage of the article, 115.184.12.173. It is important that we have a policy of requiring third-party reliable sources in order to provide biographic details about people. This is because we need to ensure that they really are notable enough to have an article. We can only be sure of this if they have been mentioned in books, newspapers, TV etc. If Mir Asedullah Quadri hasn't, then there is no reason for him to be mentioned in Wikipedia. If he has, then someone needs to demonstrate this by providing the sources. The other reason for requiring such sources is that Mir Asedullah Quadri is clearly alive and we need to be reasonably sure that everything we write about him is true so we are not misrepresenting or libelling him and so that we are not just reporting his own spin. It's our view that we can't be reasonably sure about this on the basis of blogs, forums, facebook pages or websites connected to the subject of the article (incidentally, I noticed that three people "like" Mir Asedullah Quadri on Facebook, which doesn't seem a very high number). --FormerIP (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• - This is getting repetitive, this is the third section opening on this page - Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• - previous thread from 3days ago - opened by User:Guide99

• - and another similar timeframe same people are vandalizing my article claims - also opened by User:Guide99

Guide99 is currently indef blocked, so the excitement is likely to be over. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Claus Zundel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article name: Claus Zundel. This violates because the content was copied word for word from the website http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Claus_Zundel. This is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex jazz butterworth (talk • contribs) 00:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom of the article you've linked it reads "The original article is from Wikipedia". Worldlingo.com appears to be a mirror site. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! There seems to be a more general problem here. Searching for worldlingo.com shows it as being used an a 'reference' in multiple articles, creating a self-referential loop... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed all the worldlingo.com links in the articles. Should the url be blacklisted?--Misarxist 10:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

An editor has recently expressed a concern that the article is unduly negative on the article talk page. After having a look at the article, I share this concern. From reading the article, I come away with the impression that Cooper is most likely guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. From reading about the case in the news (for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/opinion/09kristof.html?_r=3&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1291892411-wk/pMPw4PqQwTi5hQGOOxw), it seems that there is a strong chance Cooper is innocent. It would be much appreciated if someone could take a look at this article with a view to making it neutral and compliant with the BLP policy. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Since he has been convicted, I'm not sure it is inappropriate that the article conveys the notion that he is guilty. I've read Kristof's column as well (and then removed a mass of unsourced negative stuff). I think the solution is to add material along the lines Kristof discusses -- though whether it will work to use Kristof as a source might be considered unacceptable by some. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the tone of the article should reflect the balance of reliable sources. If most reliable sources concur with Kristof, then the article needs some work. By the way, Nomoskedasticity, I don't see you've edited the article, so I think that your changes removing unsourced negative stuff were not saved. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

My edits are there, on 9 December -- the main one was this. Just to be clear -- I find Kristof convincing and will not be surprised or displeased to see this person acquitted (not to mention alive well into the future). But as things stand he is a convicted murderer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

At the moment everything against Cooper is well-sourced; the pro-innocence stuff less so. I don't see a current NPOV problem, but am open to additional changes. Given the existence of courts repeatedly finding against Cooper, all we can do is tell both sides of the story. THF (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The editor's objection to the article's neutrality was based on a dissent by Judge Fletcher to rehearing the case en banc. Fletcher's dissent is now in the article (don't know if it was before). In my view, it's given more prominence than it deserves in the lead, but so be it. There's nothing I can see that is non-neutral about the article, and I have removed the tag. Fletcher's dissent has little legal value. What matters legally is the district court's decision denying the writ was upheld by the panel, the Ninth Circuit refused to disturb the panel's decision, and the Supreme Court has denied cert. Unless there is some other objection to the neutrality of the article, there's no basis for the tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Jean Ziegler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Israel, Palestine and the United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this biography unbalanced in its inclusion of long critical sections sourced mainly to UN Watch? What about the mention of Ziegler, referenced to the same source, in Israel, Palestine and the United Nations? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The article definitely needs work. The NPOV tag has been at the top for more than a year. Also, the Controversies section is huge, and some of its subsections should be moved out (e.g. the subsection on North Korea). That said, UN Watch is only in one footnote, which doesn't seem excessive. I put a note at the article talk page pointing to this BLPN discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has now properly moved UN Watch out of the lead. The long critical sections are still there, but now the headings are less sensational (e.g. that other editor properly changed "controversies" to "issues"). If people have objections to the long critical sections, then they need to explain concisely what those objections are (e.g. our article goes beyond the cited sources and/or our article excludes certain sources that are more favorable to Ziegler).Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I overhauled the article, and removed the POV tag at the top.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Kati Marton's biography lists her year of birth as 1956, yet goes on to say "she started as a production assistant 1971 in her 20s...". If 1956 is the accurate year of Kati Marton's birth, by my math she was 15 years old in 1971, NOT in her 20's, as the biography claims! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebookchick (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes. The biography isn't exactly overrun with sources, so this might be difficult to figure out. I'll check the article history to check it hasn't been vandalised, but this may be a difficult one. Anyone else know more? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The 1956 date has a source. However, the infobox says 1949 (no source). I've since found two sources, one that says 1949 (only the year) and one that says April 3, 1947. See here and here, and I haven't finished looking.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"From 1971 until 1973, Marton was a reporter for National Public Radio in Washington". Here: perhaps not WP:RS, but it seems that the 1956 date is unlikely.

See Enemies of the People: My Family's Journey to America [7] by Marton herself. I can't seem to find her birth date (Amazon won't let me do another search), but she seems to have been born well before the Hungarian uprising of 1956. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that 1956 is wrong. Here is an article she herself wrote saying she was a "small child" in 1956. See here. The bigger problem is what is right. Another article says that she was 7 when her mother was jailed for a year. See here. Her mother was released in 1956, so that means Marton was born in the 1940s, probably even earlier than 1949. Still looking.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is building that she was born in the 1940s. A review of a book she wrote about her parents apparently says she was six in 1955. See here. My view is unless we find something definitive, we don't put in a birth date at all, but where the article says she was born in Hungary, we can cite to some of the better sources that indicate she was born before 1950.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this one is correct... I've added it. Connormah (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've self-rv'd until we can reach further consensus. Connormah (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the April 3 date in another source, but the year was 1947 (see above). The problem is I don't understand how we can reach consensus on this issue. There's simply too much conflict in the published sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Another editor added the birthdate of April 3, 1948 (that's a new wrinkle). They cited to "date & year of birth according to LCNAF CIP data". What exactly does that mean? I reverted it asking the editor to go to the Talk page and explain, but perhaps someone here knows more about CIP data than I do (which ain't much). From reading the Wikipedia article, an author's birth date doesn't look like the kind of data that would be below the copyright info of a book, and even if it were, who would have put it here? I certainly wouldn't trust Marton at this point to give her accurate birth date. And how did the editor access the information?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

LCNAF is Library of Congress Name Authority Files. CIP data is "Cataloging in Publication".

Let's look for Kati Marton's "Authorized Heading":

• 1. Link here ~> http://authorities.loc.gov/
• 2. Link on "Search Authorities". It looks like this >>Search Authorities<<
• 3. Now you are here ~> http://authorities.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First
  • a. Here you can conduct an Authority Headings Search
  • b. In the "Search Text" box, be sure to type: Last name, First name and then press the "Begin Search" button. For example:
    • Marton, Kati
• 4. Look for the Authorized Heading button to press. This is in the left hand column.
• 5. Now you can Select a Link to View the Authority Record. In this case: Marton, Kati. Connect to the link on this name.
• 6. You now are on the page for Marton's authorized record, listed as LC Control Number: n 81137262
• 7. Listed with the CIP data is this. According to information Library of Congress first cataloged on Marton for these publications (in 1982 and 1994) the date and year of birth is 4/3/48:

Her A death in Jerusalem, 1994 b CIP t.p. (Kati Marton) data sheet (b. 4/3/48)

• 8. Of course, even this information could be incorrect or inaccurate. In fact, lucky if you get a birth date or year on many of these "Authority Record"(s).
  • Library of Congress is reputable, so probably not incorrect to list this on Marton's wikipedia page. Christian Roess (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that is one great list of instructions, thank you. However, the problem I have is with your last part, when you say that the date could be inaccurate. My question is who supplies the Library of Congress with the information. That seems to me to be key. If it's Marton herself, I'm not sure that's good enough. Normally, I would say the subject should know when she was born, but given the discrepancies in the other sources, I suspect that it's partly due to Marton herself.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, and so the dispute will continue over her birth year and date ( & even if we hear from Marton herself!). If you look at the Cataloging in Publication data (read up on what this entails if you have a moment), this is established by the United States' own national library, the Library of Congress (LOC). If you go to the MARC (MAchine-Readable Cataloging) display listing for Kati Marton, one part of the authorized LOC Heading file for Kati Marton is derived from a publication called A race for life, c1982 and I haven't been able to track this publication down in various web searches.

Bottom-line is that the listing from the LOC is the U.S.A's National Library. The LOC is responsible for establishing the authorized bibliographic CIP data used by libraries in the U.S.. and they are "supposed" to get it right, otherwise this would play havoc with our archives nationwide. As I hinted at before, this may be incorrect if the publisher submits a copy of the publication to the LOC with incorrect information. I've used birthdates from LCNAF in other wikipedia articles and there have been a couple of instances when it has been wrong. But for the most part, it has been accepted by other wiki-editors (sorry, but there is an approved citation format when using CIP data for a reference, but I can't find it at this particular moment).

That being said, why not ? use the birthdate & year (4/3/1948) in the Marton article with a citation and reference to the LCNAF and the Contemporary Author's article (listing 1949) and include the results of the research done on this page, with a link to this discussion. ? If it is incorrect, eventually some future reader/editor (who may know Marton or is researching her biography) may have more reliable and credible information and will make the correction. That's my recommendation. We'll see what happens though... Christian Roess (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable using the Library as a source in this instance. First, it's not clear where the birth date came from or what, if anything, the Library did to confirm it. Saying they are somehow "responsible" for its accuracy isn't good enough. Second, there are too many conflicting sources, some of which would normally be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. So, it's the intersection of those two things that make me uncomfortable. If there were no controversy about her birth date, I would, of course, feel otherwise. Even though Wikipedia articles, of course, generally always want to include a birth date for the subject of the article, I don't see why it's indispensable.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Alas, I disagree Bbb23. But I'm going to let it go. It's not my call. That's why I like wikipedia so much. But I don't (outwardly) have a problem: let's leave this information out of the article for now and see what happens.

But privately, I've got a problem with not including some information about this birth-date inconsistency (and it's not the only inconsistency re; Marton's biography) in the Wikipedia article.

Now this is just my opinion (of course) but a responsible article on Marton would at the very least mention the continuing (the ongoing & attendant) confusion and questions that accompany a discussion of Marton's biography (not her life; it's her life: I'm talking about her biography---the public record of her life). And that biography should (tacitly) be shaped and formed by this consideration: the public and civic trust.

Why?

Marton was a public servant and there are mimimum standards we demand of our public servants and officials. More so regarding Marton: both as a journalist (a profession that should demand from us a mimimal standard of credibility) and the partner of a civil servant ( a government official, Holbooke, who just recently died) who is entrusted with our constitutional authority and law on foreign soil. Both of these facets of her biography demand nothing less than this from the public: integrity, truthfulness, and straightforwardness.

But questions remained then and remain now.

For example: a journalist and the partner of a high ranking public official/diplomat (again, now recently passed) is not forthcoming about the year she was born? There are other inconsistencies to her biography as well. There has to be a reason. Yes, she has written and spoken powerfully, movingly, and in-depth about her journalist parents and their terrifying plight in Hungary with the authorities. But as the poets reminds us, what reveals is really (or is also) what conceals. Christian Roess (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Girls' Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have reverted two edits by a new user how has made biased and unsourced that violates the policy on BLP. The page name is Girls' Generation. I am allowed to make a third revert according to 3RR, but I shall consider informing the correct group of people. The statements are unsourced and falsely accuse (in an indirect way) the group of being awarded the prizes they shouldn't have received (in the editor's opinion). Please help. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 12:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I briefly checked the current status of this article. It appears that CrystalFriend doesn't have much experience at Wikipedia, but s/he has now been given guidance by Wikipedia regulars (Off2riorob, Scott MacDonald, Active Banana, et cetera).Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Joe Sioufi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Written by Starlight Photography, which is him. Also has no relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstrofbass (talk • contribs) 01:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like advertising to me. Several of the references are dead links. The few that work don't say much to make him notable. A Google News archival search comes up with no hits. A Google web search comes up with little of any interest, albeit many hits. He seems to advertise all over the place - uh, including here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been proposed for deletion. Personally, I think it's G11'able. – ukexpat (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Peter T. King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article seemed to go way overboard on criticism, in several cases completely unsourced criticsm or that wilfully misrepresented sources. I've raised the main issues here, however based on edits such as this the IP editor responsible for a large amount of the problems doesn't seem to understand how we write about living people and will edit war to maintain their edits, so more eyes on this article would be welcome. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I took a look, and it appears the worst has been addressed for now. I'll maintain it on the watchlist. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. More eyes on this would welcome too though, since there's now an attempt by a registered editor to manufacture a "controversy" seemingly based on their own opinion that something is controversial, not that reliable sources think is controversial. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly defamatory/libellous content added here has already been reverted by another IP but may need actually removing - could someone please have a look? Also, I have not warned the user who added it as I'm not sure which warning/level combination is appropriate for this kind of spite: can you please either do so, or advise here? Thanks in advance, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll warn the IP, although others may feel a stronger sanction is necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that and I've noted which template it was. Do you think the offending material should actually be removed, or is it OK to leave it in the edit history? I must say that if it was about me I would be wishing for it to be permanently removed ... and I wonder what her solicitor would say?! Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Update - the potentially defamatory content has been up for almost 24h now. I'm wondering what to do next if I can't get an answer here. Is it an over-reaction to take it to ANI, simply on the grounds that things seem to get faster responses there? DBaK (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • For future reference: CAT:RFRD. I've removed the offending content. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Aha! Brilliant - thanks very much, both for the action and for the very useful category! Now I know. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And for immediate oversight requests there is Special:EmailUser/Oversight. – ukexpat (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Somebody is very motivated to add 2 minor incidents to this bio, describing them to make them sound bad for the subject -- now the third sock in a row is at work on it .. socks reported at SPI but as fast as one gets blocked a new one pops up to editwar. Protect the bio? betsythedevine (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 3 months. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Betsy, looking at the discussion page, the subject had some difficulty relating to the fraud of a research assistant or partner and entered into a settlement under which her use of such partners will be monitored. These incidents relate directly to the academic and research status for which she is notable. So long as the sources comply with WP:RS, inclusion of the information in a careful, brief sentence at the end of the article will not offend WP:WEIGHT. Leaving it out entirely, IMHO, is not NPOV:

The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm

Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with this. I don't think the prior edit met these criteria, but I would have no problem with one that meets the stipulations you mentioned above. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the two incidents were unrelated to each other. In the first one, an advanced grad student at CMU falsified data, got caught falsifying data, confessed falsifying data ... and as a result papers the student wrote with Lerner based on said data had to be withdrawn. The second had nothing to do with Lerner's research or supervising students. Lerner was reviewing grant proposals for the NSF and sought help because of her disability. Somebody, probably the same person who is now trying to add this to the bio, reported this to the NSF as a violation of confidentiality requirements. The closing report, of which Humbert1 was apparently given his/her own copy, although s/he has blacked out the name on the version s/he uploaded to Commons, made it clear that Lerner's "sin" was that she should have asked NSF permission before getting help with the reading, permission which presumably would be granted. Neither incident was significant enough to attract any "views" from WP:RS, which makes their inclusion in WP:BLP even more dubious.betsythedevine (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A few months ago I looked at the redirects to Gordon Brown and found several slightly offensive redirects. eg "Great ditherer" redirected to Brown's page. When I reported it, this was quickly fixed by somebody deleting the offensive pages. Recently, I checked the redirects to David Cameron and found that "Bumsex" was a redirect to that page. Again this has been fixed (by re-redirecting "Bumsex" to a more appropriate target page). However, the fact that I have found this kind of vandalism twice, suggests it is a more general problem and thought I should bring it to the attention of the community. Bluewave (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This sort of thing is sometimes the product of incompletely cleared up move vandalism - non-admins can revert the move but often forget to put a speedy tag on the redirect. It should be noted that some popular nicknames can be properly redirected to the politician as an aid to readers, even though offensive (eg 'Tony Bliar' redirects to Tony Blair). Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some of them are justified. I think that Big clunking fist redirects to Gordon Brown and is probably acceptable. However the redirection of Bumsex to David Cameron is a clear piece of vandalism. I'm not sure if there is an identifiable group of people doing this, and they can be stopped, or whether it's just the kind of thing that we need to be vigilant about as a community. One problem is that anyone can create a new page with an offensive title and redirect it to a biography of their choice. However, detecting the vandalism requires a certain amount of effort, and removing the offending page requires admin privileges. So it seems this is one area where the processes are stacked in favour of the vandal. Bluewave (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's unfortunately right. The pages you're talking about probably have far too many redirects for them to be checked through very easily. As far as "bumsex" goes, I reckon David Cameron would probably be willing to turn the other cheek and take it like a man. --FormerIP (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't read much here that makes me smile, but that did! Thanks FormerIP! Bluewave (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of popular nicknames, I assume that the guiding principle should be that BLP considerations apply equally to the redirect as they do to the main article. So, if a nickname would be a violation within the article, it is equally so as a redirect. Do others agree with this? (And I'm not really sure how this applies to nicknames like Fighting Foetus.) Bluewave (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've found Couch jumping and One Take Watson?--Scott Mac 21:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Redirects do not have to be neutral, per WP:RNEUTRAL, but they should be genuinely useful and serve an encyclopedic purpose. That's not the case in any of the examples given here. --JN466 21:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Two more of doubtful encyclopedic purpose: Doris Karloff (a tabloidish reference to the scariness of Ann Widdecombe) and Cleggover (a nickname coined, I think, by the Sun "newspaper", referring to a deputy Prime Minister's alleged history of "getting his leg over" with rather a lot of ladies). Bluewave (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please nominate/speedy all of these for deletion. They're just there so some schoolboy can say, "Look, when you enter this in Wikipedia, you get to ..." It's very funny I'm sure, but not what we're here for. --JN466 22:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Beau Tatchell is a piece of juvenilia which is marked for speedy but has been tagged with a hang-on tag which has presumably delayed its deletion. However, it is clear the article is about a 17year old school boy from Abbs Cross School. As this is about a minor I believe it should be deleted with all possible haste. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. I don't see a need for rush, otoh this says no good article can be written here.--Scott Mac 14:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Tom Corbett "whistleblower" is back. I've been fighting this one for a while, they are very persistent.

• Recent Diffs: [8] [9].
• Pennsylvania Attorney General and Tom Corbett are his targets.
• They try to insert a paragraph of previously unpublished information about the AG giving breaks to corporations.
• When blocked last time, they explained their position and motivation User talk:174.60.159.180... but they seem to not accept our BLP policy that we can't accept their previously unpublished allegations. Gigs (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a vanity article for a figure of limited notability -subject has never won a public election or featured significantly in his field.

Problems with NPOV - style and content indicate promotional publicity and some claims lack Verifiability.

Probable COI arising from self-editorship given trivial nature of some clauses - look at edits for MaddoxFordNabokov27. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeppelin75 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There used to be a wikipedia article for Dewey Bunnell. But no more. It's now a redirect page. Dewey Bunnell is an original member of the iconic music group America, who both wrote and sang the lead on such Number #1 (Billboard magazine) hits as A Horse With No Name or top 5 hits such as Ventura Highway. He's still with the group. The other two original members of the group have a Wikipedia article. But not Bunnell.

To summarize

• There was a wikipedia article on Dewey Bunnell, but it was changed to a REDIRECT page to America (band) by TenPoundHammer. See the page history here.
• On November 01, 2010 TenPoundHammer proposed the article for deletion in accordance with WP:PROD with the rationale, "No notability outside the band". But rather than waiting for the seven-day period to expire, on November 05, 2010 this User replaced the content with the REDIRECT.
• Surely, this action is not in accordance with the fair practice standards on Wikipedia? This same USER is trying to delete other articles too, which is questionable. Can we make an appeal to this User?
• Yes, I've already brought this issue up on the talk page on November 27, 2010. I only received one response, so there isn't any real concern out there re: the deletion. If it's ok here, I'm going to restore the article after a cooling-off period. Christian Roess (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The article as it last existed as an article clearly fails the requirement of showing significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Without sourcing to meet WP:N, it is a perfectly legitimate article to Propose for Deletion. It is also perfectly legitimate for the proposer to change xer mind and think that someone might put "Dewey Bunnell" into the Wikipedia search and that the best thing for that reader would be to directed to the content in Wikipedia related to Bunnell, the article about his work in the band. So Yes, I support TenPoundHammer's actions. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have is that the article was proposed for deletion and without waiting the seven days (that's the rule), it was turned into a REDIRECT page. That's called gaming the system. See: Wikipedia:Gaming the system:

Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden.

Now of course your point is well taken, Active Banana, about what needs to be done to the Dewey Bunnell article to legitimize its inclusion as a stand-alone article according to standards, but surely you don't support the trickery, the "gaming the system" that occurred? Christian Roess (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The article should not be "deleted" - ie completely removed from the system / made into a red wikipedia link - before 7 days have passed. It has not been deleted AT ALL, simply turned into a redirect as per one of the recommendations for "article topics" that do not do not meet the WP:N standard. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And while we are on the topic of "rules", you may wish to look at WP:WIKILAWYER. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Touché--- Christian Roess (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

But it says in the "deletion tag":

If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so.

I just don't find in that list anything about REDIRECT as a solution. That's not "renaming" or "merging". Again, that's avoiding the spirit of communal consensus. But you solved the problem. The article on Dewey Bunnell needs to be rewritten to meet significant coverage in third party sources. TenPoundHammer was out of line with "spirit" of the rules. By the way, consensus sometimes makes me gag. I would rather be right. Christian Roess (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Can editors with some grasp of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP please keep an eye on Philip Green so it doesn't get taken over by UK Uncut activists? The current lead in particular is a joke. Fences&Windows 21:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, F&W, this doesn't look like a straight-forward one. Does he own companies or doesn't he? I have no idea, but it wouldn't be NPOV to shy away the facts of the matter. --FormerIP (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The controversy over his tax position is covered in the article. The WP:LEAD should be a summary, the singular fact in the lead isn't in the body of the article from what I can see. It should be reduced to "Philip Green is a British businessman" until a reasonable lead can be written, unless there's a suitable one in the history. January ^(talk) 23:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Correction, it's in the Amber Day section but still no obvious reason why it's considered significant enough on its own to warrant inclusion in the lead. January ^(talk) 23:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Definite NPOV problems ("buccaneering forays"). Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Artel Jarod Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a repeated problem. Person depicted in this photo is not Artel Jarod Walker. Please remove this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgreative (talk • contribs) 12:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what is going on with this article but it is a repeat problem and we appear to be unable to do anything to protect the living person and he seems to be of little note anyways as per the request I support deletion. I am not even sure iits a real person..anyone got any ideas about this person and article..? Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've protected this, pending investigation. Something strange is going on here. There seems to be a (deliberate or mistaken) confusion between this person and someone called "Artel Great". We need to sort this out. Right now, I'm not seeing any real sources of Walker, and I think we may want to delete this article as not-notable or not verifiable. I'm also concerned with this image File:Ajw2.JPG which may mis-identify and may need to be removed from commons. However, the uploader says they took it themselves, if that's the case it can't be a mistaken identity unless it is fraudulent. Strange.--Scott Mac 13:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The same identification of Walker an "Great" is made at imdb.[10] So, is it right, or is imdb wrong too? Where is UncleG when we need him?--Scott Mac 13:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Scott. I remember this coming up before, personally I think its some kind of scam but I can't work it out. I will ask the uploader to come and discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. We've got "Artel Jarod Walker" "Artel Great" and "Artel Kayàru" being identified here. Are they the same person? Can we reliably source this?

1. Imdb identifies them [11]
2. Other sources do too the movie library.com but these are not that reliable and may be derivative of imdb.
3. Google come up with a bit, but all questionable [12]

Thoughts? I'm thinking we might cut the knot and take it to AFD as all being unverifiable - no sources available for anything. I'm still looking though.--Scott Mac 13:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he appears in small parts. I doubt he meets WP:NACTOR. Isn't that easier? It also explains the lack of sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Artel Great = ARTEL Kayaru http://w11.mocovideo.jp/movie_detail.php?KEY=gpKSjAGky0s, the african person in this clip - and not the person in the pic we have . This is the twitter pic http://twitter.com/#!/artelgreat - the imbd pic look like a fake to me Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC) He was in this movie Dahmer_(film) - the credits appear to be under Artel Kayeru, I think that is the name the article should be under. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've prodded the article. Someone should probably alert imdb.--Scott Mac 13:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added a prod-2 template.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the pictures a fake. We should get it deleted from here and commons. Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure as to note and the prod, he has been in a few things and there are links back to him, I think the current name is perhaps uncitable but under Artel Kayaru also known as Artel Great ... he might have note, and left under pending protection as is now.. Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have solid sources (I can't find any) then remove the prod, move the article to a new name, and fix it up. I can delete the redirect.--Scott Mac 14:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much in the way of reliable sources either, perhaps a film buff will, but I am not going to remove the prod with what I can see via simple google search' Off2riorob (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if you found sources, how would he satisfy WP:NACTOR ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions")? His roles are not "significant".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but his roles are more significant than a playgirl that once took her top off for a picture and we have plenty of articles about them - but thats another issue. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because other articles fail notability guidelines but aren't deleted doesn't support keeping this one. Perhaps you should nominate those other articles for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I did, but the tittie girls have supporters that voted against policy claiming that through their consensus at the AFD that there was no consensus for the policy ...yada yada.. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability guidelines are not policy. They are merely a record of "what usually happens" at afd, which future debates can either be guided by or not as participants decide.--Scott Mac 14:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, excuse me - they are the guideline part of process. Wikipedia guidelines - long and the short is, if six users like tittie models and support at AFD, you will have a hard time overruling them. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, succinctly put, ain't Wikipedia grand?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

!Commons admin please read thread and review File:Ajw2.JPG.--Scott Mac 14:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated for deletion at commons as a hoax ..they are a bit sleepy at commons, feel free to add a comment also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ajw2.JPG - Off2riorob (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• This all comes back around to User:Phrasia who originally introduced the fake photo of Artel Kayàru in to the now-deleted Artel Kayàru article. They fought incessantly to have the fake photo included and have been blocked for edit warring on BLPs. The user has been editing on and off again and may be testing the waters in order to return. See this "self portrait" on their talk page in comparison to the alleged Artel photo uploaded by commons account "CenterfoldSally". We're either dealing with a WP:COMPETENCE issue with the Phrasia account, or we're being trolled. Either way the account should be blocked for disruption and the introduction of repeated image hoaxes. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there some way to point to the deletion of the Kayaru article in the proposed deletion of the Walker article? Looks like it was deleted for the same reasons. Isn't there a mechanism for pointing to a previous deletion, even if the article name is different (same subject)?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a note could be added to the deletion notice. Clearly someone is having a laugh here, that user has a picture of himself on his user page User:Phrasia and that person is the same person that has been uploaded as the fake picure of the subject, the same pic was also added to imbd and user has on his user page - " I have been very bad in the wikipedia community for the past years, but I'm going to change my ways, have you know." - Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

<ec> The Kayaru article was speedily deleted (twice), the link is here showing the dates, reason, and deleting admin. Looking at the Artel Jarod Walker article it is simply a recreation of the deleted Kayaru version, albeit with a new hoax picture. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a sock report on User:CenterfoldSally and User:Phrasia will two birds with one stone sort of thing. Seems to clearly be a connection. Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Argh, I hate filing SPIs with the burning fire of a million suns. I was sort of hoping a passing admin would hear the quacking echoing off these BLP walls and just plonk the two accounts. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, perhaps one will, if not, I am also watching them as I see you already were Ponyo. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• - This user just attempted to replace the picture (thanks for the pending protection Scott) User:Pleasantview - possible hat trick amigo of User:CenterfoldSally and User:Phrasia - Off2riorob (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

but aside from the hoax picture...

1. Having or changing a stage name is a quite common practice in the entertainment industry. IMDB and other sites quite often share the various names and pseudonyms under which actors have received their various film and television screen credits.
2. The name "Artel Kayaru" is sourcable as having received an Independent Spirit Award nomination for 'Best Debut Performance' for his work in Dahmer,[13]...a role attributed on IMDB and other sites to the stage name "Artel Great"
3. The name "Artel Jarod Walker" is sourcable through The New York Times as having had a role in Save the Last Dance[14]... a role attributed on IMDB and other sites to the stage name "Artel Great"
4. The name "Artel Kayaru" is also sourcable through The New York Times as having had several more of the roles [15] attributed on IMDB and other sites to the stage name "Artel Great".
5. As stage names are common practice in the entertainment industry, all that is required it to source this inter-connection of names.
6. And I have been doing just that... addressing the inter-connection... in a sandbox. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Other than the imdb, can you connect these people? If there's a hoax, the imdb cannot be relied on not to have been hoaxed.--Scott Mac 08:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, there are other databases that link the names, but none are as complete as the information on IMDB. FullMovieReview [16] lists Artel Great's films and his various on-screen credit attributions... Movieweb.com lists a few of Artel Great's films[17] and his various on-screen credit attributions... Movie Station lists a few of Artel Great's films[18] and shows his various on-screen credit attributions... Heck, even Amazon.com lists the selling of Dahmer[19] with Artel Great listed as one of the stars even though the on-screen credits of the film itself lists Artel Kayaru... and there are others, each doing what they do to inform their own readers in their own way. But as I cannot find some article in the Washington Post that explains why this individual decided to keep changing his credited screen name... or why ANY actor chooses to do so... all I can do is use logic and common sense. But AS there are SPAs intent on uploading improper images and/or adding information to the article without ading the sources, and as the currently protected verison has been made nigh impossible to work on, I do not expect it to survive an AFD... which is why I am working in a sandbox. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly if it is that hard to tie the various strings together in order to solidify notability, I'm not sure he should have an article here. Cobbling together a history of the various names shouldn't be necessary, and I'm especially concerned with relying heavily on IMDB as the hoax picture is sitting front and centre on the their Artel Great page; obviously the individual behind the Phrasia account has been mucking about there as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That SPAs and Socks have chosen to play fast and loose with images in relation to this individual, complicates the issue of name... and no article ever "needs" an image. But the issue of hoax images does not automatically equate to some grand conspiracy over data involving The New York Times, InBaseline, IMDB, and the numerous films and filmmakers, and verifiable records of on-screen credits. When the issue of names was brought into the discussion above, I began this sub-section to address just that single issue. I do agree though, that the issue is rendered moot.

I am convinced through the inter-relationship of screen names as verifiable in reliable sources, that "Artel Jarod Walker", "Artel Kayaru", and "Artel Great" are indeed stage names of the same person. Such practice, specially for industry newcomers still seeking their "place", is a common happenstance in the film industry. That said, and in my own accepting the three names represent the one actor, my reserach has found that no matter which name or combination of stage names one wishes to research, the individual's career falls a bit short of meeting WP:ENT, the lack of coverage under the various screen names fails WP:GNG, and his single nomination fails WP:ANYBIO's caveat toward a win or multiple nominations. I might expect and even encourage that when/if this changes, a properly asserted and sourced article might be considered for return in the future.... and would further hope that if/when it does, the SPAs and puppets will stay away. I have no disagreement at all that notability is currently lacking and the topic is not quite ready yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the three names are one individual, and you've done some great research to try to piece them together to present "the whole picture". In this specific case through it appears that even with the "whole picture", notability is still an issue. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fake sources; filled with personal info. Please remove contents asap! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.173.53 (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• R Viswanathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I see you have removed some material, and you have also replaced an html comment with its content, which is from the first version of the article, created by user Vviswanathan. That comment ("This article has been created by...") should not be in the article.

I am not familiar with any notability requirements for ambassadors, but the article is weak and perhaps recommending its deletion may be in order. You say some sources are fake: please explain exactly what you mean. Are you saying that a website does not exist (one of the links appears dead now)? Are you saying that a source exists but contains fake information? If so, please explain what source and how you know that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

He seems to crop up a little bit in Reuters (+reprint/rewrites in International Business Times + Hindustan Times) but it's not obvious that he qualifies per WP:DIPLOMAT after a quick search. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Ann Roads, MVO (born 1951) is Snawdoun Herald of Arms in Ordinary and Lyon Clerk and Keeper of the Records for the Court of the Lord Lyon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you have a question ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Resplendent though their titles may be, Heralds of Arms in Ordinary are not notable persons. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Resplendent" is such a wonderful word and used far too infrequently! Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Admin,

I have noticed a correction in the biography of Y.S.Jaganmohan Reddy.

Political Life Jagan started his political career by campaigning for Congress party leaders in 2004 elections in Y.S.R. District. In 2009, he was elected to the Parliament from Kadapa District constituency.

The correction is that there is no Y.S.R District in Andhra Pradesh. Please change that. It is only Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy and his associates who call the Kadapa district as Y.S.R. District. Please make the necessary changes.

Changes would be appreciated.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.137.17 (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Done; but that article (like the one about his dad) needs work. Also created a stub article about his mom, since she's now the MLA in YSR's old seat in the State Assembly. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is not sourced nor does it contain sufficient evidence to suggest why this page should exsist. Fryertuk (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Washington Post article on his discovery of the "chameleon snake": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700342.html

I would think he probably does not meet Notability standards, though (one sentence bio referencing only the snake is not confidence inspiring). Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is also a Wikipedia article on the snake, which mentions him only in a footnote as co-author of the article introducing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chameleon_snake I don't think this article was linked from his bio. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed large BLP violations from this French industrialist. It needs some attention, preferably from someone who reads French. Does the source support the remaining material?--Scott Mac 19:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I checked the Le Figaro source and it supported some of the claims, I bolstered the remainder of the info with additional references. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's always difficult to know quite what to do with negative claims sourced to a language I can't read very well. There was so much unsourced stuff too. Thanks for taking this on.--Scott Mac 21:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This article contained promotional and poorly sourced material. I cleaned up citations and removed sentences that were not relevant to a public biography. Should meet quality standards now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.161.72.89 (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if the man might be marginally notable ([20] and [21] arguably count as independent, in-depth coverage), his article is far more infomercial than neutral presentation. If someone could excise and reformulate large parts of this material, I'm sure that would mark an improvement. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly spamy, and would take a great deal of dedication to revise, since it's sourced relatively well, though that needs work too. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Charles Rackoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The biography of Charles Rackoff, a living computer scientist, contravenes WP:BLP. Rackoff, a low-profile individual, is notable for his decorated career as a researcher in cryptography and computational complexity. Yet a substantial part of his biography is devoted to comments (allegedly made by email) of his Montreal Massacre Remembrances at U of T. This event is not notable and its inclusion in the biography is indiscriminate and unfairly skews the article away from Rackoff's notability. Further, the quality of the reference for this event (a CBC `news' article) should be questioned as it gives no author.

Edit wars consistently rage about this article; assistance is requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil post (talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How is it a violation of BLP? The only reason it forms a "substantial part of his biography" is because his biography is so short in the first place. I see nothing wrong with the source, either. CBC News doesn't seem to show authors of their news articles - that doesn't make it unreliable. Why don't you take the issue to the Talk page if you think it's inappropriate? It's the only topic on the Talk page, and no one has responded to the editor who supposedly added it to the article. My main quibbles with the statement are the introduction to the quote, which is awkwardly worded, and the lack of contextual foundation as to what was going on, but to correct the second problem, even more space would have to be devoted to the controversy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we can do without the quote, it seems to be getting undue weight in his life story. As Bbb23 says, to explain it correctly it would fill up more than 50% of his life story. Off2riorob (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have chopped it. A more detailed explanation is given at the talk page. Ray^Talk 16:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

May I interject one notion at this juncture? As a new Wikipedia editor trying to get a handle on the metadata of composing/editing bios, the following seems clear: the subject expressed views in email which became public, on which he then granted an interview and on which his employer, the university, commented. His views were that memorials for the 14 female victims of the Montreal Massacre were "an excuse to promote the feminist/extreme left-wing agenda". The story is well sourced and verifiable, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2000/12/07/massacre_email001207.html The main reasons given for its complete deletion from the bio seem to me to be Wikilawyering: he is Notable enough to be here but Not Notable Enough for any negative material to be appended, no matter how truthful and well sourced. I see only a difference of degree, not of kind, between his situation and that of Ward Churchill and Lawrence Summers, both of whose bios contain accounts of exactly the kind of foot-in-mouth moment which has now been deleted from Dr. Rackoff's. References to WP:NPF don't cut it, because both Churchill and Summers were notable for other things before usttering controversial statements, which just as justifiably could be cut from their bios on the grounds that Unfortunate Blurts are not what they were Notable for. Thought experiment: if you were thinking of inviting Dr. Rackoff to a panel on Women in Cryptography and looked up his Wikipedia bio, wouldn't his views be relevant? In fact, if you were considering inviting him to any kind of panel, wouldn;'t his statement be of interest? I think deletion of this kind oif material crosses the NPOV line; we are acting to protect the subject against the consequences of his actions, and that's not our job here. If it is, lets just call this by its right name and make a rule that we will not include Stuff The Subject Should Not Have Said. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, we aren't here to make sure that he suffers the consequences of his actions, either. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You see, that's a statement which sounds straightforward but has lots of fascinating subtext. I respectfully suggest (this is about ideas, not persons, nothing personal intended) that what NPOV really means is "Report verifiable, reliably sourced information about people already notable"--and let the chips fall where they may, regardless of an editor's personal beliefs, politics or preferences. The minute we withhold any well sourced information because, if we include it, there may be consequences for the individual, we have violated NPOV--are in fact doing what I indicated above, and protecting people. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, now you are getting it Johnathan, BLP is about protecting living people from such additions as you want to add. A minor issue given undue weight in his life story with a possible detrimental effect on that living person. In such ten year old minor issues that when wikipedia becomes the primary vehicle for the propagation of that content we do have a duty of care to consider editorially that there is consideration to us not propagating it. I see you are also supporting adding the incest charges of the husband of a living person who has nothing to do with that .. please consider taking advice from experienced editors and consider taking a little time out to read some of our policies and guidelines, wikipedia is not the place you can add anything you want about anybody as long as you have a citation to some online article. As wikipedia editors we are required to edit conservatively and with consideration and care to the living people that we write about . Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Off2Riorob: I am a newbie, you guys are more experienced, and I will probably shut up after this post. I feel more strongly about the Charles Rackoff situation than the other one you mention. I believe that we are making interpretations that are not supported by WP:NPF when we assert that accurate, nonlibellous, well sourced information about living people should be deleted to protect them. I interpret NPF to protect, not the subject, but Wikipedia and its contributors, against liability for libelous, unsourced allegations. Truth is an absolute defense to libel, and it is clear Rackoff made these statements and then defended them in a CBC interview. I find it near impossible to formulate any objective, rigorously logical rule that says its OK to discuss Ward Churchill's unfortunate statements, or Lawrence Summers', but not Rackoff's. I think we get into worlds of subjectivity when we try to distinguish them. But I also have no strong interest in Rackoff's bio, which is why I haven't attempted any edits--just trying to get a handle on the Way Things Work here. But I have to say that the consensus seems to be for bland, careful, "Who's Who" type entries--in which case I don't really understand the No Autobiography rule, as who would be a better caretaker of reputation than the subject himself? Anyway, I hear you loud and clear, and hope not to debate Charles Rackoff any more. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I interpret it to protect our subjects first and the projects as a whole second and little old me third - I am not very worthy of protection and as I am here I also have the ability to protect myself by closely editing in a conservative manner and in an uninvolved manner and closely as possible erring on the side of caution in regards to all guidelines and policy. The days of coming to wikipedia to add negative content about people users don't like are history , this is the way of the wiki now. As I suggest to many new users, if you want edgy, close to the limit, investigative or titillating content you are in the wrong place, getting a blog is a better alternative if that is your position. The foundation goals are closer to education than titillation , I do understand that a lot of users live in a tabloid titillating world and want wikipedia to be the same but the foundations goals and ambitions are much higher than that, free CD's full of knowledge to the developing world, if you would like to be part of that ... Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(Resetting indents, hope that is OK.) Charles Rackoff's comments in question were sent in his campus email to faculty and staff of the university. They were covered on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation web site as already mentioned. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2000/12/07/massacre_email001207.html Also in The Globe and Mail (165 year old Canadian newspaper with circulation of 307,330 national edition) Colin Freeze, "Klan Furor Mars Massacre Vigil", December 7, 2000. Rackoff was quoted by one of the legislators in a session of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do;jsessionid=c72d607830d85bc305417ae040bfb3efc4adab5c5f0f.e3eQbNaNa3eRe3aOaNyNaN0Pay1ynknvrkLOlQzNp65In0?locale=en&Parl=37&Sess=2&Date=2001-12-06 His remarks also received extensive coverage and commentary in student newspapers at Canadian universities, http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/pdfs/ubyssey/UBYSSEY_2001_01_23.pdf, http://mediumonline.ca/backissues/Archives/January8/default.html http://www.themanitoban.com/system/manit/issues/000/004/083/2Dec2009_final_screen_quality.pdf?1259651997 According to one of these accounts, the president of Rackoff's university issued a statement calling his words "repugnant" but defending his academic freedom (similar comments of university spokesperson quoted in CBC piece). Rackoff's statement was discussed in a law review article, "Civil Disobedience and Academic Freedom", by Leslie Green in the Osgood Hall Law Journal http://www.arts.yorku.ca/politics/ncanefe/docs/civil%20disobeidience%20and%20academic%20freedom%20by%20L_%20Green.pdf Ironically, Rackoff's email is quoted in the Wikipedia article on the Montreal Massacre, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre (must we now delete that too?) To sum up, Rackoff used his position as a professor to express an opinion in a widely disseminated email sent from his university account, defended his views in an interview with the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, and was criticized by his own employer. But its not a PUBLIC matter and should not appear in his neatly groomed Wikipedia biography. A radically wrong result, people. Yours in distress Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

JonathanWallace,

If the proposal of removal of the CBC article were an attempt to white-wash the blemished career of an academic, then I agree fully that the suppression of these articles and this discussion would be wrong. It is now clear to me that the main reason this article (and event) deserves suppression from Rackoff's biography is that none of these sources, despite their appearance in prominent Canadian news outlets, are a balanced account, nor do they even contain enough facts to draw any conclusions.

Here are the only facts I can see. We have a quote from Rackoff in an email, the fact that this quote was distributed to the U of T campus, and that Rackoff did not retreat from his position in an interview.

All context of this email is missing. Did Rackoff really write to entire campus? Or did he communicate this statement to an individual by email, and this was eventually copied to the rest of the campus? Did Rackoff really have nothing to communicate in the interview other than a refusal to retreat from his position? Or was what he had to say so reasonable and airtight that any quote could only provoke sympathy for the professor?

The poverty of facts admits almost any explanation (and I feel the current suggestions are attempts to find controversy at the expense of a decorated academic). To call such accounts journalism is what is truly repugnant. Perpetuating this sensationalism does a disservice not only to Rackoff, but to free speech and, ultimately, democracy.

If Rackoff, completely unprovoked, spammed the campus with an email saying little more than `Feminism is the Klan!', this certainly would be an abuse of his position as professor and the University would be unconstrained by freedom of speech concerns in seeking his removal. Instead, we have some condemnations but little else (which to me suggests there was much internal turmoil over this event, further suggesting there is much more to the story than we are hearing).

The ultimate absurdity to me is that Rackoff's quote is expressing real sympathy for the victims, and frustration at the idea that these people are being forgotten when we are use this event as a political platform. Sure, this is expressed in a bombastic way, but that sentiment should be evident, especially in the context of the memorial. Other readings - such as Leslie Green's - are facile at best, and deliberate misinterpretations at worst.

In closing, all accounts of this very brief snapshot of Rackoff's life are very sketchy and to entertain them in a biography as short as Rackoff's cannot be considered fair or balanced by any stretch. This remains only a topic of discussion due to wikipedia, not because of continued notability. Removal of them from the biography is the right action and one that has now been taken. I hope we can consider this matter closed. --Emil post (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I answered user Emil post at greater length on the Charles Rackoff talk page. We seem to spend a lot of time here protecting subjects via the deletion of factual, reliably sourced information about them. When a proposed BLP standard of "do no harm" failed to gain consensus, someone contributed a useful well considered essay called "Avoiding Harm", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm, which states:

The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources).

I agree. I think the deletion of the Rackoff information was very wrong and a violation of NPOV. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Some doubt seems to have been introduced as to whether Rackoff wrote to "an individual" or to, as the information inserted into the article alleged, "departmental colleagues" (which I rather assumed meant an allegation that he emailed his entire department, perhaps some dozens of staff and other professors). Is there RS (and I don't mean student rags) that specify the latter is the case? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on this topic seems to be happening mainly on the (discussion page of the) Charles Rackoff article; perhaps we can have discussion there for now.--Emil post (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

When I raised this issue, it was unclear to me that the CBC article did not represent a relatively minor incident that would have been forgotten were it not for the wikipedia link on man was on account of his notoreity as a research in his field. It has become clear that this story did have enough coverage that suppressing this incident is wrong. We have reached what appears to be an acceptable compromise of taking note of the issue without asserting an interpretation that would skew the biography. --Emil post (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have made the proposed change; I am marking this as resolved as this seems accepted by all parties that have engaged in the debate. --Emil post (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear madam/sir,

I am Gerşom Qiprisçi, and my biography in Enlgish and Russian is sistematically vandalised by Mr. Libor Valko from Czech republic. He claims to know things about me which any prove cannot be provided by him. He was already warned by Wikipedia editors.

I do not have a problem of anyone who wishes to write things about me, but it should be based on some documents, not on hatred.

Here is the text of warning sent by administrator of Czech Wikipedia to Mr. Libor Valko to stop his activities violating rules of Wikipedia in Czech.

Káhirská geniza MOŽNÉ PORUŠENÍ AUTORSKÝCH PRÁV Oceňujeme Váš příspěvek, ale bohužel nemůžeme přijmout text či obrázky chráněné autorským právem převzaté bez dovolení z jiných webových stránek či odjinud. Podívejte se, prosíme, na stránku Káhirská geniza, a pokud jste autorem původního díla nebo máte od autora svolení k dalšímu šíření podle licence GFDL, pošlete o tom e-mail do OTRS. Užitečné rady o přispívání do Wikipedie a o některých základních pravidlech najdete na stránkách Wikipedie:Průvodce a Wikipedie:Váš první článek. Díky za pochopení. [editovat]Vážený kolego, Předpokládám, že to Vy jste onen Libor Valko, o kterém jsem se doslechl i já (a to je co říci, normálně se zabývám tím, co mě baví, nikoli zkazkami typu "jedna paní povídala..."). Každopádně, pokud chcete přispěvovat, prosím bez invektiv, urážek a nepodložených tvrzení (viz. článek Salmon ben Jeruham). Vidím, že nejsem první, kdo Vás o to žádá, vezměte si to prosím k srdci. Toto je encyklopedie, kterou používají i normální lidé, kteří se chtějí něco dovědět, ne propaganda k šíření nenávisti. Chováte-li vůči někomu či něčemu soukromou zášť, můžete si ji vylévat na soukromém fóru. Děkuji, hezký den --Thomazzo 00:29, 19. 11. 2007 (UTC)

http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskuse_s_wikipedistou:194.228.88.134 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerşom Qiprisçi (talk • contribs) 16:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Badly translated stub already proposed for deletion.Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is well written, and in a neutral tone. However, after some biographical facts, and some recounting of this person's accomplishments, there are one or two statements pertaining to some legal issues reported in the press [22]. This person's legal status has not been deteremined by a court of law. In other words, there is no final judgement from a court of law. Finally, the number of references concerning this one set of legal issues signifigantly outnumbers references related to other facts. Hence, I have to at least be concerned that the focus of this article, is this person's legal situation, and not his biography. In addition, I am removing the material pending the outcome of this discussion. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair enough considering the situation. Thirteen citations added to support that single sentence was totally excessive, lots of them were of low quality and just repeating the same report. Moving forward it doesn't look good, he isn't very notable and this situation is going to swamp the article. He seems to be a small time professor thats written a small time book, first off, we need to look at his notability prior to these awful allegations and say, is he actually notable? Off2riorob (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The deleted material, sourced to ABC news and other mainstream sources, complies with WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, etc. Any searches here are probably driven at this point by the news reports of his arrest. He's become much more notable for that than his academic career (the first three pages of a Google search are all articles about the criminal charges). I would suggest either deleting his bio as non-notable, or re-adding one careful NPOV sentence about the arrest at the end. Or creating a BLP:Disturbing standard which clarifies that we will not add any distressing or shocking information about living people, despite the fact it is accurate and reliably sourced. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathanwallace. The article violates NPOV by omitting the well-sourced information. If the argument is that the BLP risk of vandalism is too high given the subject's notability then either protect the article after adding a neutral sentence, or delete it. THF (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Per my 14:00 remark, I've cited to one San Francisco Chronicle story with bare-bones facts, and double-checked its accuracy by checking dockets to confirm that the charges are still pending. The article was created just this week, so I've PROD'd it per BLP1E, and will nominate for AFD if the PROD is rejected. THF (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLP Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Based on this, I see no need to explicilitly report this in Kyle's biography. Also, since there has been no conviction by a court of law I don't see this as anything more than a widely covered news report. It is the same news report, repeated over and over. From that view, it might even be considered trivial (not-notable). Printing a single news report, in a Wikipedia article of an individual, who may not even be notable, does not make sense to me.

So, I have removed the material again, because it is in dispute as stated above. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If this person is determined to be notable, then a bare bones statement pertaining to this material might be OK. But, (imho) let's determine notabilty of this person first. ---- Steve Quinn (talk)

Speedy delete it, then. It's a ridiculous violation of NPOV to omit the item for which the bio is most notable. The San Francisco Chronicle and the Associated Press are not tabloids, and titillating details, such as the age of the victim and the relationship with the co-defendant, were already omitted to make it as bland as possible. THF (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed we should delete. Also suggest the creation of a BLP:Niceness standard (as in "information must be verifiable, reliably sourced, properly weighted and nice") . And sincerely hope nobody EVER uses Wikipedia to check on someone they are thinking of dating or of inviting into their home. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've gone over all of the "references" for the rest of the article, and only one was an actual reference. The rest were just gratuitous external links to the websites of organizations mentioned. Yworo (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I just found an interesting essay here entitled "Avoiding Harm", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm It states that "Do no harm" was considered, and rejected as a BLP standard.

"This principle was ultimately rejected: while avoiding harm remains an important consideration within our living persons policy, doing no harm has been found to be incompatible with our obligation to maintain a neutral point of view when writing about all subjects, including living people.

It is interesting to note that several recent outcomes on this noticeboard, including this one and Charles Rackoff, very clearly utilize a "do no harm" standard as if it had been adopted by consensus. The essay has a good analysis of the deletion issue, discussing whether a person is notable if only known for one event. Assuming that the person otherwise passes the notability standard:

In circumstances where a person has been charged with a crime, it is acceptable for Wikipedia to give details of the ongoing investigation and/or trial, but speculation must be avoided.

The ssayist says the following about NPOV:

The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources).

I have no problem with the deletion of Kyle's bio. If the bio remains here, the information about his arrest should absolutely be included, in a carefully phrased sentence at the bottom, linking to a source such as ABC News. To maintain the bio of a living individual reviewing academic accomplishments, while avoiding any mention of an arrest and pending criminal charges, is a clear NPOV violation. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the research undertaken by Johnathan, however I quoted the BLP page verbatum, I didn't make up the regard for causing harm. It is in the policy page of the BLP. It says, ..."and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." So somehow this has become policy - and on Wikipedia that is usually accomplished through consensus. In this case, it turns out that WP:NPOV is counterweighted with WP:BLP. Even if there was lack of consensus for "doing no harm, "causing harm" is to be taken into consideration. And taking that into consideration appears sensible to me. Anyway, based on the lack of sources that were uncovered by Yworo deleting this article is also an appropriate action. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Steve: The question is whether and when WP:BLP requires the deletion of accurate, reliably sourced information about a living person. We have debated that issue in at least four different cases on this noticeboard in the past ten days or so. Some of the others were more sympathetic situations, such as another professor whose spouse was arrested. Dr. Kyle presents the starkest situation possible: is it ever appropriate not to mention the reliably sourced arrest of, and criminal charges against, a subject. Though I think deleting the bio as non-notable was fine, deleting the fact of criminal charges against an otherwise notable individual is NOT "Neutral Point of View". Also, I cannot begin to fathom how we are harming someone by mentioning an arrest which was extensively covered in mainstream media. The reason I keep popping up and tiresomely arguing this issue here is because I believe there is a widespread misinterpretation of BLP standards here which is interfering with NPOV and Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission, and which I am hoping at some point can be corrected. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathanwallace, and suggest he raise this at WT:BLP. A consensus on clarifying language is important. It's especially important because the policy is regularly being interpreted inconsistently: in biographies of right-wing figures, NPOV usually trumps BLP (and partisan attacks on the subject and partisan sources are included in the article), but the reverse is often true in biographies of left-wing figures (where negative information on the subject is to be excluded). See, for example, J. Michael Farren, a minor Bush administration official whose arrest has been treated differently than the left-wing Kyle's (though, admittedly, Farren's article existed before his arrest, which is not true of Kyle's). While it may be a sound reading of BLP to delete the Kyle article in toto, it is not a sound reading of BLP to require deletion of incontrovertibly true, verifiable, reliably sourced and notable facts. (For the record, I think the arrest should be included in the Farren article, but I don't see any argument for distinguishing the Farren arrest from the Kyle arrest: they both received national press coverage, and are both incontrovertibly true/verifiable and well-sourced.) THF (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Is a BLP. One source [23] is quite clearly an opinion piece (it is labeled "commentary" in the source). Ought this fact, that it is an opinion piece, be at least noted when using it as a source in a BLP? In addition, the opinion piece links Plimer to another living person - Gina Rinehart. Does WP:BLP require stronger sourcing than an opinion coluumn for such a linkage (which ascribes ownership of a group to that person)? See [24] Collect (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This bio has some non NPOV moments, has a couple WEIGHT problems and could be repaired with some pruning. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please assist therewith if possible :). Collect (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This article contains much false, defamatory and libelous material that violates the biographies of living persons policy. It was likely written by a supporter(s) of a political opponent of the subject politician. It is not neutral in tone and highlights the political opponent's defeat of the subject in an attempt to "rub it in" and embarrass the subject. Much of the information is not verifiable and is original. Clear evidence that the article was politically motivated and defamatory is the charge that the subject is under an ethics violation, which was a false rumour spread against the subject in a recent campaign. The article's only reference is the Maryland Manual, the official encyclopedia of Maryland government officials, yet much of the article is not derived from that source. The Maryland Manual does contain truthful and factual information about the subject. An objective and verifiable article about the subject, entirely based on the Maryland Manual (http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/05sen/html/msa14609.html), is as follows, which should be substituted for the current violative article:

Michael G. Lenett is a member of the Maryland Senate, serving State Legislative District 19 in Montgomery County, Maryland, since January, 2007. His term ends in January, 2010. Lenett currently serves in the following positions in the Maryland Senate:

Assistant Deputy Majority Whip, 2008- Member, Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee, 2007- Member, Environment Subcommittee, 2007- Member, Ethics & Election Law Subcommittee, 2007- Member, Health subcommittee, 2008- Chair, Special Committee on Renewables & Clean Energy, 2007- Member, Joint Committee on Federal Relations, 2007- Member, Joint Committee on Health Care Delivery and Financing, 2007- Member, Joint Subcommittee on Program Open Space and Agricultural Land Preservation, 2007- Member, Joint Committee on the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area, 2009- Member, Task Force to Implement Holocaust, Genocide, Human Rights and Tolerance Education, 2007-08

Lenett serves or has served as a member of the following Maryland state organizations:

Statewide Empowerment Zones for Seniors Commission, 2007-09 State Advisory Council on Quality Care at the End of Life, 2007- Maryland School-Based Health Care Policy Advisory Council, 2007- Strategic Energy Investment Advisory Board, 2008- Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities, 2008- Maryland Youth Advisory Council, 2008- (Co-Chair) Task Force to Study Financial Matters Relating to Long-Term Care Facilities, 2008- (Co-Chair) Maryland Communities for a Lifetime Commission, 2010-

As a Maryland Senator, Lenett earned the following awards:

Legislator of the Year Award, Maryland Works, 2008 Environmental Champion Award, Environment Maryland, 2009 Maryland Legislative Champion Award, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 2009

Prior to serving in the Maryland Senate, Lenett held the following positions:

Special Counsel, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 1993 (Staff Attorney, 1990-92) Counsel, United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Monopolies and Business Rights, 1993-95 Counsel, United States Senate Judiciary Committee, 1995-96 Senior Counsel, Of Counsel, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, 1996- Member, Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee, 2002-06 (Chair, Issues Committee; Chair, Strategic Direction Committee; Co-Chair, Democratic Forum) Member, Mid-County Citizens Advisory Board, Montgomery County, 1998-2002 (Chair, Public Awareness Committee). Adjunct Professor, The National Law Center, George Washington University, 1992-93 President, District 19 Democratic Club, 1998-2002 Member, Board of Directors, Family Learning Solutions, 2000-02 Member, Advisory Council, Trash-Free Potomac Watershed Initiative, 2007- Member, Board of Trustees, Community Services for Autistic Adults and Children, 2010- Member, Board of Directors, B'Nai B'rith Homecrest House

Lenett was born in New York, New York, on February 24, 1962. His education is as follows: Brandeis University, B.A., magna cum laude, 1984; Georgetown University, M.A. (American Government), 1988; Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1988; LL.M. (Securities Law), with distinction, 1992; Senior Articles & Notes Editor, American Criminal Law Review, 1988.

Lenett is admitted to the Maryland Bar (1989), District of Columbia Bar (1990), and Bar Association of Montgomery County, and is admitted to practice in the United States Supreme Court and numerous federal appellate and trial courts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlenett (talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, why don't you change the article to be more neutral. Click on the "edit" button at the top of the page. Write what you want. After each fact, inset the URL reference that you got your info from in between <ref> and </ref> so it shows up as a source to the link of you referenced. David Able (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is more like a political brochure than a biography. Given that Ted Lieu is currently running for office, this is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.80.216 (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It does read like it was copied from his web site but is generally neutral and bland in phrasing, with only a couple of phrases that violate NPOV. Also, there are a couple of negative or unflattering facts in there which give some balance. I think the best way to handle your concerns would be to add whatever well sourced facts you feel are missing, maintaining neutrality in your phrasing. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

So change it. Click on the "edit" button on top of the page. David Able (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a comment on this page that says Kathyrn Crosby should "rot in hell" - these comments should be taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.8.26 (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't see it so I gather someone already did. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have personal knowledge regarding this article having been a family member of one of three individuals involved in Datapoints creation. My father Gerad B. Martin was also involved in the computer and left in 1972. I have also had personal contact with the late Gus Roach and Phil Ray. SLast year I corrected this my putting my fathers name in the article and it was deleted. I find this very insulting that his name is or not included in the article. I am challenging this article to have my fathers name include. Not only that but demanding that my father get credit for the work he has done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.96.245 (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources about your father's involvement then it should be no problem including it in the article. But "personal knowledge" is not something that, as an encyclopedia, we can accept as a source. I hope you will understand. --Cyclopia^talk 17:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google search failed to turn up a reference to Mr. Martin as a founder of Datapoint. A company history found in several locations including http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Datapoint-Corporation-Company-History.html mentions only Ray and Roche. Agree with Cyclopedia, the user needs to provide a reliable source to get Mr. Martin's name re-inserted to the article.Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My attempts at reverting problems with this article have been reverted by IP's a couple of times.

1. Subject of article has dubious notability. 2. IP's have added/replaced PERSONDATA template with info for another person. (as of the moment, PERSONDATA template is correct) 3. IP's have added sources unrelated to the subject of the article. 4. IP's have added potentially troublesome BLP statements, that are totally unsupported. 5. IP's have removed maintenance and BLP PROD templates without correcting the underlying problems.

I could do one more revert without violating 3RR, but it seems pointless, so I will just let you folks handle it, thanks. Safiel (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, is she known by a different name than "Anya Sweilam"? A Google search of the entire Internet yeilds only 17 hits,[25] none of which look like secondary reliable sources. Unless I'm missing something, this article should probably be nominated for deletion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that this was how the article started, Miss Swielam is obviously adding an article about herself that is full of puffery for things that are quite unnotable. Unfortunately as there is the barest assertion of importance, I think a CSD A7 would be declined. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I will go ahead and put up an AfD and pending that I will go over to requests for protection and ask for a seven day semi-protect, while the AfD is in progress. Safiel (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard Littlejohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an ongoing dispute on this article. A user keeps trying to insert a 'Criminal Record' section. However the information is not properly sourced but they keep reverting it. The 'source' they are trying to use is a Book Review, a very opinionated review also which does not support the claims they are making in the article. I have tried explaining this but they insist the 'source' is reliable. I would be grateful for your intervention. Christian1985 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the section, as sourced, does not belong in the article. For what it's worth, I have added a comment to the Littlejohn Talk page. Be careful about too many reversions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help, your comment basically states exactly what I have been trying to point out. Christian1985 (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Might help to have an editor not involved in the dispute add his two cents. I would try to keep the rhetoric (left-wing, etc.) out of the discussion unless it's absolultely relevant. In this case, I don't think any "bias" on the part of The Observer is relevant to the BLP issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The political positions of anyone have nothing to do with whether the claim as put in the article is 1. properly sourced as a factual claim to an article, and 2. whether the contentious claim requires a superior source to an opinion piece. BLPs must be conservatively written, per WP policy. Collect (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is really ugly, but probably that can't be helped considering how controversial the person is. Wolfview (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A new problem has cropped up in this article. One editor wants to add a section called "Praise from Nick Griffin" with the following sentence: "Littlejohn was described by Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, as his favourite journalist." Other editors think the section and the sentence don't belong in the article for different reasons. My reason for opposing it is that it's trivial and doesn't belong at all, let alone in its own section. I would say that the majority of editors who have commented agree it doesn't belong, but you can read the Talk page and decide that one for yourselves.

Several of us have tried to keep it out, but it's become too close to an edit war for my comfort. In the latest "reversion", an editor (EelJuice) who has not even contributed to the discussion put the section back in. I'm not sure what he's up to, but his history alone is weird as he hasn't been oon Wikipedia in years, and the first thing he does upon his return is to revert another editor's removal of the material with the following truly bizarre edit summary: "In philosophy, you have to reckon with the implicit level of an accumulated reserve, and thus with a very great number of relays, with the shared responsibility. Clothes off, face down, ass up, c'mon". I reverted EelJice and pointed him to the Talk page and to WP:EDSUM. He then reverted my reversion labeling it vandalism. And that's where it stands at present.

Some help would be appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Littlejohn's criminal record has (a) been reported as fact in the Observer, and (b) been admitted by Littlejohn on national television. There are links to both in the discussion. Given we have video of Littlejohn himself admitting it, and the broadcast date etc, on BBC TV, it seems bizarre to me to suggest that we can't prove it to be true. The fact Christian1985 accuses anybody who tries to insert any information he doesn't like of being "left-wing" and "biased" is frustrating: the facts are pretty well established and easily meet BLP and NOTE criteria. This is a public figure who frequently comments on law and order issues, who himself has a criminal record.David r from meth productions (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A highly skewed account that presents the "official" version of the man's life and leaves out swathes of embarrassing stuff, both from the early life and, more worryingly still, from his time as self-appointed ruler of the Ghanaian people. Not to mention his career since stepping down as a serial destabiliser of political and military life in Ghana. The list of "Achievements" at the tail end is particularly ludicrous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.184.222 (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not NPOV and largely unsourced. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Depuffed a bit - vastly lacking in sources. Collect (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting a project to review all our Scientology related articles. Some of the BLPs have already given concern. Uninvolved BLP savy people would be very welcome.--Scott Mac 21:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Now there's an ambitious project. I didn't know that the words "Scientology" and "neutrality" could be used in the same phrase. I'm not sure if you're courageous, masochistic, dedicated, or a mixture of all of the above. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first question you should answer is if Scientology is a (definable) cult, a religion, or a "life practice." Good luck with that. David Able (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't care if we just redirect Scientology to Scam and have done with it. However, I do care if BLPs are mistreated or unfair.--Scott Mac 02:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the principle that BLPs be written conservatively is all too often breached on WP. Too many have minor controversies blown out of proportion, minutiae treated as if they were of major importance, and traffic tickets equated with mass murder. I do not care if the person is absolutely execrable - all are entitled to be treated fairly at all times on WP. Collect (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Art Modell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The relocation to Baltimore section in this article reeks. It's completely unsourced, and essentially a Cleveland fan's apology on why Art Modell is a bad person. Now this is a very very notable event in the man's life (and sport's history in the US), so I feel blanking it is a bad idea. Can anyone take a look into it and improve it? Or at least source the negative statements? Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The section "Detainment and Doping Charge" is libellous and extremely defamatory. Mr Freeman was not detained at all by police or charged with drug abuse, nor was he asked to "not come back" to Sweden. Not even the newspaper article says this. It was originally in Swedish.

The police at Sundsvall routinely test bodybuilders because they have had issues with local bodybuilders abusing drugs. Mr Freeman at no point was accussed of such and there is no evidence of such. Drug abusers do not get questioned and left alone. This article is unfair to Mr Freeman. If Wikipedia continues to host it, it may be subject to a libel charge. Figaro90210 (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Figaro90210

I have temporarily removed the entire section since there is dispute over whether the sources cited support the statements made. Also the sources cited for the controversial statements are all in Swedish, which is rather thin for such extremely negative BLP information - and, separately, makes it difficult for me to verify the sources. If the sources check out, the section can go straight back in.

Secondly, please read WP:NLT, which you are close to infringing. You may wish to explicitly retract any possible implication that Wikipedia is likely to be subject to legal action, just to make things simpler. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed some errors in the section. AKA, he was NOT charged, and he was not forced to give the test either. I also added english language references... Hopefully that will clear things up... Tim.thelion (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for acting on this so quickly. Some of the English-language sources you've added are rather blog-like, but together I think they adequately support what is now in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The swedish sources are also rather tabloid like :D I haven't found any WP:RS sources for this story... But I think the 7 refs together make a pretty comprehensive case for it... Tim.thelion (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we will need administrator help in this case... Just look at the page history now... Tim.thelion (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've mentioned 3RR and NLT at Figaro's talk page, as he appears to have broken 3RR already. Let's wait and see if things calm down. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I have edited Yorvit’s “Personal Life” category to include his son Julian Xavier Houston. I have legal documentation obtained from the California Department of Child Support Enforcement stating that Yorvit Torrealba is the father. I also have DNA papers from the laboratory stating the same. How can I send in legal proof that can be referenced on your website? This is very frustrating and very upsetting to a 10 year old boy that doesn’t understand why this is being done to him. I have 2 wikipedia users delete my edit and challenge the information.

OK, I don't know who you are. Or what your relation to "Julian Xavier Houston" is. But as Julian is a private individual and a minor, who has been unreferenced by any major news media outlet(as far as I can tell) his privacy is still important to us. If you want to bring investigative reporting material to a news paper, feel free. The LA times and the new york times both have drop boxes. Wikipedia is not in the buisness of investigative reporting. Tim.thelion (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The information is wrong, the title refers to Abel Ramírez and the content is about Christian Armas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.214.253.124 (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Yaqoubi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is proving troublesome. A couple of weeks ago it was a puffy, mostly unsourced steaming pile. Then a new editor called Sacredknowledge (talk · contribs) made changes that deleted the only source that had been on the page, and I reverted and stubbified. Sacredknowledge is persisting in removal of the source -- and, it seems, for good reason: the source (here) is merely a copy of the earlier Wikipedia version. Sacredknowledge says "Up-to-date biography to be uploaded shortly" -- which implies to me that we'll be offered something that won't exactly be suitable. One to keep an eye on. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps more interesting, is the correlation, between the username Sacredknowledge and the website of Muhammad al-Yaqoubi http://sacredknowledge.co.uk . It appears that we have a POV conflict... Tim.thelion (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- and I did leave a COI notice. But I no longer think it's appropriate to revert that user, when the result is a version that is sourced to a site containing an old version of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This IP, probably the same user logged out, is objecting to a claim that he is associated with CIFIA, which explains why they were removing the source, CIFIA's home page. This was added here by Guide99 (talk · contribs), who has been quite disruptive elsewhere. I've restored the stub with this removed as there was no third-party source provided. The username is a violation of WP:ORGNAME, I've left a note about this. January ^(talk) 23:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The article as written is fiction. Does everyone who spreads lies on the internet merit a Wikipedia page? If anyone wants to write me, [redacted] - I welcome vigorous discussion on Moret and the other con artists who make their living travelling around the world lying about themselves and depleted uranium. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be used to advertise them

I have attempted to edit this article before but Moret's disciples will not permit the edits.

The article begins as follows:

Leuren Moret is a former scientific laboratory employee known for her study of the adverse health and environmental effects of depleted uranium. Moret worked for two periods at two U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories, including Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. She has claimed the status of a whistleblower in connection with her work at Lawrence Livermore.

Moret briefly worked as a Senior Scientific Technologist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from 1989 to 1990. Moret is not "known for her study" - she has no peer reviewed articles pertaining to the subject and her research is confined to the internet. She has done no independent field or laboratory research and probably is not academically capable of doing so. Moret has self-publicized that she is a scientific expert. Moret does claim to be a whistleblower. There is no record that Moret ever made a claim with the Department of Labor under the Whistleblower Protection Act.

Background

Moret earned her Bachelor of Science in Geology at University of California, Davis in 1968, and her Master of Arts in Near Eastern Studies from University of California, Berkeley in 1978.

the above education is correct - the only completely true entry in this entire biography

After working 5 years at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

Moret was a Geology graduate student at Lawrence Berkeley. Moret was not classified as an employee but as a student. She may have studied for five years, but probably did not. She left the UC Davis doctoral program that she had been studying under Professor Ian Carmichael after assisting with research for the doctoral thesis of now distinguished Professor Dr Jonothan Stebbins of Stanford University.

and two years at the Livermore nuclear weapons lab,

Moret worked 11 months at Livermore.

she left Livermore and now studies and publicizes the health effects of radiation exposure.

Livermore probably terminated Moret's employment. They will not reveal that fact, but given the level of investigation required to be cleared to work at Livermore, it is highly likely that Moret never obtained the required high level security clearance. Moret claims to have left due to her being a whistleblower. There is no record of Moret's having been a whistleblower or of having provided any meaningful information to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRCs's ADAMS files show three documents from Moret, one is a post card from an anti-nuclear campaign that Moret sent in. The other two are records of Moret's signing petitions.

She has worked extensively on the impact of radiation on public health from nuclear power plants and atmospheric testing and how radiation moves through the environment.

Moret speaks extensively (if someone pays her to come - they had a benefit concert in the Kootenay Moutain community of Nelson, British Columbia to finance bringing Moret to their town)about uranium and DU. Moret has never worked, let alone extensively on this subject. Moret's videos include false claims about depleted uranium in Hawaii, atmospheric testing causing autism and reduced SAT scores and the hands of Nobel Laureate Dr Glenn T Seaborg turning to claws. Moret now rails about the University of Alaska HAARP research program falsely claiming that it has caused hurricanes and earthquakes.

I am more than willing to discuss this at some length with anyone. I have documents to support every word that I say. Thank you.

Roger- [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.83.227 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 21 December 2010

• Leuren Moret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have removed your email address (not useful here), but I have not yet had time to look at the article. As a general rule, it is essential to use neutral and calm language on Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Some questions:

• Do you have any reliable sources showing that material in the article is not correct? Please be specific, but brief.
• Do you have any reliable sources that verify material which should be in the article, but which is not? Please be specific, but brief.

Documentation you may have seen is not suitable for use here, since all material on Wikipedia must be verifiable from published sources. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No sources and probably insufficient notability. Should probably be deleted. Also, it's probably true that she's, ah, incorrect in the things she promulgates. This is the dead link from the article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion. Borock (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wiki Editors:

You guys removed my comment about Kelly Ayotte re: "Free Press"

It was short, factual and unbiased and verified by a substantial New England newspaper.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PQbVMfpHJBg/TRDd36LG-8I/AAAAAAAAEFc/BT5ZKNXS53I/s1600/Picture+97.jpg

Why did you do this, I demand an explanation because you routinely publish the fact that lawsuits are pending against people. This removal smells like fear, or perhaps someone bought you out?

Prove otherwise.

Christopher King, J.D. http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People. 617.543.8085m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.89.115 (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this diff may indicate why this complaint has been made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the content, as it had been reinserted again. The reference link] to the Nashua Telegraph does not work, and even if it did, I doubt very much that it will baldly state that "Ayotte does not believe that all media are entitled to attend her events or other GOP events that are publicly-advertised and held on commercial property." Please note that this editor has also edited at User:KingCast and was the subject of this COIN thread.[26]. I will be semi-protecting the article due to the ongoing problems on this article. --Slp1 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Update- the link does work, now, and sure enough, it does not support the edit KingCast/IP wanted to make. --Slp1 (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a lie. Here is a direct quote: Among the legal questions the suit could potentially raise is whether a private gathering that vigorously seeks media coverage can bar or expel some reporters but not others. It also raises the question of whether the author of an opinionated blog should be afforded the same protections as a mainstream newspaper, television or radio reporter.

So how exactly does that not support what I said? It is a secondary source and it clearly says that Ayotte believes she can expel some reporters but not others, which is exactly what I said, i.e. "does not believe all media are entitled....."

Okay Andy, this is all straight from the story:

Ayotte, the Nashua and New Hampshire GOP and Nashua Police were sued in the fall of 2009 by an online journalist Christopher King, J.D. who has experience at traditional newspapers. Video clips on KingCast show King with a camera attempting to question Ayotte at the Arpaio fund-raiser. Republican officials approached Nashua police, who asked King to leave. Among the legal questions the suit could potentially raise is whether a private gathering that vigorously seeks media coverage can bar or expel some reporters but not others. It also raises the question of whether the author of an opinionated blog should be afforded the same protections as a mainstream newspaper, television or radio reporter. The lawsuit is ongoing in New Hampshire Federal District Court, 2010-CV-501. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/887281-196/blogger-sues-ayotte-others-over-access.html

I'll be waiting.

Do you actually expect to get a positive response to that? Frankly, if you actually think that your addition to the Ayotte article was 'factual and unbiased' based on the source you give, I'm not surprised people have difficulty accepting you as a journalist. For a start, the article says nothing whatever about what Ayotte 'believes', and in fact provides no evidence that she was even aware of the events that took place. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest you edit out your insulting comments, and continue in a civil manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay Andy, you're not full of shit, I apologize. I redid it and posted quoted EXACTLY from the newspaper. It is clear now why some people have difficulty accepting Wikipedia as a worthwhile enterprise. Now post my addition please.

You also Wikipedia in general an apology for suggesting we'd been 'bought out' (we haven't - I suggest you look at some of the controversial issues we cover). As to whether your proposed edit merits inclusion, I'll wait to see what others say. I wouldn't consider it particularly significant in itself, though the legal issue it raises might possibly be - others may know more about this. As a general practice, we can't cover every debate or legal issue every politician is involved in, and the standard for what gets included is largely based on how widely it is reported and discussed elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the Ayotte article should be a WP:COATRACK for this lawsuit. Also, the person attempting to promote the material in this bio article clearly has WP:COI. betsythedevine (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, having one true and accurate post about a pending Federal lawsuit that involves access to alternative media in the electronic age hardly makes this entry a "coat rack" for the lawsuit. I was on NH Capital Access TV for two half-hour segments discussing this matter, so it is a matter of interest to reasonable people. http://nhcaptv.com/episode/142 And lest you forget where you come from, you are indeed "alternative media in the electronic age" so my efforts are indirectly benefitting you. Lastly, I'm not saying you have been bought out in general, but you are acting like it in this specific instance, and I do not apologize for my opinion, others are watching and agree with me. Your turn. What do I need, a letter from the Pope? Sure there is a Conflict issue but that pales in comparison to the magnitude of the issue here. Imagine if major (or minor) U.S. Politicos can start threatening arrest against whatever reports they don't like? Are one of you next? And whether some of you like it or not I have substantial journalist experience before and after I served as an Assistant Attorney General, and the Court ruled that I am "an African-American journalist," so don't even go there.

PS: Are one or any of you the person with a NH ip address who visited my online journal 15 times between 09:32:24 and 11:50:27? If so, you can probably watch the Capitol Access show on your TV as well as the Internet, session one is already posted of course, and session two should be airing this weekend and next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Press KingCast (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The above is a blatant sockpuppet of User:KingCast (the latter a username which itself should be blocked as a spamusername, since he's editing to publicize the website of the same name). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Has this issue been discussed in any other newspaper, or elsewhere? We need reliable independent secondary sources to establish significance, and I'm not sure whether NH Capital Access TV really qualifies. If this is the significant legal issue you imply, I'd have thought the mainstream media would have picked it up? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no sockpuppet at all, all of these comments are mine. And I'm not "publicizing a website" I am notifying about a lawsuit. What is your problem with that? You don't think it's newsworthy that the GOP thinks it can pick and choose what reporters to allow at publicly-advertised functions held on commercial property and subject to City and State Permitting? Well you better read NAACP v. Thompson 648 F.Supp. 195 D.Md.,1986 my friend. http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1986843648FSupp195_1812.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006

So the Nashua Telegraph isn't good enough for you? I will notify their staff immediately. But you said in another post that the Littleton Courier was good enough and the Telegraph dwarfs the Courier. And you expect the Union Leader and WMUR to run stories about this lawsuit? Please. Nor have they run any coverage of Liko Kenney's lawsuit. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's staff is following my Tweets, unsolicited. But of course that means nothing to you either. DId the Mayor of Nashua ask what major press was covering my efforts before he and the Aldermanic Chamber presented me with a Mayoral Commendation, the closest thing Nashua has to a key to the City? Hell no. http://i45.tinypic.com/11qnzfs.jpg

So in the end, there you are waiting for the mainstream press to legitimize a story about alternative press being denied equal access. Wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Press KingCast (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, here we come to the problem. You ask above "You don't think it's newsworthy that the GOP thinks it can pick and choose what reporters to allow" -- it may very well be newsworthy, but we're not writing a newspaper, we're writing an encyclopedia, which has a whole different set of criteria for inclusion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It is newsworthy because it is the position of Kelly Ayotte, as Friends of Kelly Ayotte is a named Defendant, DUH. Wiki is here to note her positions on major issues, and the Free Press is a major issue the last time I checked, or are you telling me otherwise my friend? Stop the nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Press KingCast (talk • contribs) 19:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the URL you posted, as you appear to be using it to harvest IP addresses of what you believe are Wikipedia editors, and then speculating about their locations. Also it's rather promotional. Also you have a rather pronounced WP:COI here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because somebody is named in a lawsuit, does not mean that any meaningful connection exists. Any competent attorney knows that self-taught advocates will sue God, the government, the KGB, their dead mothers, or anybody else they blame for their problems. No duh! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Now posted to the talk page [27] - KingCast was blocked as a spam username, so this could be the same editor. Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you have made Free Press in America a low level concern and shoved this over to the talk pages? By the way there is footage from the Telegraph reporting staff right here at 1:00 - 1:40: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/871416-196/mccain-campaigns-with-ayotte-at-vfw.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by FourthEsate (talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. King is making some sage points and he quoted directly from the State's second-largest newspaper. He followed all of your rules, and your argument that Attorney Ayotte did not know about the litigation or that it is not her position is ludicrous. Indeed it is as ludicrous as her position that she did not know about the FRM Ponzi scam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Ayotte#Financial_Resources_Mortgage_fraud

I can appreciate what he wrote yesterday, at one of his blog sites, again using Wiki information:

http://kellyayottewiki.blogspot.com/2010/12/kingcast-open-letter-to-daniel-pearl.html SATURDAY, DECEMBER 25, 2010

KingCast open letter to Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act author Adam Shiff and President Barack Obama regarding Senator Kelly Ayotte Free Press lawsuit; Wikipedia coverup & censorship.

Dear Honorable Statesman Shiff and President Obama:

I am honored to write you and pleased that you share the same commitment to Free Press as I do. The Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act is a crucial development on the International landscape, yet it is somewhat ironic that we take basic Free Press principles for granted here in the U.S.. The Democrats have been quite reasonable when it comes to me, as noted in my press picture at the Obama/Deval Patrick rally and at an earlier Deval Patrick rally (watch the video) but there are problems coming from the Republicans and Tea Party people:

Here is an entry I filed on Wikipedia today after some people on Wikipedia seemed unsure as to why it is important that all reporters are granted access to publicly-advertised political rallies that are held on commercial property subject to substantial State and Local licensing and regulation. GOP and Tea Party racists and haters of Free Press cannot selectively deny media access on viewpoint and race-based criteria pursuant to NAACP v. Thompson, 648 F.Supp. 195 D.Md.,(1986), as I noted on this Statewide Public Access television program Capitol Access TV Episode 142. Meanwhile, Wikipedia removed this post in an act of outright censorship:

Free Press

The Nashua Telegraph is the State's second-largest newspaper according to Wikipedia. The newspaper noted that Christopher King "KingCast.net" was escorted out by the police at a GOP/Joe Arpaio rally after he attempted to interview Kelly Ayotte at a publicly-advertised political rally. Mr. King has sued Friends of Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire and Nashua GOP and Nashua Police Department for being refused admittance to that event and two other GOP events. The case is before the New Hampshire Federal District Court. Among the legal questions the suit could potentially raise is whether a private gathering that vigorously seeks media coverage can bar or expel some reporters but not others. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/887281-196/blogger-sues-ayotte-others-over-access.html ........[snip]

I must concur at this point with the folks at mywikibiz who wrote: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_is_more_a_roleplaying_game_than_an_encyclopedia. Wikipedia is more a roleplaying game than an encyclopedia.

While Wikipedia is disguised as an encyclopedia, it is actually nothing more than a fluid forum where ultimate editorial control belongs to a corps of administrators, most of whom act without real-world accountability because they don't reveal their real names, locations, and potential conflicts of interest -- even though they will not hesitate, through "complex investigations", to "out" the real names, locations, and perceived conflicts of interest of other, non-administrative editors. Why give your real-world dollars to a virtual-world multi-player forum? Have you made your donation to Second Life, too?

In the end you may not like the fact that Mr. King is a journalist but he is and the Federal Court said that he is. The Defendants don't even appear to argue otherwise. Therefore he is owed all of the protections that any other journalist is owed, and even if he were not a journalist he is permitted to post to your board that the Ayotte and her campaign have a position that they are allowed to discriminate amongst journalists at these publicly-advertised events as noted in the Nashua Telegraph, yet you don't seem to want to see that, which makes you the jerks -- not him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FourthEsate (talk • contribs) 11:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)