Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive10: Difference between revisions

Michael Persinger

[1] Section 'Recent Controversy' contains biased and potentially slanderous comments regarding an ongoing lawsuit. Doesn't meet proper encyclopedic standards.

jojo

Template:Jojo - This article says JoJo "Another stupid young wh0re who cant sing". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JoJo

Neil Bush

Section on Russian investor is inciting inflamatory language that has nothing to do with Neil Bush. Multiple attempts to moderate by several individuals have failed. Certain individuals will not yield to only including material that has directing bearing on Neil Bush, trying to make in guility by association. Words of "warlord, ganster, mobsters", etc are note appropriate.

disagree There is consensus for the section to remain. An admin there who is currently reverting the vandalism there has had to revert the attempts to blank and/or degrade the section repeatedly. The section is well within Wikipedia guidelines as shown:

Public Figures.

" ... If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. ... "

The Bush and Boris Berezovsky section is, 1) notable (it's made international news from many multiple sources). 2) It's relevant (Boris funds Neil Bush and it's also well-documented that they travel, attend events and more together) and, 3) it well-documented and well-sourced. (Once again, it's made international news from many multiple sources). All the sources are there within the section. All we've asked is that the section be edited for accuracy, etc. Instead, it's continually "edited" to the point where it only contains nonsense sentences and/or it's removed entirely in what appears to be vandalism and/or POV pushing (especially when you consider the nature of the nasty History comments). I hope that efforts will go forward in the future to, instead, make the section better and more accurate and therefore, benefit the project instead of the current rabid deletions that make the section and full article suffer. 67.190.61.6 06:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hans Reiser

[2] The news about his wife's disappearance are for a tabloid, not an encyclopedia!

Cheryl Hines

Offensive vandalism.

Dustin Diamond

I stumbled into this one while on BLP Patrol, slapped on a noncompliant tag, and left a note on the talk page. It needs a lot of help. Crockspot 23:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

To me this article has a lot of information about someone not all that important, mainly an ex-teen-TV-Star and his program wasn't even in prime time. Steve Dufour 03:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Carnell Williams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnell_Williams This article has been vandalized in an offensive manner.

Doug Basham

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

What is the policy regarding non-web based sources (hard copy analog woodpulp type) for biographies? I'd added in the professional wrestler Doug Basham's real name, based off of my 1990 high school yearbook plus first-hand accounts from friends/family of Doug, just to have it removed due to a weblink that I'd found to a discussion forum not being considered a proper source. I'd asked in the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions forum about the legality of scanning the yearbook for sourcing, only to be asked why the yearbook can't stand as cited. As I detest edit wars and losing civil grace amongst rational human beings more than being accused of lying (lol) I figured I'd ask the experts.

Supersquid 22:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cynthia McKinney

• Cynthia McKinney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A magnet for unsoursed statements as well as soapboxing Musaabdulrashid 08:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Deborah Frisch

• Deborah Frisch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Deborah Frisch (AfD discussion)

The current text is sourced from various highly negative web logs. I've added citations for some rather more impartial news service converage, and removed some highly inappropriate categorizations. The article needs significant improvement to re-base it upon the news service coverage rather than upon the web logs. Please help to improve the article. Uncle G 21:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Dick Hubbard

• Dick Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The current text is full of critisms, and half of them are not properly sourced or not sourced at all. Also the article reads like as if the opponent of Dick Hubbard wrote it (no or little positive aspects covered). Please help to improve it! // --inky 23:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Burton Sr.

Any examination of what User:Jpfagerback and User:Wiley coyote have been doing to the Robert Burton Sr. page, including creating "Big Bad Robert Gene Burton" as a Wikipedia article, would show they've committed obvious, repeated vandalism. Robert Burton apparently made a lot of enemies, and whether it's his fault or not I couldn't care less right now. (I am a third party entirely to whatever disputes Burton and others are in.) I created the article because he's a worthwhile subject who has been the subject of more than one news article and who has had an affect on people's lives in one way or another. It's time for some admin to deal with these vandals and to look at past vandalism on the page. Wiley coyote has been around before. I have suggested that adding information about Burton in a truthful way would be something constructive that vandals could do, to no effect. Please someone deal with this. The changes are obviously libelous.Noroton 01:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Chamillioinaire

the article states that he was shot in florida. this seems to be a misinformed revision or vandalism.

Robert Clark Young talk page

We are requesting the assistance of some administrators who are familiar with the BLP policy to take a look at current and previous edits on the talk page for the Robert Clark Young article. In my view, the edits in question, which make unsubstantiated claims against Mr. Young, are in violation of no less than five Wikipedia policies. The input of administrators who have not previously been involved in this issue would be most appreciated. Thank you. John Bryson 07:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

P!nk

Some claims I have marked as unreferenced might be considered libelous if they were false. -- Beland 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Leon Febres Cordero

I believe the article has been edited twice (I removed once biased comments) with opinions or beliefs of events, not being neutral, or providing raw/neutral facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isther (talk • contribs)

Peter Blunden

Editor of an Aussie newspaper in the Murdoch stable, dleeted as blatant attack (created by Garth M (talk · contribs)). Please watch this and if the link goes blue have a look to see if it's anotrher hatchet job. Guy 11:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Steven Milloy

Describe the dispute using the following format:

• Steven Milloy - potentially defamatory material, which is either poorly sourced, unsourced, or irrelevant to the references given.// Peroxisome 03:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As a major contributor to this article, I believe that it's solidly sourced with both primary and secondary sources and is in compliance with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Given that User:Peroxisome has repeatedly thrown around accusations of libel, WP:BLP violations, etc., I would invite any third-party to look at the article and talk page and render their opinion. MastCell 20:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

• So the main problem I have is that the article contains a very curious mix of original research and poor sources. But other than that, it seems strangely hit-and-miss regarding matters of importance or lack of importance. I give probably 50-75 public lectures a year (I don't keep count). So why is a fairly routine lecture for the Long Now Foundation featured? Did the press "frequently" refer to Sanger as co-founder before he left and started calling himself that? Newsgroup messages are original research if anything is. Altruism is "the belief that you have a duty to help others"? Well, perhaps in a sense, but geeeeee, that more or less misses the important point. (One of the reasons we forbid original research is that trolls trying to make people who are subjects of biography look bad are notoriously bad at philosophical interpretation.) --Jimbo Wales 00:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That has to be the most meticulously sourced Wiki bio I have seen yet. You have some valid concerns, which I will attempt to correct, but it could be a lot worse. I also spotted a diff of one of your edits to the article being used as a source... that doesn't seem like a very reliable source either. - Crockspot 03:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't find it very well sourced. Perhaps it is easier to understand the issue when you are the subject of an article and know the sources and facts quite well. :) See below for just a handful...--Jimbo Wales 15:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• • OK, I have made a series of edits to the article, and comments to the talk page. I hope your concerns have been properly addressed, and that my edits survive the night. :) - Crockspot 04:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is something I wrote on the FAC vote: "In order for an article to be a Featured Article, it should first be, you know, good. This article is actually quite bad in several important respects. Controversial claims are made without attribution. (Example: the bit from Wired about my trading career is something I have objected to repeatedly but it is still reported on as fact.) My birthdate is sourced to a cut and paste from Wikipedia (original research), and is in fact completely at odds with what my birth certificate says. The number $100,000 appears, with no source. The number $500,000 appears, no source. The article implies falsely that the foundation spent $25,000 on my travel. False, and original research. (And a good example of what is wrong with original research.) I could go on, but you begin to see my point.--Jimbo Wales 16:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)" --Jimbo Wales 15:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have to admit that my knowledge of the subject (you) is fairly limited, which may or may not be an advantage in this situation. I will take another look, but do feel free to "go on", as it is helpful to me to isolate what the problems are. - Crockspot 15:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have read the Wired article very carefully, and it is the source of the $500k statement, so I tagged that, and reworded it a little. I removed the other unsourced statements. Are you disputing the accuracy of the Wired article regarding your trading career? If so, I am not sure how to reconcile that in the article, as Wired is considered RS. I did remove the birth date too, since you say it is incorrect, but the use of Wikimedia official web documents seems to fall into a grey area in my mind, as self-published sources are allowed to be cited as RS in articles about the sources. While you personally are not Wikimedia, you are the head of the organization, so it seems unclear to me whether or not WM sources can be used in your article, obviously they would be allowed in the Wikimedia article. If you can direct me to further problematic areas, I would be happy to look at those too. Crockspot 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• I have been giving thought to the RS policy re: sources from wikipedia, and it seems that probably the only Wiki-based source that can be used as reliable is the by-laws pdf, since it is an official document, and cannot be modified by any users. Any other "self-published" sources, such as the Wikimedia article, cannot be verified without question to be written by the subject, as WP:RS requires. Possibly the mailing list emails can be cited too, since policy is often handed down there, attribution does not appear to be a problem, and I often see the subject's comments there cited in WP policy articles. But I am not sure about that, so input from others is requested. Any comments about this, before I start the Great Purge? Crockspot 19:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Looking more closely, I realize that the email list cite is not even necessary. The wired cite following it sources the claim well enough. Removing. Crockspot 19:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I did some more pruning and adjusting. The only remaining wiki sources are the by-laws, which I believe is an appropriate source, and Sanger's user page, and Sanger's lecture from meta.wiki, both of which I still question as sources, but that is as far as I am prepared to gut the article today. If someone else wants to take a look at those two, I would appreciate it. Crockspot 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Now that I feel more confident in my knowledge of the subject and sources, and after reviewing the relevant policies again, I took a more heavy-handed approach to the article this afternoon. Some may feel that I have overstepped, but there seemed to be more cruft than controversy to alot of the material. It was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it. :) - Crockspot 21:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

• Eric Lerner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• I'm bringing up the issue as a potential violator, as User:Iantresman claims my edits, and those of two other editors, violate WP:BLP and constitute an immediate threat he is willing to violate WP:3RR for. I think my edits are fair, and, even if not fair, not an immediate threat, but....
• This deals with the term "states" as to his academic credentials and "was" to "as" in his presence at the civil rights march in Selma. I don't see a WP:RS for either of those statements, so I agree with User:ScienceApologist and User:JBKramer that some caveat is needed or the academic credentials should be removed. User:Iantresman disagrees.
• — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Normally, "states" would be a pretty neutral term, with "claims" being less neutral. In this particular context however, "states" seems to lean to the less neutral. But I think, considering the lack of reliable secondary sources for the statements, it is appropriate as a caveat. Same with the use of "as" re the Selma claim. There is a certain amount of hair-splitting to this one, and it seems the solution would be to find RS sources for the two statements. I will try applying a little Google Fu to this later today, and see if I can pull something out of the ether. Crockspot 15:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Unable to find anything independent and reliable. Perhaps the subject, who seems engaged with the article, can assist. I think with the wording I mention above, the claims can stay in until proper sources can be found, then reworded. This is just my opinion though. Crockspot 17:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The subject has given a book reference. Unless someone can show it's inaccurate, it's proven. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Abdullah_II_of_Jordan

• Abdullah_II_of_Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The "Future" section of the Abdullah_II_of_Jordan article is unsourced and potentially libelous. 141.140.120.176 21:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like WAS 4.250 already removed that section and the trivia section. Crockspot 12:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Catherine_Bosley

Currently the article is in very bad shape, and I don't have time to fix it appropriately. The majority of the article is describing a supposed play-by-play of a wet t-shirt contest Bosley participated in. Not only is this utterly tasteless (why are the details of when and how someone removes their panties relevant?) but none of this is sourced! --Chan-Ho (Talk) 09:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I put a db-attack tag on it for speedy deletion. There is not a single source cited, and most of the article is about the alleged wet t-shirt contest. Need to start that one over from scratch. Crockspot 12:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the tag -- Ms. Bosley's own website (cited in the article) is a source for the article. The t-shirt contest section could stand some pruning, but overall, I don't think the article merits the db-attack tag. NawlinWiki 13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Ms. Bosley's website is not cited in the article. It is listed as an external link. Nothing is cited in the article as a source. Can it be verified that the website is indeed her website? Is every claim in the article backed up by the website? Is text copied and pasted from the website? (copyvio) This article needs some serious and immediate improvement, or I will nominate it for AfD. - Crockspot 14:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What a mess. This is exactly the sort of thing BLP was designed to prevent. I'm off to take a machete to the article. Gamaliel 16:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, good work. I left a note on the talk page. - Crockspot 17:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

V. T. Rajshekar

I would be very grateful for some further views on this article, especially from experienced editors. There is an RFC on the talk page but it so far has not brought in many extra opinions. I particularly do not want to get into a head-on conflict with previous page editors. So far I have not found it easy to put across my understanding of what constitutes and appropriate source. Itsmejudith 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been working with the reporting editor, and an "opposing" editor, since last night. I think this article is well on its way to being brought into compliance. At least everyone has a better understanding of where the line crossing into OR is, and what the subject's self-sources can be properly used for. I'll keep it on my watchlist for a bit and monitor progress. - Crockspot 12:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mahmudali Chohraganli

Can anyone please help with the article on the leader of Azeri separatist movement in Iran? The current version contains some strong claims, based on Iranian sources, which obviously don’t have much sympathy for this person. I think such negative info should be verified from reliable neutral sources. Grandmaster 07:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Del Harvey

• Del Harvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Squaresville (talk · contribs) has entered a claimed real name for Del Harvey (which does appear to be a pseudonym, presumably taken for good reason) without any sort of reference or source. I commented it out and added a {{fact}} tag, but Squaresville has reverted my change several times now. I believe this falls under WP:BLP policy (since Del Harvey might have a very good reason for wanting to keep her real name private) and have said so in my edit summaries, on the Talk page for the article, and on Squaresville's talk page, but Squaresville is completely non-communicative on this issue. Squaresville's only edits have been to this article and two related ones (Perverted-Justice.com and To Catch a Predator), plus a single overstated warning on the P-J.com talk page. I can keep reverting per WP:BLP not being subject to WP:3RR, but I really would rather not have to. Please advise. Powers ^T 00:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Squaresville for 24 hours for disruptions there and other articles. It appears that this user may only be here to troll, but I have posted to their Talk page encouraging them to revisit their behavior here. I'll keep an eye out and see how it goes when the block expires. I have also reverted the Del Harvey article. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred Newman

I'd appreciate help or advice regarding Fred Newman. He's a Marxist psychotherapist who has been accused of being a cult leader, though I don't know how widespread that view of him is. I was asked to take admin action at the page because of reverting by single-issue users who appear to be supporters of Newman. They're opposing edits to the page made by Cberlet. I protected the page on Cberlet's version.

The other users are saying on the talk page that there are BLP concerns, particularly with the lead section. Looking at this, the third paragraph isn't sourced and is negative, though not particularly controversial as I think both sides agree on the basic facts. The second paragraph is sourced, but is negative and it could be argued is being given undue prominence. The first sentence of the first paragraph calls him "controversial" (which he is, but to say so upfront is arguably POV), and the third sentence says he's a psychotherapist, but then immediately adds that he has no appropriate qualifications.

I'm unsure how to proceed given that I protected on the BLP-disputed version, especially given that it's not a clear-cut violation. Should I unprotect and allow editing to continue; or edit the article myself while it's protected to remove the BLP-related issues? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Best to unprotect, so that editors can address the BLP issues. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Jossi. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dave Ramsey

• Dave Ramsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Over the past month or more a section of this article called "Criticism" (originally called "Controversy," as I didn't see how there could be one till I edited the section) in which people are repeatedly making biased, unverifiable claims attacking the integrity of the subject. Such claims as "Ramsey has been criticized in financial circles for offering misleadingly simplistic solutions to complicated financial issues" (which Ramsey himself has said in his radio show, however all attempts to include his personal response to the claim gets edited out because "it can't be verified," even though he says it almost every day on his show), and "Ramsey regularly makes spectacular boasts about his own wealth and the number of millionaires he has created via his programs, but he has never publicly released his own financial statements, and he has never presented even a single documented case of a person who has successfully used his program to attain great wealth" (which if this isn't POV biased I don't know what is).

I guess the point here is that the section has gotten out of control, and my impression of the Biography of a living person policy is that un-verifiable or non-neutral comments are to be immediatly deleted. Personally, I think the whole article needs to be re-written from the NPOV standpoint, but thats just me.--Arkcana 19:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Your impression is correct, and negative statements that are unsourced should be aggressively removed. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Escorts

Jeff Gannon is the only person in this category. It has been made a subcategory of Category:Sex workers. There is no evidence that this one person is a sex worker. The editor who insists on it's inclusion failed to get Gannon added to a "prostitution" category and is using the sex worker category as an end run around the community consensus. The Escort category is fine. Saying that the Escort category is a subset of the "sex worker" category is defamation and should not be allowed. It needs to be deleted. --Tbeatty 22:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The category isn't about his one person, it is about escorts in general, which clearly is a subgroup of sex workers whether or not this one person engaged in any sex at all. There is a substantive disclaimer which should address all concerns. The category system should not be disrupted because of whatever Tbeatty imagines about this one person. Gamaliel 22:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a sub-group of sex workers as you have put a disclaimer saying just that in the category heading. --Tbeatty 22:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The disclaimer is to address BLP concerns. Clearly many/most escorts are sex workers, and you can engage in work of a sexual nature (strippers, etc.) without engaging in intercourse. Gamaliel 22:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To be a subset of a category, all members must fit in both categories. This is fundamental set theory. Category "Blue" with Subcategory "squares" cannot contain a "Red square" with a disclaimer thant some of the "Blue squares" might be "red". It's fails basic logic and it's an attempt to smear this single individual as a sex worker. Your prostitute tag failed and this is an end run around that. --Tbeatty 23:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to see that you think WP:AGF is no longer policy here. I couldn't give a crap about Gannon, I do give a crap about people bending reality and common sense and pretending escorts don't have sex in a misguided effort to protect poor poor Jeff Gannon. Gamaliel 23:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians should be working to protect everyone from WP:BLP violations. Why do you think I am no longer assuming good faith? --Tbeatty 23:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we bump the parent category of Category:Escorts up to Category:Personal care and service occupations and settle the dispute that way? -Will Beback 23:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. --Tbeatty 23:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Works for me as well. Thanks, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) :There are two or three other categories under [[category:sex workers]] which need to be killed, then. (I'm not going to do it, myself, because in would violate [[WP:POINT]] as I beleive that [[:category:escorts]] '''should''' be under [[:category:sex workers]]. [[:category:courtesans and prostitutes]] is itself a BLP violation under those circumstances if there are [[WP:LIVING]] [[courtesan]]s, as it implies that there is little difference between them and [[prostitute]]s, and that they are necessarily [[:category:sex workers]]. I'm sure I can find others. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 21:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)