Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive36

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sun Myung Moon (closed)

Mohamed_ElMasry (closed)

John M. Bennett (closed)

Abdullah el-Faisal (closed)

Frank Rynne (closed)

Greg Williams (radio personality) (closed)

Dana Ullman (closed)

Pearson v. Chung (closed)

Bushido (rapper) (closed)

Brant Secunda (closed)

Crowned: The Mother of All Pageants (closed)

Konrad Dannenberg

Could editors please consider watchlisting the above article? Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 18:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe those posts violate WP:BLP. They both seem to be good faith attempts at discussing what info belongs in the article. If some of that info was placed in the article without reliable sources, then they would violate the policy. As such I believe those comments should be restored to this page. Jons63 (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claims should not be discussed on talk pages either. These may be good faith attempts to discuss an issue but as Jehochman says they still don't belong on the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia policy on cases like this? When a [REMOVED]*, a title which directly relates to the rocketry work for which they are famous for and for which they deserve a Wikipedia page, and an historical fact which is impeccably and repeatedly sourced, has requested of someone else that all reference to [REMOVED]*, even when describing their job positions, be removed from their page?

I'm not sure at what point potential libel issues and the need to keep Wikipedia accurate and not a whitewash of people's past balance. Is there a Wiki page that discusses this? Personally, I am concerned that Wikipedia could become a place for historical revisionism. Scientist-astro (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Any relevant facts can be placed in the article as long as there is a citation to a reliable source. Biography of living persons pages applies to all pages, including talk pages, so repeating a controversial fact here without citing the source also requires the fact to be removed, as I have done to your comments.* Jehochman Talk 21:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am following this one with interest. Jehochman, I am concerned that rather than assisting, your well-intentioned mass blankings on this page appear to be deleting and removing any attempt to discuss grounded, historically sourced facts that you believe to be potentially controversial (which in fact are not, they are sourced biography, for which links appear to have been provided on an earlier version of the Dannenberg page. They were removed). While well-intentioned, you appear not to be helping by not even allowing the matter to be discussed. As a result, the Dannenberg page is missing important historical information, and apparently no discussion can take place over it.

I'm disappointed to see this happening on Wikipedia, as it seems to run counter to the aims of the project.

All of the supposed "controversial" facts are repeated in favorable and innocuous sources such as this one in the decidedly uncontroversial USA Today:

www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-09-25-Sputnik_Dannenberg_N.htm

What appears to be happening to this page is that, through an intermediary, the subject of the article is removing content which he does not want to be reminded of, despite it being historically accurate and easily sourced. Does this not violate Wikipedia guidelines? And yet any discussion of it is being stifled, compared to other similar discussions on this page about other subjects. Disappointing.

Melly-Three (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Eric Dezenhall

I am requesting that an admin or Wiki-editor familiar with WP:BLP review and correct the Eric Dezenhall entry. In its current state the entry does not adhere to Wikipedia’s standards regarding NPOV and verifiability and, in so doing, damages my reputation.

NPOV

The balance of the article is heavily skewed towards the negative. Positive accomplishments etc. are ignored in favor of attacks by my critics. For example, a Business Week article is cited, but only negative comments from the article are used. Not included in the entry is mention of the quote from Chris Lehane, Al Gore’s former spokesperson, stating that my firm “[has] a very good reputation.” The entry also includes a quote from Kevin McCauley of O’Dwyer’s calling me “the pit bull of public relations” without noting that this statement is in the context that I am “one of the most effective in [my] specialty.”

This overall lack of positive content is conspicuous given the long acknowledgment that my firm is a leader in its field. No small number of sources praise my work and I am often sought out for commentary on crisis management issues. For examples see the following links:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,195307,00.html?iid=chix-sphere
http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2005/09/the_delay_indic.php
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1612698,00.html

Verifiability

The controversy section of the Eric Dezenhall entry claims I “search… [my] opponents [sic] garbage.” This is untrue. The source listed in the entry cites a 2003 letter from an environmental activist falsely alleging that searching trash is among the “reported tactics” of my firm. Wikipedia’s standard of verifiability is that the material in question has been “published by a reliable source.” No reliable publication has “reported” the letter-writer’s allegation that my firm engages in such conduct. As this allegation is harmful to my reputation, untrue, and not verifiable according to Wikipedia’s standards, I ask that it be removed.


This entry is in need of immediate attention because it contains false and defamatory information and is acutely unbalanced. The guiding concept that “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid” is not being realized. The piece clearly violates two of Wikipedia’s BLP guidelines and I fear that it is becoming a platform to proliferate unfounded attacks as truth. I ask that changes be made as soon as possible. Edezenhall (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That source certainly seems to not meet WP:RS so I have removed that line and source from the article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Lev Leviev

Resolved
 – Content dispute

Numerous attempts to add information about Israeli businesman Lev Leviev's activity constructing settlements the occupied Palestinian territories, as well as gentrification activities in New York, have been reverted without explanation. The information was added twice, both times was extensively documented with outside sources, both times was reverted without comment. VelvetLenin (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for reporting violations to WP:BLP, and what you refer to is a content dispute. Please follow our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

John Todd (occultist)

Resolved
 – Material in violation of WP:BLP, has been removed

Where to start. The subject appears to have had a period of notability in the 1970's and early 1980's when he was popular in certain evangelical Christian circles. He later was found to have exaggerated many claims that he made. The problem is, he is linked in this article, and on the internet, to a variety of sexual offenses including rape. There doesn't seem to be any proper sourcing at all. I was close to stubbing article, and still will if it doesn't get fixed soon. Can someone lay a second set of eyes on this to see if they agree? Xymmax (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • checkY Done Unsourced material removed, warning posted in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Julie_Cypher

The source for note number two on the Julie_Cypher page is a dead link. The correct current link is http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=237&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport I would have just changed it, but this source is from an anti-gay group and the article itself is unsourced regarding the Cypher quote. I will go ahead and link the first note to the transcript at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/24/pitn.00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.158.179.194 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

violations of WP:BLP again by User:BKLisenbee

violations of WP:BLP at [11]. Issue naming people and colleges and occupations unverified and pejorative. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dovid Jaffe: News of the World and Yedioth Ahronoth RS?

Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies#Dovid Jaffe. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-29t21:58z

  • While the "News of the World" may be a tabloid it is part of News Corp along with the WSJ and The Times. I don't think there is any dispute as to their fact-checking being basically good. And Yediot Aharonot is the principal newspaper of the state of Israel. While I may not like the journalistic style of the NOTW, it remains true that it is subject to libel laws like everyone else. Lobojo (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
A tabloid reporting a "rumor" is not a Reliable source for what is written there. Not to mention the BLP issues. Everything is subject to libel laws, but not everything is a reliable source. There is also the issue of this topic not being relevant to this article. Chocolatepizza (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing here about a rumor. The tabloid states "rabbi xxxx did yyyy on zzzzz", here are the photographs. Lobojo (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The photo on the left shows a man (I don't know what he looks like, but I'm guessing that's him) outside a blurry building. The photos on the right doesn't show him. That's not evidence and no reliable source would use that photo as evidence. I often times walk at train stations and down Loop street in Cape Town, places where illegal drugs are sometimes sold - a photo of me walking down Loop street does not make me a drug buyer, or dealer, or a Scientologist. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-29t23:22z
You misunderstood my point. I was just making the point that it is not a rumor, it is a news article. That isn't the evidence. That it just an illustration of the story, showing it was on the front page. The evidence against him is set out in the text of the article. And in the other articles in the other papers. Lobojo (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Cindy Crawford unsourced for 6+ months

I find this both baffling and surprising, but the Cindy Crawford article has been a walking WP:BLP violation for over half a year now. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lots of articles lack sourcing, more important is there anything that violates BLP or is otherwise untrue? Benjiboi 23:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I question whether it is appropriate to have a disambiguation link to Cindy Crawford (porn star) at the top of the page. Is the porn actress even notable? *** Crotalus *** 02:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Iron Sheik

The Iron Sheik article makes a number of potentially libelous claims and relies upon very poor sources (or in many cases, none at all). Please assist in looking this over and removing anything which could be defamatory. I would do it myself but I'm about to sign off. Thank you. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a quick pass at it removing chunks. If others could also look there's a lot of problems and the sources seem dubious but I'm not familiar with the wrestling universe. Benjiboi 23:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Asi

User:Hyperionsteel talk contribs is reinserting extensive inflammatory and inadequately-sourced material (such as from advocacy organizations) in the subject article, and insists that this must be included, has now reinserted twice (and was the original editor putting them in). The article was already tagged by one user as a quote farm, I deleted shaky quotations, leaving the best-sourced. Abd (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Martha Stewart - is stating that she's a convicted felon anti-BLP?

User:Jkp212 has removed a large majority of the info on Martha Stewart's felony conviction and jail time, stating that it's a BLP concern, especially concerning "weight." It looks like a whitewash job to me, so I put the info back in. It could be better referenced, but there is a reliable source, and a whole nuther article on the legal matter with lots of references (he removed the link). There is no question that she was convicted and went to jail. Note she was not convicted of insider trading. A third party might want to look into this. Smallbones (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the current form of the article might teeter on the edge of a WP:WEIGHT violation, but a much greater concern is that material damaging to a living person seems to be largely unreferenced. I would endorse User:Jkp212's actions until the section is much more thoroughly-sourced than it is now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, there is almost as much information in the lead as there is in the section about her conviction. That appears place considerable weight placed on her conviction due to the size of the entry in the lead. Also, most of the statements in the insider trading section are unsourced at this time. Jons63 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
There is definitely undue weight given in the lead, the main section on it looks ok as far as weight in concerned. It needs to be thoroughly referenced, though. --Tango (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Added appropriate template. It needs considerable paring down in the lead, and references needs to be added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We should not include unreferenced material of this nature. Is this material really that relevant to a LONG TERM article? Maybe a brief mention, in my opinion. Just because the charges got a lot of media attention doesn't mean that they are particularly relevant to her life. I believe it is a pretty meaningless incident (big picture) in her life. Do others agree? I certainly don't feel it's appropriate to mention in the lead.. Further, as user smallbones points out, "insider trading charges" is misnamed, b/c she was not charged with insider trading... Let's work out this type of info on the talk page, and not "experiment" with negative material within the article.--Jkp212 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I admit I haven't really looked at the article lately but this incident was quite huge and arguably was a major touchstone in her and Omnimedia's development with hundreds of people losing jobs and her comeback path due to the possibly overblown media attention netting her two TV series and relaunching all of her brands. Calling her simply a convicted felon doesn't seem right but neither does watering down the significance of the events and related outcomes. Benjiboi 02:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I can agree that we need to balance things to avoid undue emphasis; but being a convicted felon is a life-defining fact nowadays, even for a rich white woman. I do detect a desire to whitewash her criminal conviction. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, just looked it over and wikipedia looks foolish now. This was a huge event and one of the reasons her name is known to many worldwide. Something certainly should be in the lede and she jokes about her jail time regularly so a non-watered-down section about the jail time, trial and media attention is quite appropriate. Benjiboi 02:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree that this should be in there - and not just as a sentence or two, but likely with its own section and a mention in the lead. My concern is that the material that User:Smallbones restored is largely unreferenced; it should stay out until it's referenced. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
the material needs to be sourced and in line with the rest of the article but there is no BLP issue with saying that MS is a convicted criminal - she is, that's not "negative" material - that's a statement of fact which be sourced with 100s of A+ reference sources. Her being banged up is a notable event in her life and I'd agree is worthy of it's own section. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The material in the Martha Stewart article seems balanced to me but I have a strong objection to a Martha_Stewart_stock_trading_case article [[12]]. This is surely "undue weight".Momento (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The BLP policy says "cover the event, not the person", and WP:WEIGHT applies only within a single article, not across articles. I agree this content is relevant to a long-term assessment of Martha Stuart and removing it entirely could be considered a "white-wash". a small, well-referenced section in the Martha Stewart article with a link to Martha Stewart stock trading case seems a reasonable approach to implementing WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Renaming and broadening the "Martha Stewart case" article seems to be getting acceptance as a way of resolving Momento's objection. It would be a good idea even if he hadn't objected, actually.--Samiharris (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Maryscott O'Connor

Maryscott O'Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A biased POV in an inaccurate item that is irrelevant to bio // Jules Siegel (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Schrodingers Mongoose added a highly biased description of a diary currently being discussed on Maryscott's site. This is not part of her biography. The item implies that the diary should be deleted. While the diary does have a tendentious title written in great despair, it is a response to extremely vicious attacks by a single group in the course of a political battle. Some of these attacks are so disgusting that they have been hidden by the site moderators. There is no reason to delete the diary. The issues are fully discussed. The item appears to be written by one of the people on the attackers' side as part of an external effort to publicize the diary and embarrass Maryscott. It fails to qualify as a legitimate entry because of its biased POV, and its irrelevance to the life and work of Maryscott O'Connor. I have removed the item twice but Schrodingers_Mongoose keeps restoring it. [[13]]

Jules_Siegel seems to believe that Ms. O'Connor is entitled have no mention whatsoever of the significant public controversy swirling around the noticeable anti-semitic material present at her site, even though a wiki search for "My Left wing" leads to "Maryscott O'Connor". My edit does not imply that the diary should be deleted; its existence is simply mentioned along with the controversy that it has generated, along with a couple of the places where the diary is being discussed (I included sites linked to both sides of the political spectrum for balance. Jules_Sigel has made no effort to improve the section, but continues to delete it, and is clearly emotionally involved as demonstrated by his/her comments above. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The diary in question does not contain any antisemitic material. It is directed specifically at some Jews on MyLeftWing who harass users -- including other Jews -- who post opinions and facts that are not favorable to the Zionist side in the Palestinian question. At the time that I removed the item it contained no third-party, balanced references, but rather home page links to two highly political sites without specific references to the MyLeftWing diary. Both sites have been reliably accused of suppressing criticism of Israel. Harassment of critics of Israel's Palestine policies is by now a well-known Internet phenomenon. Many examples of this are found in comments on MyLeftWing. Criticism of Israel and individual Jews, or Jewish groups, does not constitute antisemitism, nor do the transient and clearly reactive emotional responses of the diary's author, who expresses great despair over the rather understandable feelings of hate that she is experiencing as a result of the harassment. As a Jew, I sympathize with her position fully and am frankly embarrassed by being associated against my will with the kind of Jews whose hateful tactics she decries.
Although Schrodingers Mongoose claims "My edit does not imply that the diary should be deleted...." his edit stated "Though O'Connor is not the listed author of the piece, it remained posted...." If I bothered to "improve" the edit, I would cite some of the many examples of abusive comments that are clearly designed to suppress free discussion of Palestinian issues on MyLeftWing. I might also change the title to "Zionist truth suppression tactics." I've declined to do that because the issue is not relevant to Maryscott's biography. Maryscott O'Connor is a free speech advocate. She's not an antisemite. The Israeli-Palestine issue is just one of many controversies discussed on her site. The latest edit by Schrodingers Mongoose has been reversed by User:C.Fred. It should stay that way. Jules Siegel (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You are making normative judgments and ignoring the relevance of the information. Whether or not the diary is Anti-Semitic to YOU is meaningless. Many sources are listing it as antisemitism, and with good cause: "I find myself, for the first time in my life, hating Jews", says the author, as as well as "Jews regard other human beings as objects, to be sacrificed to the interests of Jews." The article is pure Jew-Hatred by any rational definition, and O'Connor is directly associated with it, as she has willfully published it. Fred C's revert claims no sources were linked; I will be re-posting the section with linked sources included (there are dozens). Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Susan Sarandon

Article has had several versions of the same addition of material by User:Artpot regarding her attendance at an opening party of a jewelery store, attempting to link the attendance to a supposed pro-Israel/anti-Palenstine political stance on Sarandon's part. The material's citations include a New York Post gossip column item and a political forum blog. He ignored requests for more definitive sources. The editor contends that it is important historically, but expresses the intent to link her attendance to her political views in several edit summaries such as here, here, and here. This issue seems to me to violate WP:BLP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Maria Misra

Maria Misra's page is still labelled as a stub, but it has already proved controversial. Biased book reviews of her recent book "Vishnu's Crowded Temple" have been inserted and re-inserted, violating Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. I intend to create a talk page where people might let off some steam, but if the insertion of the biased material continues, it would be appropriate to tag this page. Reddyuday (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to help. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Greg Halford

I would like some editors to keep an eye on the article Greg Halford, because at the moment there are drug allegations about this person flying about the internet, but no official sources at the moment. So I would like some wikipedians to keep an eye on this page incase unsourced drug allegations find their way onto his article, it has not been added in yet but in the past 24 hours rumors have become stronger and stronge, so please watch the page. 81.151.26.167 (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Taner Akçam

User:Arsenic99 is again calling Taner Akçam a terrorist in the article and the talkpage. VartanM (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the article and removed the BLP violations from Arsenic99's talkpage comment. VartanM (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism

This category is a hotbed of BLP violations. I know that there's a disclaimer at the top, saying that the category just means that the article discusses anti-Semitism, not that it is actually accusing the subject of being an anti-Semite. But this fine distinction is meaningless (and invisible) from the vantage point of individual biography pages. The reader sees a link saying "Antisemitism" right next to other links saying things like "19xx births," "Artists," or "Writers." They don't see the disclaimer unless they actually click on the link. To the average reader, not versed in the fine points of the Wikipedia categorization system, it sounds an awful lot like Wikipedia is calling the person an anti-Semite.

All biography articles should be removed from this category. It's tempting to make an exception for obvious historical cases, but any exception will be enlarged to the point that the restriction becomes meaningless. Individual biography articles can discuss reliably sourced allegations of anti-Semitism in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. Categories, because they lack any context or citations, aren't the appropriate place for making distinctions like this. *** Crotalus *** 02:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:I mostly agree. All living persons should be removed, a new category Category:History of antisemitism should contain all the dead ones. There disclaimers are complete BS IMHO. Lobojo (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a tough one. We get at the divergence of truth from fairness. Antisemitism is an ongoing issue and some people are clearly and incontrovertibly anti-semitic. Take away the ability to make those distinctions and you censor the truth. However, in the end the label is a value judgment. Perhaps a category like Judaism and race that would include people, living or not, outside the group but for whom the Jewish race/culture/religion/ethnicity has been a bumpy issue. That's not quite it, but something that omits the subjective part. Wikidemo (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This conversation has been had before. I think the upshot was that anyone who was interested enough in the subject to scan through a dry list of categories at the bottom of an article is capable of clicking on that link and seeing what the category is all about. Is it possible that some rather dim folks may not be able to click on a link and see what the link says? Sure, but those people should not be using Wikipedia, I think. This is a useful category, and in no reasonable way, shape or form violates BLP (and I am something of a BLP hawk). IronDuke 00:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This issue has indeed been discussed before, at length - in fact, Crotalus is trying a different venue to achieve a result he dismally failed at before: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_26#Category:Antisemitism. At one time there was a Category:Antisemitic people, which did suffer from the issues raised above - however, this Category is not that one, and does not suffer from these issues. It is not a violation of WP:BLP to say an article discusses antisemitism in some way. There is no implication nor BLP violation in pointing out the rather obvious fact that the Richard J. Green, Tuvia Grossman, Norman Hapgood, John M. Oesterreicher and Joseph Seligman articles discuss antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
If that was really what the category meant, then why all the opposition to renaming it so as to make that clear? Saying that there was once a discussion on the issue somewhere does not adequately address BLP concerns. You can't simultaneously argue on one hand that the category clearly isn't an accusation, and then on the other hand insist that it continue to be named in an ambiguous way that is intended to sound like an accusation. *** Crotalus *** 05:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you recall the rationales given during the overwhelming rejection of your suggestion for renaming the category the last time you made it? Here are some examples:
There were a number of other reasons given, but I think you get the point. Regarding your final statement, you need to review Begging the question - the category isn't named in an "ambiguous way that is intended to sound like an accusation." Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am persuaded, I didn't see those lengthy discussions, the category is certainly appropriate, though "category:antisemites" would violate BLP, this one does not. I should have read up on more of the past histories before mouthing off. Lobojo (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as the article explains how the person is connected with antisemitism (either for or against) in a way that complies with BLP (meaning that any "negative" statements are well-sourced), I don't see what is wrong with placing the article in this category. In other words, if you are reading an article in this category, then you get to the bottom and see that it is in this category, it isn't a surprise, because you have just read all about the person's connection with antisemitism. You don't need to see the disclaimer, because you have just gotten all the information that the disclaimer would provide, and much more. If you start from the category page, then you see the disclaimer. Seems like a pretty good arrangement. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to make the purpose of the category clear, I've added Abraham Foxman, Eli Weisel, Oskar Schindler, Yad Vashem and some other antisemitism related articles. Avruchtalk 04:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

One should not include articles in both sub-categories and their super-categories. All of those articles were already in sub-categories of Category:Antisemitism, sometimes multiply so. The purpose of the category is already overwhelmingly and excruciatingly clear, please avoid WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, just taking a page from recent history. One should not throw stones, if... Avruchtalk 05:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama and Michelle Obama

There seems to be a campaign to downplay Senator Obama's identification with the African American community. This includes: Removal of the statement that his father was black, refering to his multi-racial upbringing as "his mother's middle class American family", removal of Michelle Obama's picture from his article, and on Michelle Obama's article removal of any statement that she is black or African American. It is quite possible that there was no hostile intent here, but I do think this is "potentially harmful" (to use BLP jargon) to Senator Obama's chances in the primary elections which start next week. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, Steve, I think everyone already knows they are black. Or mixed-race (like that famous golfer, Lionel Forrest or something ;-) ...
And if the voters really are about the race of the candidate, they can look at a picture.
Dude, you really need to chill out. Why don't you go rent Guess Who (film)? The taxi cab scene alone is worth the price of the rental. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
When we lived in Chicago we used to hang out in the Obamas' neighborhood sometimes. :-) p.s. I'm finished with the article. It's not all that bad and I think the other editors are sincere. p.p.s. I don't think many primary voters will base their votes on WP anyway. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Lea Rosh

The article is currently tantalized by User:Hminc with highly negative statements about Lea Rosh, including repeated efforts to place unsourced or poorly sourced assertions. Looking at the revision history of the article, the same is true for User:Sovelet, and User:Catholic from Berlin, which seem to be sock puppets of the same contributor. Although the article seems to be fairly sourced at the moment, it needs to be observed. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it an extra pair of eyes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to border on being an attack page, but since I'm unfamiliar with the subject and can't read the source material, I can't accurately assess it. I've requested additional assistance at WikiProject Germany. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed one particular egregious statement. I would suggest a total rewrite by an uninvolved editor. The sources and the quotes are used selectively and in my opinion possibly unfairly. Statements like: "she has been accused of doing X, but the accusations were withdraw" are not NPOV editing. ,DGG (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Martha Beck biography is seriously biased

The Martha Beck entry on Wikipedia suffers from severe bias on the part of the writer/s. The entry is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.240.210 (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • {{sofixit}} Your edit button is clearly working. Cite good sources for all of your content. Uncle G (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Seth Finkelstein (AfD discussion) is currently listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Mohamed Elmasry and Zafar Bangash

Mohamed Elmasry is the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress and Zafar Bangash is a leading Muslim cleric in Toronto. Both their articles are dominated by quotations that look like they've been collected by their opponents and critics to put them in the worst possible light. I'm not sure that a) all these quotations are necessary and b) that they've said done nothing over the years that reflects positively on them or their organizations. The articles needs to be examined by neutral people and, possibly, editors who seem determined to use the article as a platform from which to attack Elmasry need to be advised. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Greg Felton

  • Greg Felton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article about a controversial journalist had been the subject of editing wars after its recreation in October, including a blanking by the subject of the article. A discussion was able to produce a NPOV stub that remained stable until 21 December when some additions were made including several that violated WP:BLP and WP:OR and were removed. It was previously deleted in July as an attack page and appears bound that way again. It should perhaps be temporarily protected or deleted.

Interested users:

// DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Having been involved in the past with difficult BLP times with this article in October (see [14] I would like to support DoubleBlue's description of the problem above, as well as his recent actions to clean out OR and material contrary to BLP. However, I still remain concerned about the overall NPOV tone of the article. This despite the fact that the current material is apparently appropriately sourced, and that I strongly disagree with the subject's opinions.--Slp1 (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have semi-protected it for now. Obviously, if additional protection is needed, it can be applied. My reasoning on this is that semi-protection should allow involved editors to work towards consensus on the article while at least preventing libel being introduced by unregistered or newly registered. Registered users who violate BLP can if necessary be addressed through the warning hierarchies ({{uw-biog1}} or {{uw-npov1}}) to the point where appropriate action can be sought, if necessary, at WP:AIV. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much. As I think about this article, I wonder if others would like to chime about whether referring this article to Articles for deletion might be appropriate. It is not clear to me that he meets notability guidelines from appropriate third party sources. Yes, he has written a book, but I can't find any independent reviews of it. There are a very few references to him online, apart from his own articles/websites etc. In addition, the article seems to be a magnet for editors who are critical of his views who include original research, non-reliable sources etc etc to push their views. The subject of the article contacted OTRS and requested the deletion of a previous version of the page [15], and the result was it was zapped as an attack page. After it was recreated (by a critic) in October, an IP address associated with Felton blanked the page. [16] The current article seems to be to fall afoul of multiple WP:BLP policies, including too much of the subject's own self-published material given the length of the article, unbalanced etc. Would others suggest that an AFD would be appropriate given the history and current state of the article? Slp1 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I too hope for input from other editors. While there are things Felton has written, there are not any, reliable sources about Felton to be found. Besides the Levant opinion piece, which only calls him a "notorious anti-Semite" him in passing, I can only find an article in the UBC's School of Journalism magazine mentioning his being "silenced" at the Courier.[17] I seriously question if he meets WP:Notability (people) and how can a NPOV article be written about him? The sourced statements in the article now claim to represent his views based upon snippets of what he has written, perhaps not incorrectly, but still awfully close to being WP:OR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Update. The article is now at AFD. [18] Slp1 (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Kou Shibasaki's real name a secret?

Two weeks ago an anonymous removed the real name of actress Kou Shibasaki claiming real name is not opened to the public. I requested the anonymous to clarify the matter since iMDB cites her real name, and today another user replied that Her real name is officially stated as secret, hence wikipedia japanese edition do now allow to write her real name on the article (Japanese wikipedia has an official policy not to write informations that should be kept in secret, to stop itself being like some gosip papers). That sounds reasonable, but would like to hear comments about the matter, and whether this can be used as precedent (maybe to incorporate a clause under the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy—unless there is already an explicit clause which I did not notice). Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • If xe has kept xyr real name and personal life secret and never disclosed them publicly, then that is something to take into consideration. You'll need to do more work to determine that, however. I note that the real name can be sourced: Marko Maya (2005-01-09). "Kou Shibasaki: Diva japonesa". Agencia Reforma. México. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Uncle G (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. However, Japan has pretty strict privacy laws (I must deal with the "right of likeness" very often), and if indeed there is a law that authorizes or enforces keeping her real name hidden, including it in the English article would make it illegal in Japan. Note that no Japanese article about living persons have images, although we were able to obtain free copies of several artists like Ayumi Hamasaki, Utada Hikaru and Kumi Koda. I think it would be useful to add a new section in the biography policy with differences between other Wikipedias, for future reference. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"Do no harm" is the relevant policy here for BLP. If multiple WP:RS have reported the name (and IMDB is not terribly RS) then we can source it as then we're not the news agency someone else is. If multiple WP:RS have not reported the name then we should err on the side of caution. Benjiboi 22:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought as much, thanks for weighting in. I have contacted the user in his Japanese talk page to get some clarifications, especially whether there is a law there that protects these names. Images of Japanese artists, even when free, are not accepted in Japan due personality rights disclaimers, and those images have a disclaimer in their Commons page (like Image:Ayumi Hamasaki 2007.jpg) stating that in some jurisdictions the image is protected and could be illegal, just like the Nazi swastika has a disclaimer that states it is banned in some places except for educational purposes. I am thinking whether we have, in our general disclaimer, a point stating "Information found can be considered illegal in some countries" or similar. I like to gather as much information about topics to enlighten others whenever it happens again. We have had a discussion about Japanese law in a Commons deletion, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Utada Hikaru Kanto 2004.jpg for some comments. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia (hosted in the United States), not the Japanese Wikipedia. I see no reason why we should give Japanese laws any weight when considering article content that otherwise meets our policies. We are not subject to those laws, any more than we are subject to the laws in certain Arab countries that prohibit representational art and photography (not to mention nudity, etc). It's enough trouble just making sure we comply with U.S. copyright laws (which we have to do) without also worrying about bizarre forms of censorship implemented in other jurisdictions around the globe. *** Crotalus *** 23:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I know that as well. I was looking for a better answer than "fuck everyone else", though. However, I already explained that, if it is a Japanese law, since our servers are in US, it doesn't affect us. But wouldn't that conflict with "Do no harm" principle? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would not phrase it that way. Every possible action, no matter what, is offensive to someone, somewhere in the world. We have kept images of Muhammad on his page, despite the objection of Islamic editors. We've kept the image on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article, despite the same objections. And we were absolutely right to do so. We cannot be a NPOV encyclopedia if we pander to every set of provincial taboos in existence. *** Crotalus *** 01:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I understand that. I was just wondering whether our disclaimer had a "The contents found in any article can be considered illegal or censurable in determined cultures". Which, apparently, we have. So, it seems that basically we can have that information here. Now we go with the other point of view: if we have a courtesy blanking for AFD discussions, and have a "be careful" policy regarding biographies (like not adding personal addresses, children names, etc), can't this be considered a courtesy with the artist (if she wants her name to remain secret, why not have it done?). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
In short wikipedia is neither a tabloid (speculative) or censored. If reliable sources have reported the name then it's usually a non-issue. If the subject feels that doesn't cut it then it can be referred to the foundation or oversight as appropriate. Benjiboi 03:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
We do not have courtesy blanking for verifiable facts that are publicly reported in widely accessible sources like IMDb and can not be seen as doing any plausible harm, unlike such things as personal addresses. Such blanking is the very antithesis of NOTCENSORED. If the name were truly private and disclosed here, that would of course be another matter. DGG (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you all for the discussion. I surely understand Japanese law or Japanese wikipedia policy do not matter here in English wikipedia hosted in U.S. Anyway, her name is really stated as secret in official, therefore posting her real name caused deletion of the article 7 times there in Japanese wikipedia (ja:ノート:柴咲コウ/削除). So IF you have same kind of policy of hiding personal secret, then her real name have to be removed from the article. --Peccafly (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
From doing a quick search I'd say it's at a tipping point with one more WP:RS sending it over. It does seem to be known but "widely" is subjective so leaving it off the article for now doesn't seem to be a bad idea. Benjiboi 13:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Felix Rohatyn

Felix Rohatyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A new user -- The Noosphere -- has edited Felix Rohatyn adding in possibly libelous accusations. He claims to have provided sources, but I'm not sure they're valid. I brought this up here instead of with the user because Rohatyn is a the frequent target of Lyndon LaRouche smear campaigns, and The Noosphere is a LaRouche concept involving... Damned if I know, but Wikipedia amoung other things.

Basically I'm worried this user is using Wikipedia to libel Rohatyn. I do not believe his sources meet our criteria, but I'm not sure and would like a second opinion. Thanks. // Falcorian (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right. I removed the poorly cited negative material. The only secondary source then disappeared since it was only used as a source for negative material. Then I tagged the article non-notable. Brutal, ha? :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that user is advancing the LaRouche party line, adding BLP violations to several articles and revert-warring. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The offending paragraph was added back a third time, and I have the honor of being the third person to remove it. I also removed the "Non-notable" tag. He's probably the 2nd or 3rd best known investment banker in the world (at his peak the best known). As a former Ambassador to France (a career side-light) I think he passes the notability requirement without question. The article does need more material, and seems to be plagiarized from the US State Department bio (note - not a copyright violation). I'll try to get some more info into it. Smallbones (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know he was well-known, but if so then no problem. I question how notable just being an ambassador is. There must be 150 or so of them at a time and don't they change with every new president?Steve Dufour (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard Miniter

Richard Miniter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Nicemc is a single purpose account which has been adding material to page about journalist. so-called citations to support attacks are only vague linnks to his books on amazon or the 9/11 report and also to other wikipedia articles. no genuine references. v NPOV, v BLP violations. i have tried removing the material but as a new user, keep getting reverted even when i added blp-dispute template in effort to give article some protection. // Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

After a brief glance I concur that the disputed section is clearly Original Research, synthesis and opinion, and should not be in the article (which it currently isn't) --Slp1 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
A longer look suggest that an IP address added the original research and comments in November 2007 [19], and that this was subsequently modified by another IP, and over the weeks has been removed many times by other IPs and editors, and reinserted repeatedly by User:Nicemc after his/her first edit on December 23. Based on this statement [20] and User:Nicemc and the IPs are one. I will leave a welcome and an explanation of policy on Nicemc's page, which hopefully will do the trick. --Slp1 (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Daphne Rosen

Resolved

"Daphne has recently changed her look, she has darkened her hair, pumped up her breast size, had collagen lip injection and butt implants, and removed her lower rib bone." The first two are probably true, the last three are dubious without a citation.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sentence removed, as unsourced Jons63 (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Obed Mlaba

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

The criticism section, which is largely unsourced, occupies more than half of the article. The photograph used does not identify Mr Mlaba, and has an uncertain copyright status (check the image description page). I was able to find a few sources for the criticisms - [21] [22] (IOL appears to be, according to this Stanford resource on South African newspapers, a fairly reputable sources). --Iamunknown 17:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any chance a BLP regular will look into this article? --Iamunknown 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've taken a look at it, and removed some of the worst. I've dropped a BLP tag onto it. I've also requested assistance from WikiProject South Africa, as I personally am unfamiliar with the article's subject and would not know where else to look for sourcing. I have no idea what's up with that image. It certainly doesn't seem appropriate in its place. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bert McCracken

Resolved

Bert McCracken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I was not paying much attention to this article until I was on vandal patrol and reverted (and subsequently unreverted) large changes by 66.26.85.49 (talk · contribs). I became alarmed when the user placed a message on my talk page about how the subject... eats his own boogers. He also placed a few comments on the talk page that have worried me (i.e., subject is a drug user). Upon looking deeper at the article, I see that there is a good deal of content that is unsourced or poorly sourced, including comments on drug use, past girlfriends, hating his religion, "getting beat up" (someone tried to remove this part; it was reverted), and dropping out of school. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If material is negative or potentially controversial and lacks a quality reference, remove it. I've done that now, per WP:BLP/--Docg 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Alan Carr

Alan Carr - Constantly this page is being blatantly vandalised for no reason. Libellous and false information is repeatedly posted and factual information is being tampered with.

This article shuld not be deleted but I feel this article should be protected in some form, as the pointless vandalism is ongoing.

--Markmacmillan 21:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Carney

  • DSatYVR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be intent on overwhelming this article with criticism of Mark Carney, the incoming governor-general of the Bank of Canada. I warned the user about sourcing to blogs (and repeatedly drew his attention to WP:BLP) but he restored his content—with some slightly improved sourcing—still using sources such as this video which is essentially an attack on Carney. I would very much appreciate someone else taking a look at this, since political articles are generally not my area, and since this appears to be a larger issue than just poor citations. Thanks. // Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, looks like material added is too further some agenda. I have tried to copy edit the article but could use serious help. Thanks for the heads up. --Tom 18:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah some agenda. Why not look in the mirror boys? You hide behind WP:BLP when the blogs sourced are attached to a legitimate and registered Investor Advocacy Group and linked to their webpage:
And apparently a Federal Canadian MP's website Garth Turner has his blog attached The Turner Report but is still targeted for deletion...
So why the deletion frenzy? Apparently any website containing the word 'blog' is a worthy target. Does this one fit the bill although it is attached the national newspaper? National Post-Diane Francis Apparently so because you deleted it also.
None of these are anonymous blogs posted by faceless writers. But they have one thing in common and that is that they are critical of Mark Carney and I think that is the main reason you do what you do and hide behind this: WP:BLP. Read this posted above. I provide secondary sources to back up the attached blogs and you still delete entirely all references including the secondary verifiable references. All this to say, who really is the problem here? You two or me? DSatYVR (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, all. I have no fish to fry in this particular clambake but will take a look at the article. DSatYVR, please Assume Good Faith (WP:AGF) on the part of all the editors. I will look at the blogs you mentioned. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I did look at two of the sources which have remained on the page as of this date, and I must say I couldn't find anything in the Diane Francis blog that seemed to directly back up the asserted facts in the article, so perhaps that shouldn't be there as a source. The video should be a "See Also," not a reference, because what has been put into the article is more or less an interpretation of the video, rather than a reporting of what Mr. Carney actually said. An interpretation, by its very nature, is Original Research. The phrase "refused to explain" is, again, an interpretation of what went on. It would be better to say "did not explain," if in fact that statement is true.
In truth, this discussion should be on the Talk Page over there, so I am copying it and pasting it. I'm sure that, all working together, we can get a good article out of this biography. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen

  • Daniel Jonah Goldhagen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I've encountered User:Mamalujo editing on other bios and articles which seems to greatly favor a conservative Catholic perspective like removing items critical of the Catholic church or Catholicism while adding items critical against perceived anti-Catholics. Author Daniel Jonah Goldhagen has written A Moral Reckoning and both the book (which this board would not necessarily address) and his bio have had rather scathing remarks added and (troubling to me at least) at least one reference credited to "one critic" who turned out to be a leader within the Catholic Bishops writing for the Catholic News Service. If someone would be willing to review the bio (it's not terribly long), history of changes (worthy content removed and dubious content added) and ensure the references are accurate and accurately portrayed I would appreciate it. I'm still dealing with rewritting and re-referencing material this same editor removed from another bio so would like to hold off jumping into yet another one. // Benjiboi 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking into it. I've removed some material redundant to the book articles and am beginning to search for wider news sources in order to determine weight. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've done what I can for this one at the moment. We'll see where it goes from here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I've worked rather extensively on the sourcing and am attempting to address what I see as BLP issue in the question of weight in Daniel Jonah Goldhagen and A Moral Reckoning. It does seem problematic to me when a neutral statement referenced to The New York Times is replaced with what seems a considerably more emotional one sourced to The Weekly Standard. There is a conversation about it at Talk:A Moral Reckoning. I'd welcome input in those articles from other BLP volunteers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Here we go again, withUser:Mamalujo. He is in my mind clearly obstructing any progress in making this page worthy of the Wikipedia. I am not surprised at all by his actions, since he is a known and predictible vandal, notwithstanding his lipservice to reason. I really think that by doing a complete revert of the entry I made, and not because it's just my entry, he's shown without a doubt that he is a vandal. He's obviously hostile to not only to Goldhagen but to the Wikipedia itself. I have no interest in getting into an edit war with him or be pointy. It's clear that by wholesale deletions, even deleting the name of Goldhagen's spouse, which certainly worthy of inclusion in a BLP shows his complete lack of interest in supporting the principles of the Wikipedia. I have not gone into his edit history as Benjiboi has, nor do I really feel I need to. I think at this point the real question is what administrative actions will occur that can help make this BLP free of Mamlujo's and the POV/vandalism that's been going on for some time. I think the page should be protected or semi-protected, and that Mamalujo be dealt with in some fashion. crm411 00:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


Flavio Alves

Actually I'm finding your unique editing style more troubling than the alleged autobiographying of the primary author. I'm just guessing here, but the connection to him working for Hillary Clinton as a gay asylum-seeker seems to be interesting with the presidential primaries starting...today. You have made a dizzying amount of edits over the past four days and now the primary author is trying to catch up to your work. While you may not have intended to come off as gutting and repurposing this BLP I can certainly see why that seemingly new editor might think so. Plus you've labeled them as the subject of the article seemingly without any proof. I ask for others to step in here as well as I don't speak Spanish so mostly it'll be hard for me to verify the references and what they do or don't say but the current version seems to dissect rather than inform. I also question the value of citing a person's salary without a very good reason to do so. Benjiboi 23:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


I have protected the article. Edit warring on a BLP is poor form. Sort this out on the talk page of the article and let me know when you are done.--Docg 23:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note. I only went to the article as a result of the above notice. I haven't been editing except to answer talk page comments (only the above editors comments were there) and to remove the {{tl:autobiography}} tag which, again, the above editor added. I'm not sure if the primary editor is aware of this conversation here, how wp works or even how to use the talk pages. Benjiboi 23:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Outsider's view. 1st they speak Portugese in Brazil. 2nd, from the couple of English language links in the article, I'd question the subject's notability (it could go one was or the other). Maybe the best resolution would be to simply delete the article? Smallbones (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Good call. Duly nuked as a non-notable BLP with aggravating issues (or WP:COATRACK)--Docg 01:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I do not think the subject was notable too, but since he was there... I was just trying to keep the record straight.
Benjiboi - Please assume good faith. I put the tag "auto" based on unique information not available anywhere in the first version of the article and the account being a SPA (editing this article here and in the Portuguese Wikipedia). The author put hthe tags for Clinton (several times) to raise the subject's profile. The salry was there as a way to show the service he was providing was not free or with a symbolic value, quite the opposite.
Doc: Please, this was not WP:COATRACK. I was just trying to sort the article that looked like self promotion and read like advertising (please check the first version of the article). --Legionarius (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Noted.--Docg 03:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This article should be restored to Wikipedia. I've found numerous news media hits for him via a Google search and there's of course the fact that he's written a book about gay refugees seeking asylum in the U.S. Rather than delete the article, it should have been given the opportunity for cleanup. I'm requesting the article be restored to avoid me having to take it to deletion review. -- ALLSTARecho 06:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

just a comment on that: Flavio Alves looks to be a common name in Portuguese. A more specific search like '"Flavio Alves" asylum' brings far less hits. I researched the article extensively and could not find much.--Legionarius (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Try this search string: flavio alves, gay
That's what I used and it brought back everything from The Advocate magazine archives to The New York Times. -- ALLSTARecho 07:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I saw that. There are some very old articles(10 yrs+) in a Brazilian newspaper too. Most are "one line interviews" or trivial mentions. But let's wait to see if the page is undeleted, so you can see the full list I amassed.--Legionarius (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Crane

Resolved

In biography on Matt Crane, there is a link to his brother Anthony Crane, former J. Crew model. However, when you click on that link, it sends you to a page for a different Anthony Crane, not Matt Crane's brother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.67.243 (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been fixed. That's the sort of error that anyone is free to remove. Next time you come across such, please feel free to just go ahead and edit it. As long as you leave a note in the edit summary, your reasons for doing so should be clear. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Shore Regional High School

Resolved

Monmouth Beach, New_Jersey#Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Shore Regional High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Unreferenced potentially libelous comments about the principal and other members of the school board. I have reverted once and warned. Could editors consider keeping watchlisting? --Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 10:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll watchlist them for a while. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please delete User talk:CarlHewitt from the Wikipedia

Please delete User talk:CarlHewitt from the Wikipedia.

Thanks,

Carl Hewitt--98.207.42.122 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Aleta (Sing) 16:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Juliano

Was just created about an alledged criminal, and so far has no inline citations whatsoever. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • {{sofixit}} I suggest putting "Joseph" "Sonny" "Juliano" into Google News Archive, getting out your trusty copy of {{cite news}}, and adding the citations that you see to be missing, boldly and mercilessly correcting anything that the news sources don't support. Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ouze Merham and a student columnist

Ouze Merham is a ficticious Israeli general who supposedly interviewed a young Ariel Sharon who made insane, racist, and violent statements against Palestinians. The fabricated Sharon "quote" has bounced around the Internet for many years. According to that article (which is essentially all derived from information given by the activist pro-Israeli group CAMERA, it is frequently used as anti-Israel propaganda. One example it cites: a columnist for the student run newspaper Daily Illini printed the quote as true, then retracted it. The student was mentioned by name. Per WP:BLP, I question the idea of naming a non-notable journalism student, not least based solely on reports from a partisan activist group. <eleland/talkedits> 21:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem in identifying the journalist, who abandoned all hope of anonymity when he or she took up that profession. In fact, NOT to identify him or her when the identity is known would be almost criminal. The reporter involved is a graduate student working on a newspaper that aims for the highest in professional quality. If you can't stand the heat, stay our of the journalistic kitchen. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Heather Mills McCartney (closed)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive36&oldid=1138377575"