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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:22, 25 February 2013

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Tim Gustard

This item was originally created by a devoted collector and was a little flowery but nevertheless accurate. Subsequent editing by experienced Wikipedians has been undone and vandalised by Filthemill who seems driven by personal prejudice. Since this cannot be resolved and simply creates an inaccurate and belittling article I would like to see it deleted in it's entirety. I am Tim Gustard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.15.212 (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who is, apparently, not Tim Gustard is repeatedly re-adding details (sourced to online auction sites) stating that some of Gustard's works sold for a few hundred or few thousand pounds each. I don't see that this has any relevance to the biography of Gustard, unless an independent reliable source actually comments on it. It does indeed appear to be added for the purpose of belittling Gustard. I'd welcome thoughts from other editors as to the suitability of this material for inclusion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on that editor's talk page. I expected to see that it was a new editor; turns out it wasn't, and so I haven't been particularly gentle. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need a new essay WP:DBPGWRBBLP - "don't be particularly gentle with regulars breaching BLP", to go alongside WP:DTTR. In other weird coincidences, it seems that if you need any fish to administer a trouting, the BLP subject may be able to help. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I'd be happy to provide you with a nice wet trout! I appreciate you all taking an interest, I've been asking for the article to be deleted but I hope one of you may be prepared to write a much better one. I am Tim Gustard and you can contact me on <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.15.212 (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question is not being terribly cooperative, and I think the subject is not in fact notable per WP:ARTIST, so I've prodded it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seconded the prod. Yworo (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is better deleted, thank you for your prompt response. Tim Gustard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.39.179 (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Bergman (journalist)

Is it normal practice in a BLP to also have biographical information of wives and father in laws? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual to include information about relations, particularly if the related person is notable. For example, the article Tony Blair mentions what his wife does, as it should. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, especially in this particular case where the family members are high-profile and public figures. Crtew (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That I get, but should it say who she has defended in court? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my view no, as it is not relevant to this article.--ukexpat (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably there to prove notability, because she has no article.--Auric talk 21:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to include some information about relations, but I think it's going too far to have additional details about those relations. So if, hypothetically, the Tony Blair article, in addition to brief details about Cherie as his wife, went into detail about the cases that she has been involved in, that would be inappropriate in the Tony Blair article, but are perfectly appropriate for Cherie Blair. If the relations are notable, they should have their own articles and the details should be in those articles. So, in David Bergman (journalist) I think it is unnecessary and inappropriate to have biographical information of wives and fathers in law.--ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree especially about the father-in-law and have removed it. I wouldn't object to ditching the wife as well. Why yes, my marriage is fine, thank you -- why do you ask? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The father-in-law happens to be the founder of a political party and a highly visible lawyer before the Supreme Court. It is perfectly sourced as the subject of the article appeared before a tribunal (for his reporting btw) and his wife and father in law were pointed out in the record as being present in the proceedings. I would propose that a separate article could very well made for his daughter, the journalist's wife, as she is a lawyer of major clients and a feminist legal author. The User:Nomoskedasticity needs to establish their triviality.Crtew (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that Nomoskedasticity removes a point while it is being discussed shows bad form. More on this in another forum as it also involves what looks like "edit warring" behavior (which I see the named user has recently already been reported for in another context).Crtew (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus in this matter and the material will stand as is. It will be restored.Crtew (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miya Ando

An IP address claiming to be Miya Ando has posted the following:
Talk:Miya Ando#Please delete the birthdate information on miya ando's wikipedia page
Wikipedia:Help desk#please delete my birthday
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Miya Ando
The IP has also been editing the Miya Ando in an apparent conflict of interest, and is unresponsive to messages left of his/her talk page. Is there a BLP issue here that needs to be addressed, or should I treat this as a standard COI issue? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a poorly sourced article, and if she verifies via OTRS and wants it deleted, then I'd support that. I don't understand the birthdate issue -- there's no birthdate on the article, and it's not as if it has been recently removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message on the user's talk page, but he/she ignored the last two by another editor, so we may have to figure out what to do without any contact with OTRS. Which, of course, means we can make no assumptions about who the IP editor is. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkartcollector2010 (talk · contribs) already removed the full date diff, and 66.108.78.34 (talk · contribs) removed the year. diff. Maybe she wants a revdel?--Auric talk 03:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with people who post these drive-by complaints and then don't bother to answer any questions or follow any advice. We really cannot help them. I am going to unwatch this page and will treat this like I would any other unresponsive editor with an apparent conflict of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the birthdate in history is unsourced then it may warrant a revdel for her reasons of privacy. If it is incorrect then it may be a karma, numerology, bad luck issue type thing. I hope she realizes that we can't delete the entire article. I think as a COI editor she is allowed to remove unsourced contentious material though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For all we know, this IP user may have nothing to do with -- or even be an enemy of -- the real Miya Ando. That being said, in my opinion an unsourced birthdate should be removed just because it is unsourced, and it should be revdeled just because it is unsourced personal information.

I used to not care who knows my birthday (this was before the rise in identity theft) until I had a rather interesting experience. Someone at a previous employer decided to have a little once a month cake-in-the-breakroom "party" for those who had birthdays that month. It turned out that some months had 20 or 30 employee birthdays while other had zero or one. Being typical engineers, we calculated the odds of that happening by chance - pretty low - and looked for reasons for the bias. The first bias wasn't strange at all; very few hires in the few weeks before Christmas or the few weeks before the end of the fiscal year in July. But that didn't explain all of the bias. It turns out that the head of human resources was weeding out all candidates with certain astrological signs! We ended up getting rid of our "house astrologer" and kept it all quiet for fear of lawsuits. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's priceless... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A nightmare: Manis Friedman

I've perused the history and haven't yet seen a stable version that doesn't make one's BLP hairs stand up. Your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we'll see the unpleasant portions swiftly removed. He can then be just a grandfatherly pleasant Hasid, no shanda. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey. The unpleasantness need not be removed, but it also needs to be scrupulously sourced--surely better than it is now--and doesn't need to fall into WP:UNDUE, simply because it's provocative or even offensive. It's an encyclopedic entry, not a tabloid article. 99.156.66.72 (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the unsourced POV on the controversial video as it was someone's personal commentary. --Dweller (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And there goes a big chunk. On his way to being a shanda-free grandfatherly pleasant Hasid. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"He said bad things, and a person on the Huffington Post pointed it out, so we should put it in the article" is a blatant BLP violation. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now shanda-free: [1]. Mazal tov, Rabbi Friedman. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter-John Vettese

Peter-John Vettese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Violet Lushington posted a help desk request regarding the Peter-John Vettese article. Violet has a COI connection to Peter-John Vettese (see the edit summary here), from which I gather that Peter-John Vettese himself has a problem with the Wikipedia article. I noticed that some of the Wikipedia article sentences are copied from j-tull.com j-tull.com with minor changes. Violet tried to remove Vettese's birth date information from the Wikipedia article as being private and was reverted. Vettese's birth date information in the Wikipedia article was sourced to j-tull.com and you can see it in the left column on that page under "Vitals". I'm not sure that j-tull.com engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy such that the sourced page may not be a Wikipedia Reliable Source. If you look through Violet's other attempts to edit the article, you can see other issues for which Peter-John Vettese probably is concerned. If someone has the time, please look through Violet's edits to the Peter-John Vettese article to see what she is having a problem with and, if the cited sources do not support the facts, delete them from the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nalaya Brown

Article has been nominated for deletion. In related news, Vibration700 is requested to stop using all-caps when writing messages. De728631 (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nalaya Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

i do not see any references to make HE or SHE a notable music artist, all the references provided on the biography are poor source, primary source, not even secondary , or independent source, about, TILLLATE.COM SPAIN .. and AGENCY EFE.... honestly i see that as a paid advertismentt of her personal interest, and it sounds to me that the artist website official are the main contributor to that wiki page. PLEASE WIKIPADIA CONTENT NEED TO BE FREE OPEN SOURCE, NOT VANDALISM... or personal interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibration700 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agency efe news report on this isues, is not a secondary or independent source, remember that anyone can pay for advertisment and say what ever he or she wish to publish on the contant, I DO NOT SEE THAT MUSIC ARTIST AS A NOTABLE ARTIST, WIKIPADIA NEED TO BE FREE ECLOPADIA WITH OPEN SOURCE, NOT VANDALISM, that page need urgent wikipadia clean up to meet the policies, , i love to read wikipadia content, but i hate vandalism . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongvibration (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you do not need to post twice just because you have not had a response in 20 minutes. An article being non-notable is not vandalism (please see WP:N and WP:NOTVAND - I will nominate the article for deletion as I agree it is not notable. Giant Snowman 15:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there is no need to SHOUT!--ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jesuly

No such article at the English Wikipedia. Please contact the administration of the Spanish WP. De728631 (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I DO NOT SEE ANY REFERENCES TO MAKE HIM OR SHE A NOTABLE MUSIC ARTIST, FIRST THE REFERNCES PROVIDED AT THE WIKIPADIA ARTIST PAGE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE HIM OR SHE AS A NOTABLE MUSIC ARTIST, THERE IS NO SECONDARY SOURCE, OR INDEPENDENT SOURCE ON THAT ARTICLE, ABOUT THE COMPETITION ON REDBULL, SFDK IS PERSON BEHIND THAT SHOW, I THINK THAT ARTICLE NEED WIKIPADIA CLEAN UP, TO MEET THE POLICIES, IF A TRUE INDEPENDENT SOURCE CAN NOT BE PROVIDED, REMEMBER WIKIPADIA IS A FREE ECLOPADIA NOT VANDALISM FOR PERSONAL INTEREST, I LOVE TO READ WIKIPADIA CONTENT BUT I HATE VANDALISM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongvibration (talk • contribs) 16:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no article about Jesuly, please can you clarify? Giant Snowman 16:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is, on the Spanish Wikipedia: es:Jesuly.--Auric talk 17:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish Wikipedia is independent from the English Wikipedia, so we cannot do anything about it. Please contact the administration over there. De728631 (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, the user has told me it is the Spanish Wikipedia. I have advised them to try there. Giant Snowman 17:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Puto Largo

No such article at the English Wikipedia. Please contact the administration of the Spanish WP. De728631 (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

the references provided on that wikipadia page is a primary source, poor source,i did not see any evidence of a notable music artist there,,, he or she need to provide a secondary source or independent source more better.. wikipadia is a free Eclopadia, i think that page need a wikipadia clean up to meet the wikipadia policies. Strongvibration (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article on Puto Largo, please can you clarify? Giant Snowman 17:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly they mean es:Puto Largo on the Spanish project?--Auric talk 17:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, see the thread above. De728631 (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, the user has told me it is the Spanish Wikipedia. I have advised them to try there. Giant Snowman 17:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marcel Diallo

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

Asking for more people to add Marcel Diallo to their watchlists; an IP hopping Diallo-hater has been reinserting non-RS content which is extremely negative, contrary to BLP and after an OTRS ticket regarding the matter. I've semi'd but ask that others watch as the editor(s) in question may register to bypass that. Killer Chihuahua 17:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a doozy. Watchlisted. Definitely worth keeping semi'd permanently. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Froggie. Killer Chihuahua 18:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Prior

As founder of Legendary Performances (501c3), and producer of "Mowgli" and original ballet composed and conducted by Alexander Prior, it would be a conflict of interest to add to his biography page. I request that the following additions be made to his 2008 timeline, or any other appropriate location. Many thanks, Beverly DeCer

Mowgli, ballet performance, at Kremlin Theatre, February 2008 > Alexander Prior, Composer and conductor, Choreographed and performed by Moscow Classical Ballet > filmed by nonprofit Legendary Performances, www.legendaryperformances.org > DVD hosted by Angela Lansbury > Mowgli DVD received Parents Choice Award, September 2012 http://www.parents-choice.org/product.cfm?product_id=30785 > — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.253.114 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jermaine Jones (footballer)

The first picture shows what looks like a caucasian, but the Jermaine Jones who just scored for Schalke is quite definitely black. Is the first photo actually Jermaine Jones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.80.10.98 (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about Jermaine Jones, he certainly looks black to me. RNealK (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's the same guy. His Commons category has more images and they are all the same guy.--ukexpat (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Cărtărescu

Mircea Cărtărescu has a controversy section with an offline Romanian source. Anyone here have the tools to check it? Ϣere SpielChequers 21:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No source when I got to it. Removed section as per BLP contentious, unsourced.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published attack with personal animus

Despite complaints and deletions by two editors on BLP grounds, three editors keep adding back the below to Mondoweiss (a blog edited mostly by Philip Weiss, so it is a BLP concern:

In 2012, Israeli historian and writer Yaacov Lozowick has sharply criticized Mondoweiss and its commenting community, denouncing it as a "vipers' nest of antisemites" whose "goal is to get rid of Israel". He notes that "someday, a century or two from now, when someone sits down to write the history of Jew-hatred in the early 21st century, Mondoweiss will be a fine case study, worthy of a full section." REF:http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/mondoweiss-vipers-nest-of-antisemites.html

Yaacov Lozowick actually is a long-time Israeli state employee, former director of the archives at Yad Vashem and currently Chief Archivist at the Israel State Archives, so his bias is pretty obvious.

He doesn’t mention in the article quoted what a search of Mondoweiss shows: that he has been criticized on the site by a contributor here or that he has posted on Mondoweiss and gotten into debates with/been criticized by contributors. So I think there’s definitely personal animus motivating his posting. Which makes his self-published attack even less WP:RS, especially for WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC 00:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment carolmoore - i find it amusing that you are looking for NPOV and to get it, you write in POV. perhaps if you yourself would try to be more NPOV, you wouldn't have to go to BLPN all the time? Soosim (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment oh, and about the topic at hand. since you seem to think that lozowick is responding to attacks, why not include both? keep it fair and balanced? lozowick is obviously a person of standing (and certainly worthy of an attack by weiss!). and, one more thing: a wiki page about a blog is BLP? interesting. Soosim (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there evidence from secondary sources that anyone other than Wikipedia editors (and presumably Lozowick) cares about this ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First note that an editor came to the article from here and deleted the paragraph. One of these editors not only put it back but took off the "unreliable source?" tag and put in yet a second self-published blog as a reference to the sentence above. [ http://warped-mirror.com/2012/04/11/defending-gunter-grass-at-972/ here].

To answer User:SeanHoyland, not reliable source has commented on Lozowick's blog entry.

To answer Sooism, a Blog with a person's name in it, heavily edited by him, obviously is BLP related. Actually it probably would have been easier to bring it to WP:RSN, but the attempt to smear individual(s) was so obvious. Also, Mondoweiss is a notable blog; Lozowick's personal one is not. (His official one has been mentioned in Israeli publications.)

Also, note the Mondoweiss article itself does not violate BLP by criticizing any person from the blog unless it's been covered by a WP:RS or in one case when it's a reply to some criticism of Mondoweiss. CarolMooreDC 22:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Church

Jonathan Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spirallady (talk · contribs)
Elly McDonald (talk · contribs)
92.27.134.199 (talk · contribs)

Purely promotional vehicle now. I've tried twice to revert to the previous stub, and have in turn been twice reverted and warned. More eyes appreciated. 99.156.66.72 (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have reverted it if I was paying attention to the page's history and realized what you were trying to do. That's why I did my revert; I thought you were removing valid content and not promotional content. The other user was a bot, so it couldn't have known why you were doing it. It thought you were vandalizing by removing the content. Lugia2453 (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I almost never do a split second revert unless the content is blatantly inappropriate; bots mess up, so I don't reflexively follow their lead. Still, Spirallady appears to be a promotional account thus far, and I wouldn't mind a few more eyes on this, especially since further reverts by me could be misconstrued again. 99.156.66.72 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Rader

William C. Rader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After seeing this thread ~~Wikipedia:Help desk#Jdsy~~ Wikipedia:Help desk#William C. Rader I took a look at the edit history to see what was going on. It looks as though this article has been edited almost solely by SPA's some of which might have axes to grind. I don't know whether to trust any of the info in it so I thoought I would ask if any members of the BLP project would have the time to take a look and see whether it is a legit article or not. If not is there anything that can be done to clean it up. Thanks ahead of time for your expertise and for anything that you can do. MarnetteD | Talk 03:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad Marnette brought this issue here. Can someone also decide what to do with all these comments the IP (108.22.250.198) posted at the help desk. The entire comment is full of personal attacks and other BLP violations. Thanks. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: An admin, Fuhghettaboutit, took care of all the inappropriate comments at the help desk.[2] --76.189.111.199 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Reynolds

Patrick Reynolds (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, this is Patrick Reynolds, the subject of Wikipedia page, Patrick Reynolds (Anti-Tobacco Advocate).

I just wanted to point out an error and provide a source for a needed citation in this page about me. There are four to-dos in all, listed in order of importance:

I have tried in the past to edit this page as 2patrick2, but other editors undid my changes, thinking what I wrote was not properly verified. I will provide the correct sources this time, but I do not have sufficient knowledge as a Wikipedia editor to make these updates myself. Your help in correcting the four items listed below would be much appreciated.

Listed below are four important changes and the sources for each. Restoring a few of my previous edits would also be welcome, if that is possible. Most of what I wrote is also documented in the book I co-authored about the RJ Reynolds family, The Gilded Leaf: Triumph, Tragedy and Tobacco - Three Generations of the RJ Reynolds Family and Fortune (Little Brown, 1986; current publisher is iUniverse.)

1. ERROR: The first sentence in the bio about me says --

"He is the grandson of the tobacco company founder, R. J. Reynolds,[4] and speaks of how he believes his family business has killed millions, including his own father (Richard Joshua Reynolds, Jr.) and brother (Michael Randolph Reynolds).[2] "

It was not my brother Michael Randolph Reynolds who died from smoking in 2004; it was my half-brother, RJ Reynolds III (also known as Richard J Reynolds III). Josh's death from smoking is well-documented in the press at the time, and in two memoirs I wrote, published in two top medical journals. Here are three sources for correcting this error:

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-07-15/local/me-16089_1_patrick-reynolds Los Angeles Times, July 15, 1994 - Memorial Message: Tobacco Scion R.J. Reynolds III, an Emphysema Victim, Is Eulogized by His Brother, an Anti-Smoking Activist

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/4/1/94.full.pdf+html?sid=4af634c9-b695-4716-a46d-590b98f4ee2e Tobacco Control, British Medical Journals, 1995, Q4: pp. 94 - 99, Death from smoking in the RJ Reynolds family

http://med.stanford.edu/medicalreview/smrp6-13.pdf The Stanford Medical Review, Vol 1, No 1, September, 1999, Rebel With a Cause - The Grandson of RJ Reynolds Chooses to Turn Against the Tobacco Industry

Please make this change and cite at least one of the sources above, as I do not know how to do it. Another error --

2. Under Social Activism, a sentence in the third paragraph needs a citation:

He advised the Greek government on anti-smoking measures[13] in 2009[citation needed], and in 2011 was seeking sponsorship for a world tour.[13]

The citation may be documented by listing the news articles on my visit to Greece in 2009, at --

http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_ell_2_29/04/2009_312621 Kathimerini News, April 29, 2009, Smokers are allies in the new laws [banning smoking] (In Chrome, click on "Translate to English," and read the last paragraph.)

There are links to more news articles on my visit to Greece in 2009 at this url:

http://tobaccofree.org/news/index.html#greece

There is still more info on my visit to Greece in 2009 at www.Tobaccofree.org/intl.pdf

3. I would very much like it to be mentioned that the group I founded, the Foundation for a Smokefree America ( www.Anti-smoking.org ), produced an educational video which has been bought by 10,000 middle and high schools: "The Truth About Tobacco, 2011 Edition". Here are three source urls for that:

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Tobacco-2011-Edition/dp/B0045W5YVY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361424359&sr=8-1&keywords=the+truth+about+tobacco Amazon.com, The Truth About Tobacco, 2011 Edition

http://www.tobaccofree.org/video/ Web page for educational video The Truth About Tobacco, 2011 Edition

www.tobaccofree.org/vid.pdf Brochure for educational video, The Truth About Tobacco, 2011 Edition

4. Lastly, it would be great to have a more current photo at the page. There are some public domain photos taken in 2009 available for open download at our website url www.Tobaccofree.org/photos/

Thank you for your support in making these changes to the Wikipedia page Patrick Reynolds (Anti-Tobacco Advocate).

Patrick Reynolds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Patrick2 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've answered your requests sequentially:

I've changed the mention of your brother to half-brother on the basis of your links. Please also read PRIMARY to understand that in general, columns that you write on yourself or your family - however true you may feel they are - will not be acceptable for exceptional statements. Please provide reliable secondary sources in the future when you wish to change statements.

I've added the references you have provided for the Greek trip. Thank you for those.

I cannot add the video details unless you provide reliable sources instead of primary sources. Amazon is not a reliable source for detailing the number of purchases that have been done.

I've left a note on the talk page of your article so that editors can decide whether they should put a current photo.

If there is anything else you need assistance in, please feel free to ask here. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 09:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have moved the page to Patrick Reynolds (activist) - per policy, disambiguating titles should be as general as possible.--ukexpat (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds etc. - I was about to start a RM on the exact same move! Giant Snowman 15:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding images of yourself, you can upload your preferred images at Wikimedia Commons after which they are available for any Wikipedia articles. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Nathaniel

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

I would like to know why the admin Risker protected this page when this man is charged with and is on trial for murdering an 18-year-old boy in London. The fact is WP:VERIFY and WP:RS so what is the issue? The latest details are here published 7 February 2013. I would like to know why so many first time editors seem to have an agenda preventing Wikipedia naming this man and the other man, Paul Boadi , in this case.

It seems the block on this article, is rather incongruous particularly as they're all over the Oscar Pistorius and it's not even reached - as I write this - at the end of the bail stage. So again I ask you, would someone like to look at the logs and establish what the agenda is as to why the murder charge/trial are not in this article? 86.160.110.236 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's only semi-protected. So far as I can see, no one actually added any sources in the past so removing unsourced claims is reasonable as was the protection which was placed there in early December. Now there is one source. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to an edit request at Talk:Chris Nathaniel which provided a reference from The Independent [3], I have added the information to the article + an additional reference from BBC News [4]. Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rawi Abdelal

A page on Rawi Abdelal is being edited with malicious intent by someone who has also conducted internet harassment in other fora. The edits have been made by a user, Sasha128, who has only ever removed and added material to that one Wikipedia page. The most recent addition is a footnote to a gossip forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.7.72.218 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this wasn't a great edit in one respect -- but it also seems entirely appropriate to remove that huge list of cases. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's appropriate for a non-admin to comment here. I removed the apparent use of an unsourced rumour as a citation, but I agree with Sasha128's removal of the massive wall-of-text list of cases. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn - it's entirely acceptable, in fact encouraged, for non-admins to comment as much as possible at all these kind of boards! Giant Snowman 12:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. The original edit to include a single case resulted from malicious intent. It would make sense either to have all of the cases or none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.7.72.218 (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily object to a list of cases, but it needs to be reliably sourced, properly formatted and maybe with some context or explanation as to why they are notable. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another good point. Thank you. The entire article seems disproportionately large compared to the notability of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.7.72.218 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha128 has replaced the citation to an unsourced rumor in an effort to discredit the subject of the article. Is there a way to prevent Sasha128 from continuing to harass in this manner?

I've reverted and warned, also removed some unref fromt he article and tagged for improvement. Giant Snowman 12:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Sasha128 has, however, just undone those changes that GiantSnowman made. The unsourced rumor has now been replaced. Is there any limit to the number of times Sasha128 can undo changes made to have the article conform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.31.38.14 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted Sasha128's latest edits as being either unverifiable or just plain unintelligible. I don't quite understand what it is that they are trying to do. However, they are indeed fast approaching a limit to the number of times they can do it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same person, one presumes, posted some libel on an an anonymous forum. The moderators of that forum removed it. Sasha128 seems to believe that internet searches can recover some of it. Hence the continuous posting here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.31.38.14 (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands now does not seem to meet notability. Is there a criteria I am missing? An AfD may establish it or have it deleted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF criteria 5, "named chair", probably applies. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "named chair" criterion probably holds in educational institutions where there are only a handful of named chairs. Harvard Business School is unusual in that every tenured professor holds a named chair. So for faculty at that institution, the chair does not confer any particular notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.31.38.14 (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Gonzalez

The Nicholas Gonzalez article needs watching as he shares a name with the Nicholas Gonzalez who is also adult film actor Donny Wright and who was recently involved in an "incident" at a firehouse. Huffington Post article Not sure if he's the same person, so I haven't added anything.--Auric talk 23:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Hammer

Unquestionably notable herself, the article Bonnie Hammer has seen some peculiar changes over the past week or so. A major edit from 173.213.212.247 removed some critical material (itself not particularly well-sourced or well-written) and added a very large amount that (at first inspection) looks rather...well...un-encyclopedic. It certainly would need wikification and serious copyediting to get up to our stylistic standards, to say nothing of the content. For one thing it has absolutely nothing bad to say about her, which is strange, since a substantial proportion of the Internet seems to think she's the Devil. That isn't to say that we should say she's the Devil or even take much note of that opinion, but the utter absence of anything critical makes me highly suspicious. Considering that a subsequent user going by the completely unsuspicious moniker Cableentertainmentgroup changed the photo to a rather more flattering one and removed the BLP tag a mere week later, I suspect there may be some connection between the IP editor, "Cableentertainmentgroup", and Hammer herself. Lockesdonkey (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer is chairman of NBCUniversal Cable Entertainment Group (my emphasis), so yes, there is a clear COI. The user name has been reported to WP:UAA as a CORPNAME and the image tagged for deletion as a copyvio.--ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Lockesdonkey is right about this edit, massive insertion of promo puff wall-of-text by IP editor, anyone with a sharp set of BLP shears and a few minutes to spare is invited to ~~hack and slash~~ restore the article to something vaguely encyclopaedic. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done in this edit.--ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Farrell

I just wanted to make you aware of the following two threads regarding a user I believe is the actor Mike Farrell from M*A*S*H.[5][6]. Thanks. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The original thread is here. I found the email he sent to OTRS, but I currently have no access to it so someone else will have to reply. I left a comment there to let him know this can be handled through email since we don't want him revealing personal info, etc. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FRF. You're very welcome. Btw, I linked to the help desk thread in my comment above; you must've missed it. :P So, is he in fact Mike Farrell? Hopefully, his issues can be quickly resolved. Thanks. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He may edit the article himself, if he wishes as long as he is not disruptive or removing accurate info. Not entirely sure why this was mentioned on this noticeboard.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wikipedia can be daunting to some people, although I suppose if he could figure out how to post to the help desk he's got that part figured out. Or he might have read WP:COI and figured better safe than sorry. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My hunch is that FRF is correct; that Mike prefers not to make changes himself to his own article, which I think is very commendable. However, just in case he would like to do that, I provided the link to the COI guidelines in the help desk thread. I didn't want him to make edits as an IP and then get harassed by some editors who are unaware of this situation and don't know who he is. Haha. And to answer your question Amadscientist, I brought this issue here because I saw the above thread from Patrick Reynolds, who was given great help, and looked at this as a comparable situation. I also just wanted to post it as an FYI for the benefit of any "BLP experts" who want to keep an eye on the article. I apologize if I made a mistake in bringing it here. Btw, I still haven't heard confirmation from anyone that he is in fact Mike Farrell. Does anyone know? Thanks everyone for your help on this. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, realistically this could be anyone. We assume good faith and believe he is who he says he is, however for purposes of making a correction to a bio it doesn't really matter who is requesting it, since we perform changes based solely on our policies. If the person contacting us is indeed the subject of the article then all the better because we get to be nice to them. But ultimately it doesn't really matter. We do of course sometimes identify people through OTRS for other purposes, but in cases like these it's not necessary since we're just making a courtesy correction to an article, again, based on policy. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FreeRange. Actually, I was asking if it was Mike Farrell only because I wanted to be sure which Mike Farrell (or Michael Farrell) article we're talking about. There are a bunch of them. I assume it's him since his IP is in KC and the actor Mike Farrell happens to be starring in a play there. ;) And in terms of him making any changes to the article; that's why I mentioned wanting to prevent any potential problems since the edits of course must still adhere to the policies just as they would for anyone else... famous or not. I'm one of the nots. Haha. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, I guess we'd have to figure that out. Generally when we get a ticket through OTRS the first thing we do is ask them to clarify what article they're referring to, so I'm sure whomever handles it will start with that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Baldwin allegations

There's a slo-mo edit war going on at Alec Baldwin over whether or not to include a section about a dispute he had with a journalist. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Jaikishan

This BLP, Deepak Jaikishan, seems to be rife with violations. I don't have time right now to clean house, can some other editors please look at it asap! Thank you! Insomesia (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor making non-neutral edits tio a number of BLP articles

I'd like to draw the attention of wiser heads to the edits of 222.155.201.232. Some of the changes this editor is making have sources, but they inject a point of view. There are a fairly large number of edits, and it's clearly a matter of judgement in each case; I also see that the IP was recently blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing, but the blocking admin is offline and in any case this may be a different kind of editing or a different editor. So - I'd like to ask for more and more experienced eyes; especially since I actually have to go offline soon. I've selectively reverted at 2 articles, raised an issue on an article talk page, and responded to the editor on my talk, but I may be barking up the tree unnecessarily. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources

Hi there. Quick question. I've just been warned for removing a link to a self-published work from the article Judith Collins. My question is: are there any circumstances where it is appropriate to leave in an article about a living person, links to self-published works highly critical of their target? Thanks. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care for negative SPS, especially in BLPs, and I believe policy is weighted against that sort of thing. This person is a public figure, however, so you might have some difficulty persuading a consensus of editors that the source is out of line. Let's see what other people think. Qworty (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source in this case, Flying Blind by Roger Brooking, has some impressive references, such as [7] and [8]. The latter calls Brooking "an expert on rehabilitation" of drug/alcohol addicts. On the other hand, it is being used as a source by its author. On the gripping hand (as far as I am concerned), the author has made and is continuing to make substantial contributions to a range of Wikipedia articles, and has agreed as a compromise not to link to the website selling the book. New Zealand wikipedians are deeply divided over the author's use of his book.-gadfium 00:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No self-published sources are permitted in BLPs except those published by the subject, and then only for non-controversial and non-selfserving facts. Even the "recognized expert" exception is not permitted for SPS in BLPs, due to academic feuds, etc. All sources in a BLP must be independent, third-party reliable sources. Yworo (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Daveosaurus failed to mention is me posting the following on his talk page: "For the record, I sorted out the referencing for that article and put that reference there." Schwede66 02:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Brinkley

Someone has been repeatedly writing slanderous material on my Wikipedia page realting to a column I wrote last week. I'm a syndicated columnist. I have removed it 5 or 6 times. But it keeps coming back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.33.130 (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on whether the material is slanderous - please be careful with such language, as it may land you in trouble with Wikipedia's policy on legal threats - but the added/deleted/added material is clearly inappropriate per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. I'm about to request semi-protection of the page, which should sort out the problem in the short term. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the article for a week (for now). The material that was being added gave completely undue attention to a single event and included sources to blogs and what amounted essentially to POV commentary specifically aimed to make the subject look bad. Negative content and criticism can be included in biographies if well sourced, notable, and as long as it is not given undue attention; this was pretty much an example of how not to do it. Interested parties can use the article talk page to discuss and reach consensus as to if and how the criticism should be covered. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am bringing this conversation back up for debate. While I agree that the negative comments should not be there, I believe that there is good reason to include the information about the above mentioned controversy.Chrisvanlang (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing to not ask the pope for his opinion on the subject matter and have proposed to draft up a more neutral assessment of the situation as there are plenty of RS.Chrisvanlang (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were many problems with the original section: POV tone, UNDUE, blog sourcing. Properly weighted and handled it might be included. Gamaliel (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This I all agree with. Should I just go ahead and rewrite the original section? I have all of the appropriate sources and it's not hard to phrase this neutrally. Part of the concern is that several blogs have noticed that this article has been "cleaned up".Chrisvanlang (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where any notable controversy is. He wrote an article and few people disagreed in the blog/feedback section. Was there significant coverage of any controversy? I didn't see any mainstream authority that disagreed with him nor any reports of a controversy. Undue, trivial, RS, POV, etc, still apply until we can report that it is a big controversy that has recieved significant coverage by mainstream media.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisvanlang; what blogs think about Wikipedia articles being fixed to comply with WP:BLP is not a "concern" in any way, shape or form. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisvanlang, we may not source any material, especially opinions, from blog comments. Unless several reliable sources label this a "controversy", it's not, and shouldn't be included in the article. In point of fact, most blog posts are not considered reliable sources. Blog comments are never viewed as reliable sources on Wikipedia. If you continue to pursue this sort of attempt at defamation, you may find yourself blocked from editing WIkipedia altogether. Please have the good sense to desist. Yworo (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Chrisvanlang is advocating using blogs or blog comments as sources in that comment, he or she is just noting that blogs have commented negatively, accurately or not, on Wikipedia's actions in this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he wanted to source the very fact of the existence of a "controversy" to critical blog comments about Brinkley's article, and is most likely the author of the subsequent comments criticizing Wikipedia for removing the unreliably sourced content. Yworo (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should make it very clear that I did not write the original section that we have all agreed to removed, the discussion is whether or not the controversy is a controversy worth mentioning on the article satisfying WP:UNDUE Chrisvanlang (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There clearly is a controversy independent of blog comments, see [9] and [10]. Whether or not it is one that deserves inclusion is another matter. Let's remember WP:AGF please. Gamaliel (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second source you link is itself a blog post and in no way a reliable source. This is a BLP, even the blogs of recognized experts can't be used as sources in articles about living people. Yworo (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources meeting WP:BLP: BBC (3 times) [11][12][13]; Thanh Nien [14]; and the Mercury News above. Debatable: Stanford Daily (student paper) [15]; Huffington Post [16] (more of an editorial). --GRuban (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romenesko is a professional journalist working for the Poynter Institute and as such meets the RS criteria. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I found Brinkley's piece, dated February 1st, at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-01/news/sns-201301291330--tms--amvoicesctnav-c20130129-20130129_1_dog-meat-da-nang-meat-eaters . It still contains the controversial statements. At the bottom it says:

Editor’s note: Tribune Media Services, which distributed this article, issued a follow-up statement on Friday, February 1:
Tribune Media Services (TMS) recently moved an opinion column by Joel Brinkley about his observations from a trip to Vietnam that did not meet our journalistic standards. The column has provoked a highly critical response from readers since its release.
TMS has a rigorous editing process for its content, and in the case of Brinkley’s column that moved Jan. 29, all the required steps did not occur. We regret that this happened, and we will be vigilant in ensuring that our editing process works in the future.

(the same apology is reproduced on jimromenesko.com). Opinion pieces are supposed to cause controversy. I think it's unusual for a newspaper chain to apologize ~~and try to hide~~ for an editorial. This is not trivial. Rybec (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editorial and apology are at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/columnists/sns-201301291330--tms--amvoicesctnav-c20130129-20130129,0,2766282.column as well. Rybec (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse ferret. I can now understand points for inclusion. The main problem is still the sheer size the section would take up in such a small article and thus create a coatrack. If we include a first sentence describing the article and its retraction by the paper, a second one with a notable person disagreeing with it, a third one with Mr.Brinkley's rebuttal, and then a fourth with another notable backing Mr.Brinkley then it would unbalance the article bytewise. This would still be considered undue, not news, coatrack, POV, etc. by many editors. If the article were expanded with more positive material then that may change a few minds.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it really does have to do with the current short length of the article. Were the article significantly longer, covering other articles written by the subject and responses to those articles, then perhaps with reliable sources, this inclusion would be appropriate. Someone wanting to add this would need to also add significant positive content to the article in order to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid undue weight. Yworo (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked at the article before making my earlier remarks. I see the point about its brevity. Rybec (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've lengthened the article from 3581 bytes to 6551 bytes with material that would not be out of place in his CV. I feel that a statement like "a January 2013 piece was widely discussed," with the op-ed itself and the Mercury-News page as references, would present the matter in a neutral way. The Mercury-News page contains both criticism and Brinkley's responses, including the remark that he "has never received so much reaction to one of his pieces," which means nearly the same thing as saying it "was widely discussed." Would adding that sentence still create concerns about undue weight? --Rybec (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence or two wouldn't be out of line, perhaps. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ER no comment on this particular case, but thats not how NPOV or UNDUE work. Just because info is negative does not mean we need to balance it with positive. Likewise length of the article is not part of it. If someone with a short article causes a discussion in lots of reliable sources, positive or negative, we dont have to wait until something opposing it comes to light. It may never do so, the negative/positive event may be the most significant thing that they do in an otherwise barely-notable life. Is it relevant to their notability? Yes, is it covered significantly in reliable sources? Yes, then it may be included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Covered significantly" may still be an issue even if its inclusion looks like a coatrack of such a small article. I think it was only covered in 1 1/2 online news sources in the bay area. Last I looked it had gone from 101 reader comments at the bottom of the article to 140 or so. Splash in the pan news?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that coverage in Thanh Nien, the BBC, the Huffington Post, Romenesko's blog and the Chicago Tribune is not significant and that only media based in the San Francisco area "count"? I've found some more coverage: Thanh Nien did another piece, dated February 15th, http://www.thanhniennews.com/2010/Pages/20130215-Joel-Brinkley-eats-his-words-and-they-dont-taste-good.aspx . It mentions an additional apology (besides the one by Tribune Media) from Margaret Holt of the Chicago Tribune and says that a petition circulated among Stanford students gathered 1500 signatures. There's a letter from the Asian American Journalists Association: http://www.aaja.org/joel-brinkley-column/ and also published at http://newamericamedia.org/2013/02/aaja-condemns-joel-brinkleys-column-about-vietnam.php . Tuổi Trẻ interviewed Brinkley: http://www.tuoitrenews.vn/cmlink/tuoitrenews/society/joel-brinkley-sorry-for-labeling-vietnam-aggressive-1.98176 —rybec 02:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to a BBC article on it? The Thanh Nien writer admits he emailed the article to a bunch of friends for opinions which is OR and POV on his part. The Huff post I would rather not even discuss as an RS for an encylopedia.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering. The links to the BBC coverage are in a comment by GRuban above, [17], [18] and [19]. I don't read those languages, but it appears that these are at least two different stories and that they are about the topic.

About the second Thanh Nien article, I don't see any problem in a journalist researching a story. I don't see where he says he e-mailed "a bunch of friends," either. The phrase he used is "several of Brinkley’s peers and [...] the Vietnam Scholar Group list serve." As for having a point of view, it's obvious he does. "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" (WP:RS). The Tribune Company apology he mentioned exists; so does the letter from the Asian American Journalists Association (I posted links to both, above). I just found the statement from Margaret Holt he wrote about. It's at [20]. So the three things in this article that I checked all turned out to be true. I don't know about the reputation of Thanh Nien itself. It may be a major newspaper in Vietnam, and it saw fit to carry two articles about this subject. Are you dismissing it as not a reliable source?

On the 13th you raised "undue, trivial, RS, POV, etc" as objections to mentioning this topic. I don't know what the et cetera includes but I feel that mentioning the topic in the way I proposed on the 14th, perhaps with the statement from Margaret Holt (she's an editor at his paper) and the Brinkley interview in Tuổi Trẻ (it presents his side of the story in his own words) as additional or alternate references, would satisfy the specific objections about BLP policies you raised then. You later said that mentioning the topic would be a "coat rack." The way I proposed to mention it is neutral. It could become a coat rack, but is that a proper reason to omit it entirely?

—rybec 02:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer care. I have wasted far to much time on this crap. If you can get consensus from other editors to turn this article into huffpost bs, then so be it. But if you place material in the article again without consensus then I will remove it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is reasonable to follow Canoe's original suggestion of 4 sentences. I'm sure that we've settled the RS portion and with the balance proposed by Canoe, we can resolve UNDUE. Given how long the article is now, the coatrack issue is not as meaningful. Chrisvanlang (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get consensus from other editors to turn this article into huffpost bs, then so be it.

Your characterization of what I've asked for is inaccurate and uncivil.

But if you place material in the article again without consensus then I will remove it.

I've done no such thing. I never added anything about this to the article at all. I've only attempted to discuss it here.—rybec 04:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Harper

The grandson of the Pittsburgh Chief of Police is poorly behaved and gets arrested. The arrest has nothing to do with the Chief's tenure. Is it suitable for inclusion in the biography of the Chief? I say no, but would appreciate other opinions: Talk:Nathan Harper#Nathan Harper III-_GrapedApe (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see this discussion is maturing, and welcome the further opinion and clarity. Any suggestions on a reasonable compromise would be appreciated at the talk link GrapedApe provided.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is still "no". GrapedApe is correctly interpreting the relevant policies. Yworo (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paras, Crown Prince of Nepal

We may need some eyes on that article. An IP has attempted to re-write history, by basically declaring the Nepalese Republic illegal & the Nepalese monarchy merely suspended. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted. That section titled "Recent controversy" either needs to be retitled or integrated elsewhere in the body of the article. Yworo (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Also, it's a school IP. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. Perhaps just brushing against WP:UNDUE. A consolidation of all the "controversy" into a single properly-sourced paragraph would perhaps be in order, but the sources are impeccable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Khan

Resolved

– Deleted CSD A7

This entry clearly fails to meet general notability guidelines, being as it is about a minor blogger, when many far more well-known and popular bloggers are frequently removed. Evidence for this lack of notability can be seen in the references, almost all of which are links to her blog or social media pages.

I also suspect the page was conceived and written by Khan herself, or those who work with her at "Abundant PR"- where she is the social media manager- and exists simply to improve the Google ranking of her blog. As such, this article also violates Wikipedia rules on self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukemedia uk (talk • contribs) 12:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

An AfD may decide to fix or delete. Avoid the 'other stuff does not exist' argument though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Browder

I think it would be good to get some keen eyes on this one.

Here's my attempt at an NPOV summary of what has happened here recently.

On 13th Februrary, an anonymous ip included highly inflammatory and biased material with claims of criminal behavior stated as if affirmatively proven. The wider story makes it clear that that's very from from a valid way for a Wikipedia entry to be written.

In response to this, someone apparently associated with the subject (a professional PR) tried to clean the article up. I make no judgments about the quality of her work, but merely note that given the rather vicious approach of the anonymous ip's, if there was any editing that we'd consider over-the-top here, we can understand why.

I've been contacted by a legal representative of the subject, who appears to be completely pleasant and reasonable, to request that we look into this. I think we should work to update the entry with the latest development, but we should stick to high-quality sources which are independent of the Russian government, as this appears to be a very high level political conflict and there are often concerns about smear campaigns conducted in poor-quality sources in such situations.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will give it a scrub if needed, and watchlisted. Might be worth keeping semi'd permanently. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Budhia Singh

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

This article seems to fling uncited, potentially libellous statements about at random. Although one of the main victims of these statements is dead, others, including the child runner's family, and those convicted of the murder of the coach, are not. Although some of the allegations relating to the murder are cited, the reliability of those citations seems highly suspect. The author's writing style seems to be one of recounting gossip. The article really needs the attention of an expert. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done I trimmed most of the offending unsourced material and added a single reference (to the film). The section about the murder of the coach is perhaps a bit long, but I do agree that the information should be included in the article to a certain extent. In any case, that's another issue. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avsim.com

Guy by the name of Abrahar (talk · contribs) twice posted dubious unsourced material about site founder Tom Allensworth, which Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs) reverted. An IP then posted what I considered a personal attack (if it wasn't, it was certainly extremely rude) to Abrahar's talk, which was aimed at Gogo Dodo. I reverted it, and was given this lengthy post on my talk about some guy I've never heard of. –TC N7 JM 01:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the posts to Avsim.com violate WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:OR, and I think Abrahar and the IP are the same person. –TC N7 JM 01:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed a BLP issue, especially since it's unsourced, not to mention WP:UNDUE. And the reaction from the IP to GogoDodo's action is the typical "omg I am being censored" tripe. Most likely the same person anyway. Too bad he's not going to "support" Jimbo anymore. Watchlisted. If that continues we can protect the article and/or file an SPI to have both accounts blocked and prevent further disruption. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Rader (again)

Can the Skeptics Dictionary by Robert Todd Carroll be used for content to describe William C. Rader's medical practice? such as stating that

Carroll says Rader's methods are no more scientific than a faith healer and that Rader has produced no "evidence of scientific plausibility for his work,"?

Thanks.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Please see this edit [21] where a person in the news is described in defamatory medical and implied criminal terms without any reference to support the claims. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 470: / Line 470: @@
 Thanks.-- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 02:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
-== Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ==
+== [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities]] ==
-Please see this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=540155246&oldid=540155047] where a person in the news is described in harsh terms without any reference to support the claims. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 03:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
+Please see this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=540155246&oldid=540155047] where a person in the news is described in defamatory medical and implied criminal terms without any reference to support the claims. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 03:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

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

Revision as of 03:22, 25 February 2013

Contents

Tim Gustard

David Bergman (journalist)

Miya Ando

A nightmare: Manis Friedman

Peter-John Vettese

Nalaya Brown

Jesuly

Puto Largo

Marcel Diallo

Alexander Prior

Jermaine Jones (footballer)

Mircea Cărtărescu

Self-published attack with personal animus

Jonathan Church

William C. Rader

Patrick Reynolds

Chris Nathaniel

Rawi Abdelal

Nicholas Gonzalez

Bonnie Hammer

Mike Farrell

Alec Baldwin allegations

Deepak Jaikishan

IP editor making non-neutral edits tio a number of BLP articles

Self-published sources

Joel Brinkley

Nathan Harper

Paras, Crown Prince of Nepal

Katie Khan

Bill Browder

Budhia Singh

Avsim.com

William C. Rader (again)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Navigation menu

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

Revision as of 03:22, 25 February 2013

Tim Gustard

David Bergman (journalist)

Miya Ando

A nightmare: Manis Friedman

Peter-John Vettese

Nalaya Brown

Jesuly

Puto Largo

Marcel Diallo

Alexander Prior

Jermaine Jones (footballer)

Mircea Cărtărescu

Self-published attack with personal animus

Jonathan Church

William C. Rader

Patrick Reynolds

Chris Nathaniel

Rawi Abdelal

Nicholas Gonzalez

Bonnie Hammer

Mike Farrell

Alec Baldwin allegations

IP editor making non-neutral edits tio a number of BLP articles

Self-published sources

Katie Khan

William C. Rader (again)

Navigation menu

Search